I have trouble understanding the Trinity

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE - EXAMPLES


Below are examples of histemi in actual biblical usage.

Matthew 2:9 V-AIP-3S
GRK: ἕως ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ
NAS: it came and stood over
KJV: till it came and stood over where
INT: until having come it stood over where

Matthew 4:5 V-AIA-3S
GRK: πόλιν καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ
NAS: city and had Him stand on the pinnacle
KJV: city, and setteth him on
INT: city and sets him upon

Matthew 6:5 V-RPA-NMP
GRK: τῶν πλατειῶν ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι ὅπως
NAS: for they love to stand and pray
KJV: to pray standing in
INT: of the streets standing to pray so that

Matthew 12:25 V-FIP-3S
GRK: ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται
NAS: against itself will not stand.
KJV: shall not stand:
INT: itself not will stand

Matthew 12:26 V-FIP-3S
GRK: πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία
NAS: then will his kingdom stand?
KJV: his kingdom stand?
INT: How then will stand the kingdom

Matthew 12:46 V-LIA-3P
GRK: ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες
NAS: and brothers were standing outside,
KJV: his brethren stood without, desiring
INT: brothers of him were standing outside seeking

Matthew 12:47 V-RIA-3P
GRK: σου ἔξω ἑστήκασιν ζητοῦντές σοι
INT: of you outside are standing seeking to you

Matthew 13:2 V-LIA-3S
GRK: τὸν αἰγιαλὸν εἱστήκει
NAS: crowd was standing on the beach.
KJV: multitude stood on
INT: the shore stood

Matthew 16:28 V-RPA-GMP
GRK: τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες οὐ
NAS: of those who are standing here
KJV: There be some standing here, which
INT: of those here standing who no

Matthew 18:2 V-AIA-3S
GRK: προσκαλεσάμενος παιδίον ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν
NAS: a child to Himself and set him before
KJV: unto him, and set him
INT: having called to [him] a child he set it in

Matthew 18:16 V-ASP-3S
GRK: ἢ τριῶν σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα
NAS: EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
KJV: every word may be established.
INT: or of three might be strengthened every word

Matthew 20:3 V-RPA-AMP
GRK: εἶδεν ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἐν τῇ
NAS: others standing idle
KJV: and saw others standing idle in
INT: he saw others standing in the

Matthew 20:6 V-RPA-AMP
GRK: εὗρεν ἄλλους ἑστῶτας καὶ λέγει
NAS: others standing [around]; and he said
KJV: and found others standing idle, and
INT: he found others standing and says

Matthew 20:6 V-RIA-2P
GRK: Τί ὧδε ἑστήκατε ὅλην τὴν
NAS: to them, 'Why have you been standing here
KJV: unto them, Why stand ye here all
INT: Why here stand you all the

Matthew 20:32 V-APA-NMS
GRK: καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς
NAS: And Jesus stopped and called
KJV: Jesus stood still, and called
INT: And having stopped Jesus

Matthew 24:15 V-RPA-ANS
GRK: τοῦ προφήτου ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ
NAS: the prophet, standing in the holy
KJV: Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
INT: the prophet standing in [the] place

Matthew 25:33 V-FIA-3S
GRK: καὶ στήσει τὰ μὲν
NAS: and He will put the sheep
KJV: And he shall set the sheep on
INT: and he will set indeed

POST THREE OF THREE CONTINUES EXAMPLES

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

Matthew 26:15 V-AIA-3P
GRK: οἱ δὲ ἔστησαν αὐτῷ τριάκοντα
NAS: me to betray Him to you? And they weighed out thirty
KJV: And they covenanted with him
INT: moreover they appointed to him thirty

Matthew 26:73 V-RPA-NMP
GRK: προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ
NAS: later the bystanders came
KJV: came unto [him] they that stood by, and said
INT: having come to [him] those who stood by said

Matthew 27:11 V-AIP-3S
GRK: δὲ Ἰησοὺς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ
NAS: Now Jesus stood before the governor,
KJV: And Jesus stood before the governor:
INT: moreover Jesus stood before the

Matthew 27:47 V-RPA-GMP
GRK: τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον
NAS: of those who were standing there,
KJV: Some of them that stood there,
INT: of those who there were standing having heard said

