• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I have trouble understanding the Trinity

kaoticprofit

Active Member
First of all, we can start with the foretold apostasy starting after the end of the first century - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
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 taught.
Corrupted clergy seat themselves in the ' temple ' ( houses of worship) as if they are God when in reality they are anti-God - 2 Thessalonians 2:2-4; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9
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!
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I am a dad and a son. There is no conflict in my having two roles.
Jesus specifically said things like (paraphrasing) "Father, I don't need to pray to you but I'm praying so they get it," so please pray to Jesus and search His Word and it will answer so very many of your questions.
Three that ARE one isn't polytheistic. My wife and I are different persons with different minds but One in marriage and outlook (Genesis 2:24). God is on the same page on all things while having three persons in eternal fellowship.

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
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
URAVIP2ME said : First of all, we can start with the foretold apostasy starting after the end of the first century - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 (post # 37)
kaoticprofit responded : There is no apostasy mentioned in Acts 20:29-30. Most Christians don't understand apostasy anyway. (Post # 41)

Acts 20:29-30 “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock: 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking distortions (gk : διεστραμμενα "distortions" or “perversions", etc) to draw away the disciples after them.”


Hi URAVIP2ME :

I simply wanted to agree with your very specific point (versus kaoticprofits' claim) that these things which men will speak that are described in Acts 20:30 as “distortions” or “perversions” of doctrines indeed represent apostasy in the context of expectation that the early doctrines would evolve and change because of such influences.

Good journey URAVIP2ME

Clear
φυδρνεω
 

MARCELLO

Transitioning from male to female
Use talcid pills,it does help a lot to digest about getting to know about trinity:))))))))))))
 

kaoticprofit

Active Member
Clear said,

I simply wanted to agree with your very specific point (versus kaoticprofits' claim) that these things which men will speak that are described in Acts 20:30 as “distortions” or “perversions” of doctrines indeed represent apostasy in the context of expectation that the early doctrines would evolve and change because of such influences.

The word apostasy isn't used in Acts 20:30. The word is used in only two places. Acts 21:21...

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

And 2Thes. 2:3

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;

In Acts 20:30 the word 'draw away' isn't the same word as apostasy.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

'Draw away' is two words... apo and spao. In 2 Thes 2:3 the word apostasy is one word and its translation of "falling away" is very misleading. Perverse things are distortions, not abandonments. I can explain this much more but have already derailed the thread and apologize.

The apostasy of 2Thes. 2:3 is more of an 'event' than a condition, and it's easy to prove that it has nothing to do with the church or Christians. People associate the word apostasia with similar English words like fall away, fallen away, draw away, etc. and believe they mean the the same thing. Problem is they are different words that have different meanings that nothing to do with apostasy. If you really study this out you'll find that the NIV words it more accurately.

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.

Christian's have the preconceived idea that apostasy is a defection from sound doctrinal truth. Do you really think that as a result of the apostasy the 'falling away' is a falling away from faith or truth in Yeshua? Why would a defection from faith, even 'within the church', create the conditions in 2Thes 2 that would reveal the man of sin, fulfill the evils mentioned in the passage, and cause people to accept him?

The word 'apostasy' comes from a word meaning a 'divorce' or to defect and to abandon something. It is not being lukewarm or backslidden and has nothing to do with spiritual condition of a church or lack of devotion of an individual. It is not false doctrine or heresy.

This is the web definition of apostasy.
Apostasy - (noun)
1. The act of abandoning a party or cause.
2. The state of having rejected your religious beliefs, political party, cause or sports team in favor of opposing beliefs, causes or teams.
3. A defection, renunciation, disaffiliation, abandonment or revolt from a previous association.
4. (Islamic definition) Rejection in word or deed of one's former religion.
5. (Christian definition) To fall away from the truth.
WIKI also says...Apostasy (Greek απο, apo, "away, apart", στασις, stasis, "standing") is the formal renunciation of one's religion.

The only definition that is completely wrong is the Christian one. Look at what Vines says about the words 'draw away' in Acts 20:30...

apo, "from," and No. 4, "to draw away," lit., "to wrench away from," is used of a sword, Mat 26:51; of "drawing" away disciples into error, Acts 20:30;

ERROR IS NOT APOSTASY.

