When is/was "the falling away"?

[Godsdrummer]

While all of you are argueing over the meaning of II thess. 2 as a departure of religious faith, the acctual meaning of the word is to defect, we have added the words "defection from religious faith". One just has to look up this passage in any bible written before the 1600's and they will find that this passage reads "a departure", this should change the whole meaning of this passage to the reader.

1587 Geneva bible
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition,

The first thing one should note that Paul does not refer to this departure as a departure of faith or religious doctrine. This is a added mind set by those that want it to be. The subject in this passage is not of a apostacy, rather the sign of a man of sin that must appear before the day of the Lord.

The understanding of the Day of the Lord in this passage must first be understood before one can know what Paul was refering to when he speaks of a departure.

I know that many on this forum do not believe in fulfilled eschatology, but just for conversation sake, if the day of the Lord was the day of judgment when God came and destroyed Jerusalem 70ad then this departure would speak of the Christians fleeing Jerusalem, before Rome seiged the city.

During this time of seige one man rose up and lead the city in rebelion against Rome, in the face of all else. This man set himself up in the temple as God. Had this man not set himself up as God the Jews would have surrendered to Rome and Rome would not have destroyed Jerusalem.

Just some food for thought concerning the question of the departure in this discution.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

While all of you are argueing over the meaning of II thess. 2 as a departure of religious faith, the acctual meaning of the word is to defect, we have added the words "defection from religious faith". One just has to look up this passage in any bible written before the 1600's and they will find that this passage reads "a departure", this should change the whole meaning of this passage to the reader.

1587 Geneva bible
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition,

The first thing one should note that Paul does not refer to this departure as a departure of faith or religious doctrine. This is a added mind set by those that want it to be. The subject in this passage is not of a apostacy, rather the sign of a man of sin that must appear before the day of the Lord.

The understanding of the Day of the Lord in this passage must first be understood before one can know what Paul was refering to when he speaks of a departure.

I know that many on this forum do not believe in fulfilled eschatology, but just for conversation sake, if the day of the Lord was the day of judgment when God came and destroyed Jerusalem 70ad then this departure would speak of the Christians fleeing Jerusalem, before Rome seiged the city.

During this time of seige one man rose up and lead the city in rebelion against Rome, in the face of all else. This man set himself up in the temple as God. Had this man not set himself up as God the Jews would have surrendered to Rome and Rome would not have destroyed Jerusalem.

Just some food for thought concerning the question of the departure in this discution.

Older translations are not better because they are older. That is a logical fallacy.

This is the original greek meaning
6 tn Grk "for unless the rebellion comes first." The clause about "the day" is understood from 2Th_2:2.

ESV 2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

The Greek word there is the word for Apostasy
RWP: Except the falling away come first (ean mē elthēi hē apostasia prōton). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. Apostasia is the late form of apostasis and is our word apostasy.

Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in 1 Maccabees 2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In Jos_22:22 it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (hē) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in Act_21:21 where it means apostasy from Moses.

It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be first (prōton) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. Act_1:1).

[Godsdrummer]

Honestly Prax you don't think that the older translation did not know the meaning of the greek words better than we do? They were closer to the ara of the time when greek was spoken. Some times I think the smarter we think we are the less we know.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

II thes 2:2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 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;


has the falling away already occurred during the dark ages, medieval times when men turned to skepticism, doubt, science and secularism and we are now in the latter rain revival before the second coming or is the falling away a move towards liberalism within the apostolic church presently happening and still future? i tend to believe the former.

The scripture does not speak of 'THE falling away' but Paul says 'A falling away' would happen before the Day of Christ, and the revealing of the man of sin.

Thus, multiple apostasies are not precluded.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Honestly Prax you don't think that the older translation did not know the meaning of the greek words better than we do? They were closer to the ara of the time when greek was spoken. Some times I think the smarter we think we are the less we know.

Sure they did. Did those translators believe the 'apostasy' was the Christians fleeing Jerusalem in 70 AD?

Or did they believe something else?

The translators of the Geneva bible included copious marginal explanatory notes which explained that the 'man of sin' was the papacy.

So if you want to appeal to 'older authorities' by all means do so.

[Livelystone]

The falling away spoken of by the apostle Paul prophesied as to what was going to happen to the church when the apostles were no longer at the helm. The phrase Paul used speaking of when this would happen were the words “when he who letteth let is taken out of the way” that when translated speaks of when those who are the "guardians of the truth are removed" from their positions as leaders of the church teaching doctrines acceptable to God for the edification of His children.

Therefore, after the apostle John died close to the end of the 1st century, the last "Guardian of the truth was taken out of the way". At that time the wolves that Paul spoke of assumed charge of the church that has caused the “falling away” from the truth taught by the apostles. Remember God does not change and if not for the fact that the truth has departed the church, the same God that healed the sick and raised the dead within the Church of the apostles would be doing it in the church of today.