Mark 3:24 V-ANP
GRK: οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία
NAS: that kingdom cannot stand.
KJV: kingdom cannot stand.
INT: not is able to stand the kingdom

Mark 3:25 V-ANA
GRK: οἰκία ἐκείνη σταθῆναι
NAS: that house will not be able to stand.
KJV: house cannot stand.
INT: house that to stand

Mark 3:26 V-ANA
GRK: οὐ δύναται στῆναι ἀλλὰ τέλος
NAS: he cannot stand, but he is finished!
KJV: be divided, he cannot stand, but hath
INT: not he is able to stand but an end

Mark 7:9 V-ASA-2P
GRK: παράδοσιν ὑμῶν στήσητε
INT: tradition of you you might keep

THE EXAMPLES, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BASE MEANING OF THIS WORD APPLIES TO A “STAND” OR “POSITION” THAT ONE TAKES. A DEPARTURE IS APO-STASIS OR APO-HISTEMI (OR ONE CAN USE META OR METH AS A PREFIX). THE WORD HAS A VERB FORM (NOT MERELY A NOUN) AND IT OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES IN MULTIPLE FORMS IN BIBLICAL TEXT.




NOW, consider the Scripture URAVIP2ME commented on :
Acts20 vs30 … from among your own selves will arise men speaking distortions (gk : διεστραμμενα "distortions" or “perversions", etc) to draw away the disciples after them.”

This is simple:
IF Christians who have taken a “stand” or accepted one belief, later accept other beliefs based on teachings labeled as “distortions” or “perversions”, then are they “departing” from a prior belief or not? Obviously they are leaving their prior stand or belief.

IF the meaning of apostasy IS a departure from a prior stand (as the examples show), and the individuals are departing from a prior religious stand, then is this apostasy? The answer is quite obvious. This is NOT confusing or complicated.

Thus, the poster URAVIP2ME is perfectly correct in applying the the principle of apostasy to this text. Also, creating a system of belief based on the incorrect assumptions suggested to us by the poster kaoticprofit are incorrect.


Forum members can certainly make up their own minds on these very simply points and I am perfectly happy to let them.


Clear

σισεακω

 

[BilliardsBall]

In a family arrangement who are the equals? _________ Isn't it the ' brothers ' who are equals with the father as their head ?_______

Jesus ( Not God ) has ' brothers ' - Matthew 25:40; Romans 8:14-16

Yes, Jesus had brothers like James and Jude. To say He didn't have an earthly brother would be a heresy, as would saying He didn't have an earthly mother in Mary. Is Mary thus superior to Jesus Christ based on your reasoning here?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, Jesus had brothers like James and Jude. To say He didn't have an earthly brother would be a heresy, as would saying He didn't have an earthly mother in Mary. Is Mary thus superior to Jesus Christ based on your reasoning here?

After Jesus' baptism didn't Jesus address his mother as ' woman ' ? __________ - John 2:4-5
So, No, Mary is Not superior to Jesus. Jesus is King of God's Kingdom, Mary is Not Queen. God is The Superior to Jesus - 1 Corinthians 3:23 see also 1 Corinthians 11:3 B

 

[kaoticprofit]

Post addressed to Clear...
If you recall, this all started by me saying......
"There is no apostasy mentioned in Acts 20:29-30. Most Christians don't understand apostasy anyway. It's sad but they believe what they've been taugh."

"2 Thes. 2 has nothing to do with the clergy or the Church. It has all to do with the man of sin and his followers. Anybody should be able to see that but again...people believe what they've been taught. And what they've been taught is exactly what the devils would like people to believe...and that is blame ALL the end-time evils on the Church!"

You're going all sorts of ways just trying to label the apostasy of 2Thes. 2 as a verb which it IS NOT! I'm well aware of the derivatives of the word 'apostasy.'

If you look at Strong's, apostasia (used twice, Acts 21:21, 2Thes. 2:3) is a feminine noun and comes from the SAME word as 'apostasion' which is a NEUTER NOUN. 'Apostasion' comes from the word (verb) 'aphistēmi' which is in the active voice. That being the case, the words 'draw away' in Acts 20 are meant only for the people performing the action. The word 'aphistemi' is only translated 'fall away' ONCE in 1 Tim. 4:1 where Paul knew that some would 'depart from the faith'. That's not the case AT ALL in 2 Thes. 2 where the word 'aphestimi' is NOT used or, where the people are NOT Christians, and no indication that these people who already follow of the man of sin, are being 'drawn away' FROM THE FAITH!