If you want to see more about this I'll have to start another thread.
 
Last edited:

kaoticprofit

Active Member
In response to the OP...

Huey09 said,
Why would the Son pray to himself or say he doesn't know the will of the Father if he is on the same level?

He is not on the same level. Jesus' words prove that...
How does the three in one work without being slightly polytheistic?
They are not polytheistic. Everything emerges from the seven spirits of God.
Did most early Christians movements pre-Nicea Council follow this ideology?
No. It was debated among the church before and...

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Can the Trinity be understood figuratively rather than literally?

There is no such thing as a trinity so it's neither.

http://www.blacksheepprophecies.com/the-trinity-and-deity.html
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
REGARDING THE SCRIPTURE IN ACTS 20:29-30
Acts 20:29-30 “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock: 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking distortions (gk : διεστραμμενα "distortions" or “perversions", etc) to draw away the disciples after them.”

Hi kaoticprofit :

1) kaoticprofit said : "The word apostasy isn't used in Acts 20:30. The word is used in only two places. Acts 21:21..."
I did not claim the WORD “apostasy” was used, but rather, the individuals who arose among them, teaching distortions and perversions, and, through such distorted teaching, drew disciples to themselves, were part of the mechanism whereby apostasy, schisms, and evolution away from early Christian doctrines occurred.


2) kaoticprofit said : "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 'Draw away' is two words...apo and spao. In 2 Thes 2:3 the word apostasy is one word and its translation of "falling away" is very misleading."
You obviously do not read koine greek or you would not have tried to create this inaccurate, distinction. It will help you to ask someone who actually reads and understands koine greek to help you with this specific point. Αποστασια (apostasy) IS indeed a compound term of two words απο & στασις just as αποσπαω is a compound word made up of απο-σπαω. Though the specific rendering of apostasy as a “falling away” may be arguably improved upon, your suggested use of “rebellion” is perhaps even more misleading, since most apostasy did not come from individuals who abandoned base beliefs in God through overt rebellion, but the process of evolution away from original doctrines resulted in the main, from the contamination and distortion of beliefs and the adoption of those contaminations by the religious themselves.


3) kaoticprofit said : Perverse things are distortions, not abandonments.
You seem to assume that apostasy is only conscious abandonment without considering its’ common meanings and usage in ancient koine greek where it means a change from an original standing or change in relationship. Here again, I think you should ask someone who actually reads and understand kione greek to help you with this point.

For example, while it is true that apostasy can mean “rebellion” but this is not it's most common usage in the early koine papyri. It is more frequently found in business papers when one is giving a “bond of relinquishing” property that is sold. For example, in the papyri BGU IV, 1002:16 of 55 b.c., one business deal used a “ αποστασιου συνγραφη”. In this case the written agreement is a congenial understanding that the seller is relinquishing rights of ownership and it has nothing to do with rebellion or frank abandonment (such as with a divorce).

This change in relationship does not even have to originate with a person giving up rights but can be an outside influence that changes a relationship. For example, in P Grenf i. ii:11 of 157 b.c. one person draws up a “αποσατσιο εγραψατο τωι Παναι μη επελευσεσθαι μη θαλλον μη θενατων παρ αυτου..” where a man "Panas" has a bill of ejection or “restraint” (an ancient version of our modern “restraining order”) drawn against him to keep him from trespassing on the property. His relationship change is forced upon him and the base word used is a form of αποστασια.

Obviously, ANY business deal involving large property could and would make use of this term in this way. For example, in P Ryl. Ii: 160:9 of 28-29 a.d. one uses the term when selling “two parts out of five” (πρα[σ]ις και απωστα[σιου] μερη κτλ...)

Even the term, when used in “a deed to divorce” was only one of many uses for the term and it was not the most common usage among early Papyri found.

If you will have someone help you with the greek and look at the two root words that make up αποστασια and their actual usage, if will be even more clear with even more examples that αποστασια is not merely an abandonment.