The “man of sin” sitting in the Temple where he should not be is referring to the spirit of man retaking the heart of Christians where the Spirit of Christ is supposed to be seated at. The term “Antichrist” is not referring to a end time Superman of sin, but by what the word translated means that defines the antichrist as one who is in our hearts “in place of Christ”. This is because Christ has paid for in blood the right to be the one ruling in our hearts. However, when our "old man" a.k.a. the spirit of man operating through the "law of sin" retakes the heart, the “antichrist” becomes the one ruling the temple of our hearts saying blasphemous things against God. (see propecies in Daniel)

God is soon going to judge the church and when He does it will be the fulfillment of the prophecy of when in one day he will "destroy both the tail and the head".(my paraphrase) When we study the Old Testament we realized that the tail consist of those prophets who teach lies who became the head of the church after the last apostle was “taken out of the way”. Consequently when the head of the church a.k.a. the clergy is removed from their positions of authority will be the destruction of the tail that will happen as seen in the fall of Babylon who is the great whore who falls in “1 hour”.

In conclusion the falling away happened 1900 years ago, but the good news is the gathering is those who are coming together today to worship in spirit and truth that is just beginning to be taught again for the 1st time since the death of the last apostle.

Blessings

Doug

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The 'falling away' occurred for almost 2000 years between the early apostolic church and 1913. 'Apostolics' cannot find a visible, viable and powerful Church of Jesus Christ during those many years.

Something must be wrong with me, I am probably sick, but I find myself agreeing with Seekerman.

Please call an exorcist; I must be possessed with something.

Actually I believe The 'falling away' occurred for almost 2000 years between the early apostolic church and now, I feel that we are still in a restoration phase with the church still needing to get more closely to the Ancient Apostolic faith, that is why I believe the UPCI is just a step in the right direction, but eventually God will raise a new group or organization that will take us to the next step. Perhaps the "True Jesus Church" from China will take us further along.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

But what changed so that the Church of the Living God which was virtually invisible before 1913 but suddenly became visible after 1913? Was there a Church before 1913? If so, why was it invisible before a certain relatively recent date and visible after that date?

According to your view then, the Church of Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, or at least the Orthodox Churches.

From the 3rd century to the 1600s, some 1200 odd years, the ONLY 'visible' church was the Catholic and Orthodox churches (styled 'catholic', small -c). And they declared they were, and still are, the ONLY church, all other 'Christians' being either heretics, deceivers, apostates, or cultists.

Now, on the other hand, if you admit that for the BULK of history, the TRUE CHURCH was NOT VISIBLE as an organized body of believers, then you're arguments against Oneness Pentecostal doctrine falls flat (as it relies on this 'visible historical church' theory).

Otherwise, you better go confess to the nearest priest, take communion, get confirmed, and do some alms and penance.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

According to your view then, the Church of Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, or at least the Orthodox Churches.

From the 3rd century to the 1600s, some 1200 odd years, the ONLY 'visible' church was the Catholic and Orthodox churches (styled 'catholic', small -c). And they declared they were, and still are, the ONLY church, all other 'Christians' being either heretics, deceivers, apostates, or cultists.

Now, on the other hand, if you admit that for the BULK of history, the TRUE CHURCH was NOT VISIBLE as an organized body of believers, then you're arguments against Oneness Pentecostal doctrine falls flat (as it relies on this 'visible historical church' theory).

Otherwise, you better go confess to the nearest priest, take communion, get confirmed, and do some alms and penance.

Why can oneness pentecsotals find the church (albeit slowly) after 1913 but can't find the Church of the Living God in the decades preceeding 1913?

There has to be a reason for this...assuming that the Church of Jesus Christ wasn't dead, buried, defeated and invisible for almost 2000 years...until 1913.

[Livelystone]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Why can oneness pentecsotals find the church (albeit slowly) after 1913 but can't find the Church of the Living God in the decades preceeding 1913?

There has to be a reason for this...assuming that the Church of Jesus Christ wasn't dead, buried, defeated and invisible for almost 2000 years...until 1913.

Is 1913 a refererence to the Azua street revival?

I am not a church history buff but I thought I have read of other revivals earlier than 1906 when there were multiple witnesses to signs and wonders being present.

I know there have been a number of them since then but they often seem to end up in a bad way such as what went on in Toronto and Lakland Fla. When Todd Bentley was performing in Lakeland a lot of people around here were going down there but God told me to stay away. One church not too far from me (Rick Joyner's Morning Star church) brought Todd Bentley back here after his "fall from grace". (Not sure if that is the best description)