Here's the problem.
In 2 Thes. 2 we have the 'parousia' or Day of Christ. The "the harpazo" or rapture mentioned in 1 Thes. 4:17. A falling away, rebellion or, "apostasia," the revelation of the man of sin, the workings of Satan, and strong delusion and more. In it, I say we learn more about the anti-christ and his followers than any other New Testament passage. This small passage is definitely apocalyptic. What other passages do we have where the word 'aphistemi' is used that's also apocalyptic? ONE!

Depart is used 10 times and not ONCE is it in an apocalyptic verse. It's translated 'fall away' once...but NOT in an apocalyptic verse. It's translated ONCE as 'refrain' but NOT in an apocalyptic verse. It's translated 4 times as 'depart from' and ONCE it is in an apocalyptic verse.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from G868 the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

"And that is true. SOME will give head to seducing spirits and depart from (aphistemi) the faith in the last days."
"THE FAITH' implies CHRISTIANS. Can you show me WHERE CHRISTIANS are implied in 2Thes. 2??? You can't! Because CHRISTIANS are NOT part of this apostasy. And that's my gripe. Since I've been a Christian, people have been attributing the apostasy of 2Thes. 2 to the Church and the passage is very clear that it has NOTHING to do with the church!

And that's the difference. The word aphistemi is used 15 times and ONE time the word is used in an apocalyptic verse and it implies the Church. The word apostasia in 2Thes. 2 DOES ALWAYS means to go from one thing to another. It doesn't imply the Church or Christians. In 2Thes. 2 it's a noun indicating that it's an 'EVENT' that brings on the man of sin. And in Acts 2 (apospao) or 2 Tim. 4 (Aphistemi) it's an action that people take to 'DEPART' from the faith.
In 2Thes. 2 people "in the faith" ARE NOT IMPLIED! They ARE NOT the same word...Strong's say's they are not the same word!

My focus is on the apostasy of 2Thes. 2. If you think it has ANYTHING to do with the Church then you need to show me where or how it does. If you're going to use the word 'aphistemi' in 1 Tim. 4 or 'apospao' in Acts 20 to say it does, then you need to go back to school.

 

[BilliardsBall]

After Jesus' baptism didn't Jesus address his mother as ' woman ' ? __________ - John 2:4-5
So, No, Mary is Not superior to Jesus. Jesus is King of God's Kingdom, Mary is Not Queen. God is The Superior to Jesus - 1 Corinthians 3:23 see also 1 Corinthians 11:3 B

Yet you used the example of earthly brothers to try to push a doctrine about Jesus.

 

[BilliardsBall]

POST THREE OF THREE

Matthew 26:15 V-AIA-3P
GRK: οἱ δὲ ἔστησαν αὐτῷ τριάκοντα
NAS: me to betray Him to you? And they weighed out thirty
KJV: And they covenanted with him
INT: moreover they appointed to him thirty

Matthew 26:73 V-RPA-NMP
GRK: προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ
NAS: later the bystanders came
KJV: came unto [him] they that stood by, and said
INT: having come to [him] those who stood by said

Matthew 27:11 V-AIP-3S
GRK: δὲ Ἰησοὺς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ
NAS: Now Jesus stood before the governor,
KJV: And Jesus stood before the governor:
INT: moreover Jesus stood before the

Matthew 27:47 V-RPA-GMP
GRK: τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον
NAS: of those who were standing there,
KJV: Some of them that stood there,
INT: of those who there were standing having heard said

Mark 3:24 V-ANP
GRK: οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία
NAS: that kingdom cannot stand.
KJV: kingdom cannot stand.
INT: not is able to stand the kingdom

Mark 3:25 V-ANA
GRK: οἰκία ἐκείνη σταθῆναι
NAS: that house will not be able to stand.
KJV: house cannot stand.
INT: house that to stand

Mark 3:26 V-ANA
GRK: οὐ δύναται στῆναι ἀλλὰ τέλος
NAS: he cannot stand, but he is finished!
KJV: be divided, he cannot stand, but hath
INT: not he is able to stand but an end

Mark 7:9 V-ASA-2P
GRK: παράδοσιν ὑμῶν στήσητε
INT: tradition of you you might keep

THE EXAMPLES, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BASE MEANING OF THIS WORD APPLIES TO A “STAND” OR “POSITION” THAT ONE TAKES. A DEPARTURE IS APO-STASIS OR APO-HISTEMI (OR ONE CAN USE META OR METH AS A PREFIX). THE WORD HAS A VERB FORM (NOT MERELY A NOUN) AND IT OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES IN MULTIPLE FORMS IN BIBLICAL TEXT.