For example, the original basic meaning of στασις is “a standing” and thus it is used for the condition of a tent that is “standing” upright. However even the use as “schism, strife, or dissension” are not strictly “abandonment” per se, but refer to disagreement with and discord between competing doctrinal positions (stands). For example, in P Rein 18:16 of 108 b.c. the document discusses a “αδικου στασεως...” as an unjust quarrel or strife. In P Strass 1:20:10 of iii a.d. a document uses the term in this specic way in the settling of a long-standing argument. Even P Oxy XVI 1873:2 of v a.d. the person uses a form of στασις to describe “riots and madness at Lycopolis” (ε]τι την λυκοπολιτων στασις και μ[α]νιαν φ[αντα]ζομαι,” and in Ost ii51:3 of iii a.d. it describes an argument over an inheritance or lot (γραφω σοι την στασι(ν) περι του κληρ(ου).)

None of these μοστ common uses are a frank abandonment, but refer instead, to schisms and arguments that cause changes in relationships and positions.

Even P. Lond 1177:133 of 113 a.d. uses the word in describing a “shift of workmen” and how the shift changeδ. Thus it makes perfect sense in the religious context when Jews are described as involved in a disturbance and argument (στασεως) in P. Long 1912:73 (in 41 a.d.) when Claudius is speaking to the Alexandrines. (“της δε προς Ιουδαιους ταραχης και στασεως”). NONE of these other uses involve abandonment, but ALL involve process of changing from one stand or position to another or discord between competing positions.

APOSTASY AS A CHANGE IN DOCTRINAL POSITION ׂ(e.g. evolution of doctrines)
As “distorted” and “perverted” doctrines began to be increasingly taught among the various schisms and different Christian assemblies in the early Christian movement, other doctrines began to gain favor and both arguments and schisms resulted. This is the nature of apostasy in the context as a change of doctrinal position and it was a significant problem in the earliest Christian religious movement.

Peter’s young colleague Clement says, speaking of apostasy among the early Christians “Why is there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you? Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another? Remember the words of Jesus our Lord, for he said: “Woe to that man! It would have been good for him if he had not been born, than that he should cause one of my elect to sin. It would have been better for him to have been tied to a millstone and cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of my elect.” Your schism has perverted many; it has brought many to despair, plunged many into doubt, and caused all of us to sorrow. And yet your rebellion still continues! 1st Clement 46:5-9;


Good luck in your own spiritual journey kaoticprofit

Clear
σετωτωω
 
Last edited:

kaoticprofit

Active Member
1) kaoticprofit said : "The word apostasy isn't used in Acts 20:30. The word is used in only two places. Acts 21:21..."
I did not claim the WORD “apostasy” was used, but rather, the individuals who arose among them, teaching distortions and perversions, and, through such distorted teaching, drew disciples to themselves, were part of the mechanism whereby apostasy, schisms, and evolution away from early Christian doctrines occurred.

Apostasy comes from the word divorce. It's a completely abandonment of what you are currently affiliated with and acceptance of another. In other words. If I'm a republican and become a democrat I'm an apostate Republican. That's apostasy. 'Distorted teachings' have two categories, damnable or un-damnable heresies. Even if they crept into the Church teaching damnable heresies like the heretics in 2 Peter who denied Christ had bought them. That still really isn't apostasy. They're just plain old false teachers and false prophets that were thrown out.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

False teachers or prophets that crept into the church and denied Christ were easily identifiable and excommunicated. These false teachers were not Christians in the first place and were excommunicated because of their unwillingness to repent from teaching damnable heresies. People who WERE true Christians and followed them out the door ARE APOSTATES because they've accepted 'another gospell' of a damnable heresy....just like the passages declare.

In 1 John 2:19-23 the people that left the church were in denial that Jesus was the Christ. Their falseness was easily exposed. A person or a church can only become apostate if they completely abandon Christianity and accept something else. All the other words that people use to describe it imply something else and are not apostasy. Ex. A Jew who converted from Judaism to Christianity is an apostate. A Christian who becomes an atheist is an apostate.