NOW, consider the Scripture URAVIP2ME commented on :
Acts20 vs30 … from among your own selves will arise men speaking distortions (gk : διεστραμμενα "distortions" or “perversions", etc) to draw away the disciples after them.”

This is simple:
IF Christians who have taken a “stand” or accepted one belief, later accept other beliefs based on teachings labeled as “distortions” or “perversions”, then are they “departing” from a prior belief or not? Obviously they are leaving their prior stand or belief.

IF the meaning of apostasy IS a departure from a prior stand (as the examples show), and the individuals are departing from a prior religious stand, then is this apostasy? The answer is quite obvious. This is NOT confusing or complicated.

Thus, the poster URAVIP2ME is perfectly correct in applying the the principle of apostasy to this text. Also, creating a system of belief based on the incorrect assumptions suggested to us by the poster kaoticprofit are incorrect.


Forum members can certainly make up their own minds on these very simply points and I am perfectly happy to let them.


Clear

σισεακω

Upsetting to me to see on another thread where I am OP you claim to NOT be a Greek scholar but then come here to interpret Greek to suit your ideas. You know, I didn't even read this post and don't really care which side you're espousing here. But the hypocritical stance is very troubling.

 

[Clear]

1) kaoticprofit : Your reply is confusing and I cannot tell what point you are trying to make.

I supported URAVIP2ME in his very specific comment that Acts 20:29-30 applies to apostasy in the context that individuals who adopt one set of doctrines (presumably the christian message) and then listen to and adopt another set of doctrines that are "distortions" and "perversions" are apostatizing (i.e. they are changing their original stand on a doctrine). You are now referring to the characteristics of a specific word in 2 Thessalonians. Whatever judgment forum posters have made regarding Acts 20:30, with the information we have given them is perfectly fine with me.



2) Billiardsball claims : "Upsetting to me to see on another thread where I am OP you claim to NOT be a Greek scholar but then come here to interpret Greek to suit your ideas."
Yes, I can imagine this must be terribly upsetting for you, especially since your theories have often been shown to depend on unusual "interpretations" and abuse of Greek and Hebrew. However, you have fallen back into your habit of misrepresentation. Below are my exact words when YOU called me “an original language scholar” :

Billiardsball said (Post #151) "As an original language scholar, you would admit how many apparent errors come in the local language that are redacted/disspelled in the source languages.
Clear replied : Can you give me an example of an actual textual error of the type I have described in posts 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132 of this thread that your suggested method can actually fix?. And to dispel any myths before they begin, I do not consider myself to be a scholar in anything, certainly not in "original language".

I did not say I was NOT a scholar in anything, I do know a few things and carry considerable weight in my field, have taught at university and have published. BUT, I believe individual posts on a forum should be judged on their own based on its' data, logic, rationality and historical accuracy, rather than any claim of the poster to be some sort of scholar since such claims are so often misused on the forum. If it keeps you from being "upset", you can call me a scholar if you want.

Clear

νιτωφυω

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yet you used the example of earthly brothers to try to push a doctrine about Jesus.

Jesus has both: Jesus had fleshly half-brothers and half-sisters, besides having spiritual brothers and sisters. Such as the spiritual ' brothers ' of Matthew 25:40

 

[kaoticprofit]

This should be the last post I make here since it's a major derailment. My last post may have confused you because you've complicated things.
You tried to tell me that the word apostasy, which is a noun, comes from the word ephistemi, a verb, but it doesn't. It comes from the word apostasion which is a feminine NOUN, WHICH comes from ephistemi. You can't base the true meaning of the apostasy, the noun, in 2Thes. 2 and Acts 21:21 on the basis of the word ephistemi. I can agree they are similar in miniscule respects but very different in others. They are especially different in that the context is altogether different! Christians or the Church aren't implied in 2Thes 2 whereas they are in the verses you quote where the word APOSTASY IS NOT USED!

You also tried to tell me that apostasy can be accepting distorted doctrine. But it's not. Apostasy doesn't have anything to do with Christians deviating to a distorted doctrine and that's easily proven by 2Thes. 2 and especially Acts 21. Apostasy is an abandonment, a divorce and/or a revolt and a rebellion. A Christian accepting false or distorted doctrine, even damnable heresy, isn't related to the apostasy of 2Thes. 2 whatsoever. That's more like what we see in the words aphistemi and apospao.

I also completely disagree with this fabrication...

THE EXAMPLES, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BASE MEANING OF THIS WORD APPLIES TO A “STAND” OR “POSITION” THAT ONE TAKES. A DEPARTURE IS APO-STASIS OR APO-HISTEMI (OR ONE CAN USE META OR METH AS A PREFIX). THE WORD HAS A VERB FORM (NOT MERELY A NOUN) AND IT OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES IN MULTIPLE FORMS IN BIBLICAL TEXT.

Pure fabrication as related to apostasy. Here you are trying to tell me that Acts 20:30 is related to apostasy by using unrelated words like 'stand' and passages that don't apply. Unrelated by being out of context. Related to a slight degree in some respects, but totally unrelated to the event that brings on the man of sin.

I disagree with this...

Acts 20:29-30 applies to apostasy in the context that individuals who adopt one set of doctrines (presumably the christian message) and then listen to and adopt another set of doctrines that are "distortions" and "perversions" are apostatizing (i.e. they are changing their original stand on a doctrine).

Acts 21:21 is a lesson on WHAT apostasy ISN'T since it's the only other place the word is used. Some of the Jews that accepted Christ thought Paul was telling them to completely ABANDON/DIVORCE/APOSTASIZE their affiliation with the many Mosaic and Judaic customs and traditions. Paul said it wasn't and they even shave their head in solidarity THAT IT WASN'T. What you said here...is debunked by Acts 21:21.

I completely disagree. Here's Acts 21:21 in the NIV. the only other place the word apostasy is used. It's much easier to understand in the NIV.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away (APOSTASIZE) from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

If Paul would have called for a total abandonment of those customs and traditions then that would have constituted apostasy. BUT! He said it was OK to continue with certain traditions and customs and therefore wasn't calling for an apostasy. That passage proves that a deviation or acceptance of perverted doctrine ISN'T apostasy! Apostasy is abandoning everything...the whole ball of wax! You can't be an apostate and remain in your current affiliation!

26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

You've done just what I said people do who claim to READ Koine Greek. You complicate and fabricate things.

I say it again...
The apostasy of 2Thes. 2 is an unusual passage. Look at just a few things mentioned in it...the 'parousia' or Day of Christ, "the harpazo" or rapture, a falling away, rebellion, abandonment or "apostasia," the revelation of the man of sin, the workings of Satan, strong delusion, and MUCH more. Does that sound like the church to you? Apostasia is used in a much different context than any of the verse you quoted which DIDN"T use the word apostasy. By associating apostasy with words that are just slightly related, you do as so many others who just don't know any better. And that is blame the apostasy of 2Thes.2 on Christians and the Church. That's pure blasphemy.

The words aphistemi, apospao, histemi...or any other word you are trying to use to to support what you believe, have little to nothing to do with the EVENT of apostasy in 2Thes. 2.

 

[Clear]

Kaoticprofit claimed “The problem is the word apostasy is never used as a verb”. Post #56
Clear explained “Apostasy has a verb form, thus "apostatize" is used to decribe the action and process of "apostasy".” Post #57
Kaoticprofit responded : “No it doesn't.” Post #58
Clear responded by giving multiple examples of the greek verb forms in post #60



1) Regarding the irrational insistence that the principle of apostasy is a noun form and has no verb form.

Forum members are not idiots. If they google definitions for apostasy, it reveals MULTIPLE verb forms for apostasy. For examples :
The base verb form is : “Apostatize”.
The 3rd person present VERB form is “Apostatizes”.
The past tense VERB form is Apostatized”.
The past participle VERB form is “apostatized”.
The gerund or present participle VERB form is “apostatizing”.
I have just given the forum members 5 examples of VERB forms for the word apostasy. We can then, easily dismiss the claim that the principle of apostasy is never used as a verb since it has a verb form.