1 John 2:19  They went out from us, (told to leave) but they were not of us;(not Christians in the first place) 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.

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

If a Christian abandons Christ and accepts a false religion and another christ he is an apostate. Other than describing followers of the man of sin, the apostasy of 2 Thes 2. is an event related to the emergence of the anti-Christ and nothing else.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

But IF they were NOT teaching damnable heresies they got a second chance and were allowed to stay in the church, but the apostle told the congregation to avoid them but they were not thrown out.

Titus 3:9-10 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

There's another passage too but I forgot it.

There were some people that tried infiltration the church from the outside and just followed Paul around to get a following of their own mostly to gain popularity or for financial gain. They weren't too successful either and were more of a nuisance than anything else.

The reformation and those that followed in their footsteps is what caused this misunderstanding of apostasy. The sad thing is, by not distinguishing between Damnable and Un-damnable heresies, and BY associating apostasy with UNRELATED WORDS that just sound like "FALLING AWAY," they've led people to believe the man of sin would come from within the church which is absolutely false.

The apostasy of 2 Thes. 2 has nothing to do with the church whatsoever. That can easily be proven. And un-damnable heresy isn't apostasy!!

Undamnable heresies...
Paul is joyful that Christ is being preached even though He is preached in contention, in error, or with wrong motives...

Phil. 1:13-18 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Look again at the web definition of apostasy and notice how it implies going from one thing to another...or nothing at all!

1. The act of abandoning a party or cause.
2. The state of having rejected your religious beliefs, political party, cause or sports team in favor of opposing beliefs, causes or teams.
3. A defection, renunciation, disaffiliation, abandonment or revolt from a previous association.
4. (Islamic definition) Rejection in word or deed of one's former religion.

And the only false one of the bunch...
5. (Christian definition) To fall away from the truth.

Notice what Baker's dictionary of theology says...(Emphasis is mine)
Apostasy
A word of increasing interest found twice in the NT. (Acts 21:21; 2Thes. 2:3 It comes from the Greek apostasia a late form of apostasis, originally to desert a post or station in life. It is used of Plutarch of political revolt and is found in the OT in the sense of revolt against the Lord. (Josh. 22:22) Antiochus Epiphanes enforced an apostasia from Judaism to Hellenism (1 Macc 2:15)

In the AV it is translated "falling away" in relation to the man of sin or antichrist. In this sense the thought is of religious revolt. Cremer states that apostasia is used in the absolute sense of "passing over to unbelief," thus a dissolution of the "union of God subsisting through Christ." Amdt adds rebellion or abandonment in the religious sense. On the nature of apostasy there are lengthy articles in both the JewEnc and the CE developing an extensive doctrine of apostasy.

In the NT. 2 Thes 2:3 is part of a prophetic passage of apocalyptic character. The falling away invites conjecture about whom and from what. The event seems future and thus related to antichrist. The implication is that the apostates will welcome the man of sin. (1)
Bakers Dictionary of Theology Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 60-7333 Copyright 1960 by Baker Book House, Sixth Printing, October 1973. (Baker's is now free online)

WIKI says...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Apostasy (Greek απο, apo, "away, apart", στασις, stasis, "standing") is the formal renunciation of one's religion.

Notice that every one of the following 'apostates' abandoned one thing and went to another. And it applies to both religion and politics.
Noted apostates

Ambedkar an ex-Hindu who became a Buddhist
Karen Armstrong ex-Roman Catholic nun who became an atheist
Julian the Apostate ex-Christian and Roman emperor
Aurelius Augustine (Augustine of Hippo) Former adherent of Manicheism who converted to Christianity and criticized Manicheism in his book called Confessions, though generally not labelled as an apostate because the term is originally used for people who leave Christianity, not for people who convert to it
Marjoe Gortner ex-Christian
Ayaan Hirsi Ali ex-Muslim
Maria Monk Sometimes considered an apostate, though little evidence exists that she ever belonged to the religion she supposedly fled
Taslima Nasrin born in a Muslim family who became an atheist
Friedrich Nietzsche grew up in a Lutheran family and became a confirmed Christian in his teens but later became a staunch atheist
Salman Rushdie Accused of being an apostate of Islam by Ruhollah Khomeini due to the publication of his book The Satanic Verses
Baruch Spinoza excommunicated from the Jewish community
Ibn Warraq ex-Muslim.