Similarly, greek has multiple verb forms and forum readers have already seen 9 examples of how these verb forms are used in greek scriptures in post #60. And, as I have shown, the many verb forms are used in much greater frequency than the noun.



2) Regarding the normal definition of apostatize in a verb form in biblical texts

Acts 5:38 V-AMA-2P
GRK: λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν
The NAS: translates it “stay away
The KJV: translates it “Refrain from
The INT: translates it “Withdraw from

Acts 12:10 V-AIA-3S
GRK: καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέστη ὁ ἄγγελος
The NAS: translates it “departed
The KJV: translates it “departed
The INT: translates it “departed

Acts 15:38 V-APA-AMS
GRK: ἠξίου τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ' αὐτῶν
The NAS: translates it “deserted
The KJV: translates it “departed
The INT: translates it “withdrawn

Acts 19:9 V-APA-NMS
GRK: τοῦ πλήθους ἀποστὰς ἀπ' αὐτῶν
The NAS: translates it “withdrew
The KJV: translates it “departed
The INT: translates it “departed

Acts 22:29 V-AIA-3P
GRK: εὐθέως οὖν ἀπέστησαν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ
The NAS: translates it “let go
The KJV: translates it “departed
The INT: translates it “departed

2 Corinthians 12:8 V-ASA-3S
GRK: παρεκάλεσα ἵνα ἀποστῇ ἀπ' ἐμοῦ
The NAS: translates it “leave
The KJV: translates it “depart
The INT: translates it “depart

1 Timothy 4:1 V-FIM-3P
GRK: ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς
The NAS: translates it “fall away from the faith,
The KJV: translates it “depart from the faith,
The INT: translates it “depart from some the

2 Timothy 2:19 V-AMA-3S
GRK: αὐτοῦ καί Ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας
The NAS: translates it “abstain
The KJV: translates it “depart
The INT: translates it “depart

Hebrews 3:12 V-ANA
GRK: ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναιἀπὸ θεοῦ
The NAS: translates it “falls away
The KJV: translates it “departing
The INT: translates it “departing

Such biblical examples demonstrate that the verbal form of apostasy both exists and refers, in the main to a “departure” and none of these examples are made more correct or more sensible nor more logical nor more readable by replacing the present translation by “divorce” or “rebellion”. Kaoticprofit, since you are trying to discuss and teach greek but you cannot read greek yourself, why don't you consider ASKING someone you trust who can read greek to help you understand these principles?

Kaoticprofit, your claims that apostasy exist ONLY as a noun are obviously wrong since my examples show verb forms. Your claim that it has only the meaning of divorce or rebellion is also obviously wrong since the translators do not render any of these examples with your meaning.

Please kaoticprofit, unless you have actual data that translators of the New Testament rendered these sentences incorrectly, or can offer readers some other objective reason why we cannot trust common greek usage in these instances, then you will have to use your own definitions for your theories and allow the historical world to use the normal historical definitions in their historical models.

Unless you can change the standard usage and definition of these principles, then URAVIP2ME remains perfectly correct in his point regarding the context of Acts 20:30 and how it relates to the process of apostasy of those who are departing from an original christian belief and adopting a perversion of it.

I might also clarify that my comments regarding the principle of apostasy in Acts 20:30 did not reference 2 Thessalonians since it was irrelevant to my claim.


Clear
ειτζτζτζω

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) kaoticprofit : Your reply is confusing and I cannot tell what point you are trying to make.

I supported URAVIP2ME in his very specific comment that Acts 20:29-30 applies to apostasy in the context that individuals who adopt one set of doctrines (presumably the christian message) and then listen to and adopt another set of doctrines that are "distortions" and "perversions" are apostatizing (i.e. they are changing their original stand on a doctrine). You are now referring to the characteristics of a specific word in 2 Thessalonians. Whatever judgment forum posters have made regarding Acts 20:30, with the information we have given them is perfectly fine with me.



2) Billiardsball claims : "Upsetting to me to see on another thread where I am OP you claim to NOT be a Greek scholar but then come here to interpret Greek to suit your ideas."
Yes, I can imagine this must be terribly upsetting for you, especially since your theories have often been shown to depend on unusual "interpretations" and abuse of Greek and Hebrew. However, you have fallen back into your habit of misrepresentation. Below are my exact words when YOU called me “an original language scholar” :

Billiardsball said (Post #151) "As an original language scholar, you would admit how many apparent errors come in the local language that are redacted/disspelled in the source languages.
Clear replied : Can you give me an example of an actual textual error of the type I have described in posts 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132 of this thread that your suggested method can actually fix?. And to dispel any myths before they begin, I do not consider myself to be a scholar in anything, certainly not in "original language".

I did not say I was NOT a scholar in anything, I do know a few things and carry considerable weight in my field, have taught at university and have published. BUT, I believe individual posts on a forum should be judged on their own based on its' data, logic, rationality and historical accuracy, rather than any claim of the poster to be some sort of scholar since such claims are so often misused on the forum. If it keeps you from being "upset", you can call me a scholar if you want.

Clear

νιτωφυω

There is a post on a thread I started when you specifically claimed to NOT be a scholar of Greek and Hebrew. I certainly forgive you if you have forgotten--and even if you haven't.

 

[Clear]

Billiardsball

I honestly have not given much thought to whether I am considered a scholar in any particular field or not. You are welcome to consider me either as a scholar or as a non-scholar since it really irrelevant to me. I am quite comfortable in my improving historical knowledge base in either case.

In either case, I hope your own spiritual journey is good and you start to learn about history and become a wonderful scholar in your own lifetime if that is something you aspire to.

Clear

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Consider that the "Trinity" is FALSE doctrine not supported by Gospel.
Google "Trinity" and read the supporting views and views that proclaim it's
false dogma and come your own conclusions.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html
http://scripturaltruth101.blogspot.com/2012/05/trinity-doctrine-is-false-doctrine.html
http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/BlasphemousRumors/news/?a=5690
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html#_1_4
From the site just above: but check these out for yourself.
"Trinity Is Not A Christian Idea
One idea that became popular among Christians around the fourth century was that of a trinity of gods. It was not, however, a new idea conceived by Christians, for there is much evidence of widespread belief in similar ideas throughout earlier recorded history.
Many scholars believe that the Trinity, as taught by Christians, comes from Plato as suggested in the Timaeus, but the Platonic trinity is itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples.(3)
In Indian religion there is the Trinitarian group of Brahma, Vishna, and Shiva; in Egyptian religion there is the group of Kneph, Phthas, and Osiris. In Phoenicia the trinity of gods were Ulomus, Ulosuros, and Eliun. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus."
But please read all the article and please research for yourself.
Careful, though, whom you might present this notion of the trinity being false doctrine.
People who have been indoctrinated with false doctrine will resist the truth fighting
"tooth and nail" against anything that violates these false traditional teachings.
Ergo why we have this many Christian denominations ALL reading essential the SAME
Bible!!!???? What!?
Yup!
"According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians."
I have read that there are FORTY THOUSAND denominations of Christian but can't find
the reference just now.

Very interesting post ^ Above ^ and you might want to also research about Noah's great-grandson Nimrod - Genesis 10:8-10

Nimrod is connected to a triad or trinity. When the people migrated out of ancient Babylon they took with them their old religious-myth ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great. That is why we see today so many similar overlapping myth-religious ideas in the world's religions.

As far as denominations: Jesus did inform us that MANY would come ' in his name ' but prove false in Matthew 7:21-23
Jesus also informed up that his genuine followers ( wheat Christians ) would have the same self-sacrificing love among themselves as Jesus had - John 13:34-35

 

[InChrist]

I believe the concept of the triune God is presented throughout the scriptures starting from the beginning in Genesis. If other religious groups or cultures have historically had variations of a triad or trinity type of god(s) I think it is because the enemy is constantly attempting to twist the truth God has revealed.

"Today we hear "How is it possible," for Jehovah to be three and one both at the same time? It is illogical, unreasonable, and God is not the author of confusion!"

It is a fact of chemistry that plain water, when placed in a vacuum under gas pressure of 230 millimeters and at a temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, Will solidify it into ice at the bottom of the container, the liquid will remain in the center and at the top it vaporizes! At a given moment the same water is both solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the same base substance H2O - hydrogen/ two parts; oxygen/ one part.