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word 'but' is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 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.
3a Let no man deceive you by any means: 3b for that day shall not come, 3c except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Acts 21:21 is the only other place we can go to understand APOSTASIA.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
hi kaoticprofit ;

We agree on some base principles. i disagree on your original "explanation" that apostasy was "one word" and on your claim that the transfer or abandonment of original doctrine for distorted and perverted doctrines did not represent apostasy.

I think that you now describe apostasy as a compound of two base words and this is more correct. Your distinction as to why abandonment of christianity as a whole does represent apostasy while the abandonment of specific doctrines and the acceptance of distorted or perverse doctrines does not represent apostasy (if i understand you correctly) will need to accomodate the reality of apostasy as a process.

We differ also in historical context. Your cut and paste definitions will probably serve a dogmatic purpose, but these definitions cannot survive in a historical world.

For example, while your narrow definition of apostasy as it applies to divorce is quite correct, it is the exception to the rule in that it is not the most common meaning nor the most common context, and use for the term anciently.

Thus, if you are going to try to come up with a more correct definition that represents all usage, you will have to abandon the word "rebellion" and the word "divorce" as being most representing its common usage.

This is the point the greek koine examples show us. A movement from one doctrinal position (any initial position or theological stand one takes) to another, differing position is an abandonment (if you want to use that word) of the original position. This is not an "all or nothing" principle. One might retain 9 correct doctrines and adopt one erroneous one. One might not intend to adopt error, but do so unintentionally. This is why conscious and wanton abandonment or uncaring divorce models do not fit the type of apostasy that is unintentional.

Thus, if one initially accepts the entire early christianity with its various individual doctrines on jesus, resurrection, baptism, repentance, prayer, etc, and then simply changes a doctrinal position on a single point, and adopts a different position, this represents apostasy in regards to a single doctrine. If i believe in all of these example principles and simply abandon belief in say, baptism, and adopt the wearing of a hat in the place of baptism, then this represents specific apostasy.

do we agree on this specific point of logic so far?

clear
 
Last edited:

kaoticprofit

Active Member
We agree on some base principles. i disagree on your original "explanation" that apostasy was "one word" and on your claim that the transfer or abandonment of original doctrine for distorted and perverted doctrines did not represent apostasy.

I think that you now describe apostasy as a compound of two base words and this is more correct. Your distinction as to why abandonment of christianity as a whole does represent apostasy while the abandonment of specific doctrines and the acceptance of distorted or perverse doctrines does not represent apostasy (if i understand you correctly) will need to accommodate the reality of apostasy as a process.

Apostasy is not a process because it's a NOUN. It's grammar in 2Thes. 2 indicates it's an event. According to Strong's lexicon 'apospao' or the English translation 'draw away' is a VERB and comes from two words... ἀπό (G575) and σπάω (G4685). According to Strongs, 'apostasy' is a feminine NOUN and one Greek word translated into two English words from the root ἀπό (G575) and σπάω (G4685). That's what I meant. But looking at in the interlinear it's even different. The words translated as DRAW AWAY in Acts 20:20, which is a process, look like this in the interlinear.

anasthsontai
anastEsontai
G450
vi Fut Mid 3 Pl
SHALL-BE-UP-STANDING
shall-be-rising

And the apostasia of 2Thes. 2 looks like this...apostasia apostasia G646 n_ Nom Sg f FROM-STANDing apostasy

It's not a big deal to me whether it's one or four Greek or English words to define it. My thing is that Christianities main understanding of it is outright wrong to the point of attributing many of the evils of the end-times to the church. We know people by their fruits. The only people who believe the fruits of those mentioned in 2Thes. 2 involve any church are those who associate apostasy with other similar unrelated words that do involve the church.

Apostasy is a NOUN. It's grammar in 2Thes. 2 indicates it's an event. According to Strong's lexicon apospao or the English translation in the KJV of 'draw away' is a VERB and comes from two words... ἀπό (G575) and σπάω (G4685).

According to Strongs 'apostasy' is a feminine NOUN one Greek word translated into English into 2 words from the root ἀπό (G575) and σπάω (G4685). That's what I meant.
Thus, if one initially accepts the entire early christianity with its various individual doctrines on jesus, resurrection, baptism, repentance, prayer, etc, and then simply changes a doctrinal position on a single point, and adopts a different position, this represents apostasy in regards to a single doctrine.
That's where we will have to disagree. Apostasy has nothing to do with doctrine in scripture and is not a difference of opinion regarding any ones doctrine. But I suppose one could say that if I was a dispensationalist and then threw it out the window I'm an apostate dispensationalist. But not one time is it implied that way in the bible.

In Acts 21:21, the only other place the word apostasy is used, the Jews were accusing Moses of forsaking Moses or an apostasy, FROM the law, TO the New Covenant if you will. Luke then defended his position saying that he was not, and at the end of the chapter shaved their heads in solidarity.

In any case. The Christian understanding of Apostasy has done more to harm the Church than help it. I think most people who attribute this EVENT of apostasy to the Church do so to build their own Church up as superior among the others.

"The secret power of lawlessness; the lawless one; whom the Lord Jesus will destroy; counterfeit signs, miracles, and wonders; every sort of evil that deceives those who "are perishing"; who refuse to love the truth and so be saved; and delight in wickedness; and God sends them powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie! "

Does that passage sound like the Church? Why would God send His own Christians powerful delusion to believe a lie? This passage is talking about the radical Muslims and jihadist in the most lawless part of the world imposing their form of Islamic law and NOT Christians. To attribute this to the end-time church say's nothing good about the power of God's Holy Spirit whom He say's He will pour out in the last days! To teach that this is the kind of thing God's church will accept and support in the last day's is blasphemy. Why would anybody want to convert to Christ knowing the church teaches that in the end it goes bad and becomes a harlot that produces the man of sin? That's self demonization.

So what is this apostasy...

It's been going on in the Arab Middle-East a few years now. The revolt and rebellion in the Mid-East has brought the fall of of over 25 dictators in the region including North Africa, created ISIS, and has caused millions to leave the region.

Consider what the church erroneously teaches about a one world Government, united one world religion, and a global economy/mark of the beast. And consider what Hasan A. Yahya, the Dean of Arab Writers in North America said about 'apostasy'.

"This article calls for wider scope of protest and revolutions in the Arab countries, otherwise, these revolutions and protests are incomplete and misguided. In his opinion, the revolution may satisfy one country, it does not satisfy all Arabs who aspire for unity, one currency, one economy, and one flag that covers a land with no borders between."
I think the man of sin will come in ISIS. ISIS is taking a big hit and the void is only getting bigger. And to think. ISIS believes ISA will return to help them defeat the dajjal or Islamic anti-christ. Now isn't that just a small dose of strong delusion!
We differ also in historical context. Your cut and paste definitions will probably serve a dogmatic purpose, but these definitions cannot survive in a historical world.
My cut and paste definitions come from people like Vine, Strong, Thayer, Wuest, Gesenius, whose results and opinions I accept over yours, and many others who spent a lifetime putting these resources together for us, or my own website that I usually edit..., special, just for you. We don't need to learn how to read Greek to understand how it's basically used. The people who I've encountered on forums who claim to read it often build themselves up and complicate things to the point of no return. I don't takes sides. I'm not loyal to any Church or anyones doctrine. I do my own homework and change my mind when the evidence is there to do so. And that's the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
hi kaoticprofit,

your comment that you are refering to apostasy as a noun sheds light on the misunderstanding. I have referred to BOTH frank apostasy in as a noun AND apostasy (apostasize) in its verb form as well AND, the partial partial processes that lead up to apostasy from one or more principles. Just as one who is divorced may have engaged in flirting, then escalating levels of sexual activity with another person besides the spouse contributes to an ultimate state of divorce. In the same way, there were subtle processes that lead up to various specific points of apostasy from early doctrines and practices.