Can’t the Creator of this substance be Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons and one Nature as Spirit without violating the law of logic or reason ?"
http://www.letusreason.org/Trin7.htm

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe the concept of the triune God is presented throughout the scriptures starting from the beginning in Genesis. If other religious groups or cultures have historically had variations of a triad or trinity type of god(s) I think it is because the enemy is constantly attempting to twist the truth God has revealed.

"Today we hear "How is it possible," for Jehovah to be three and one both at the same time? It is illogical, unreasonable, and God is not the author of confusion!"

It is a fact of chemistry that plain water, when placed in a vacuum under gas pressure of 230 millimeters and at a temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, Will solidify it into ice at the bottom of the container, the liquid will remain in the center and at the top it vaporizes! At a given moment the same water is both solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the same base substance H2O - hydrogen/ two parts; oxygen/ one part.

Can’t the Creator of this substance be Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons and one Nature as Spirit without violating the law of logic or reason ?"
http://www.letusreason.org/Trin7.htm

Ahh, the triple point of water in chemistry. I love that explanation, myself. One substance (or essence, if you will) in three different forms (or "persons", or manifestations of that essence) that can all exist simultaneously, without change. Each Person is truly and fully God, and not merely a mask or a part. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are all completely and fully God, and not merely 1/3 of God, and they are all each unique manifestations (Greek. hypostasis) of the Divine Essence, not just mere masks that this one Essence switches between. Of all the analogies we have in the natural world, I think water at its triple point does the best job of actually explaining the Trinity.

 

[InChrist]

Ahh, the triple point of water in chemistry. I love that explanation, myself. One substance (or essence, if you will) in three different forms (or "persons", or manifestations of that essence) that can all exist simultaneously, without change. Each Person is truly and fully God, and not merely a mask or a part. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are all completely and fully God, and not merely 1/3 of God, and they are all each unique manifestations (Greek. hypostasis) of the Divine Essence, not just mere masks that this one Essence switches between. Of all the analogies we have in the natural world, I think water at its triple point does the best job of actually explaining the Trinity.

I'm not sure how it was for you, Shiranui, in coming to your understanding of the Trinity, but it really was something to which God had to open my eyes and understanding. Although, I was raised Catholic I had left the Catholic Church and theology behind having become immersed in various other religious philosophies, including certain cults which outright rejected the triune nature of God in the biblical sense. As a result I was thoroughly opposed to the teaching and concept of the Trinity. Yet, the moment I trusted Jesus Christ for salvation and was born again it became so clear and obvious. I knew at that moment that the Trinity not only was true, but it made perfect sense. I also realized that Jesus had to be fully God the Son, as well as fully human in order to be the Savior, since only God can save anyone and the scriptures state so plainly that He alone is the Savior.
I, too, really appreciate the water analogy. There are others too which I think God has imprinted on the natural world which testify of His divine triune nature.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe the concept of the triune God is presented throughout the scriptures starting from the beginning in Genesis. If other religious groups or cultures have historically had variations of a triad or trinity type of god(s) I think it is because the enemy is constantly attempting to twist the truth God has revealed.

How is the word ' us ' at Genesis 1:26 meaning three ?

What does Philippians 2:9 mean ?

What does John 6:38 mean ?

What does John 10:29 A mean ?

What does John 14:28 mean ?

What does John mean at Revelation 3:12 ?[/QUOTE]

 

[kaoticprofit]

The Trinity doctrine is one the Catholics came up with and one the Protestants have accepted. How can anyone say the trinity is presented throughout scripture when even the trinitarians will tell you that it's NOT plainly stated in any ONE scripture verse!
People believe in a fictional Trinity because that's what they've been taught, and haven't done their own unbiased homework on the subject.
The words of Jesus alone DEBUNK the trinity! It really is that simple!

I would like to ask InChrist,

Why does the 'holy ghost' have no name? Why isn't the 'holy Ghost' NOT FOUND in or around the Throne of God? Why would Jesus say God is greater? why would Jesus say he doesn't know the day or hour of his return...BUT ONLY THE FATHER KNOWS?

Why would Jesus say the servant (Jesus) is not greater than the One who sent him?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The Bible says those who are "born again" will be composed of spirit instead of flesh and blood and will be invivible like the wind. So I would like to ask InChrist when and how he was born again and if he is now a spirit like the wind. Or maybe he needs to study some more and find out what the Bible really says about being born again.