While I understand you feel you do not need to understand enough greek to actually read it to cut and paste definitions, without some basic understanding of greek, you cannot then know when your single definition applies and when to use another meaning of a word. For example, most applications of the word apostasy did not apply to rebellion. If you simply apply this single definition to all occurrences of this word in koine, it will cause skewing and errors in your theories.

traveling, so this is a short note
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I also failed to remark that you are mixing comments between apospau and apostasia. Since these are different words it is difficult to follow your theory. For example, a christian who accepted a single and specific distortion of doctrine and was in the process of apostasy, need not be drawn away as a disciple to another person. The two words are separate concepts.

One may apostatize from a base doctrine, on their own, simply by creating and adopting a different doctrine.
 

kaoticprofit

Active Member
Your comment that you are refering to apostasy as a noun sheds light on the misunderstanding. I have referred to BOTH frank apostasy in as a noun AND apostasy (apostasize) in its verb form as well AND, the partial partial processes that lead up to apostasy from one or more principles.
The problem is the word apostasy is never used as a verb. And there's no such thing as apostasizing from one doctrine to another and isn't mentioned or implied in the New Testament, and 2Thes. 2 suggest it's an event that brings on the man of sin anyway. That event also implies a rebellion and a revolt which is just what's taking place in the Mid-East as we speak.
While I understand you feel you do not need to understand enough greek to actually read it to cut and paste definitions, without some basic understanding of greek, you cannot then know when your single definition applies and when to use another meaning of a word. For example, most applications of the word apostasy did not apply to rebellion. If you simply apply this single definition to all occurrences of this word in koine, it will cause skewing and errors in your theories.
Like I said. My cut and paste definitions come from people who've spent their life's work producing these bible resources. Stop complaining. Everything else is things I've written.
I have a basic understanding of Greek. I bought my first interlinear, my first Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Wuest Studies in the Greek New Testament, and Strong's w/lexicon...and many more good resources in 1973 as I was studying for the ministry. I'm not a novice at this so stop trying to build yourself up by tearing me down because you don't know very much about me.
For example, most applications of the word apostasy did not apply to rebellion. If you simply apply this single definition to all occurrences of this word in koine, it will cause skewing and errors in your theories.

The word is only used in two places and I'm not applying any of it as a single definition! I showed you how the word is used in several ways and not one of them suggest what you say it does.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
hi kaoticprofit;

Apostasy has a verb form, thus "apostatize" is used to decribe the action and process of "apostasy". The concept of apostasy is not merely an abandonment of religion but applies on varying levels and to varying subjects. Just as I have given examples from early literature of the principle in it's ancient business use, which is a much more common usage than its application as a "divorce" OR any application to "rebellion". These are historical meanings you cannot consider if you are unaware of them.

For example, if you have been heretofore, unaware that apostasy exists as the verb form, apostatize, then you will be unable to consider this as you create your personal system of belief.

This specific lack of context may partly why you have not considered abandonment of one version of doctrine and acceptance of a different, "distortion" or a "perversion" of an original doctrine as a type of apostasy. If you will not consider the many meanings and actual usage of ancient words then you will not be able to understand what the ancients meant by what they said. For example, "abandonment" and "rebellion" and "relinquishment of ownership rights" and "divorce" are all variations meant by the greek word for "apostasy". If you simply assume "divorce" is meant, you will create inaccurate theories regarding the actual usage of the term among the ancients. You will need to consider that cutting and pasting a single meaning or an erroneous "common" meaning will not help you correct this deficiency.

Good journey as you consider these things kaoticprofit
 
Last edited:

kaoticprofit

Active Member
Apostasy has a verb form, thus "apostatize" is used to decribe the action and process of "apostasy".
No it doesn't. Not in the two places the word is used in bible anyway. And a 'process' really isn't implied in 2Thes. 2. There is a process of delusionment etc. but that's because they are already apostates that have accepted the man of sin. If it does have a verb form show me where it is in relation to the apostasy of 2Thes. 2. Both of my "copy and paste" links from Strong's and the interlinear showed that apostasie is a noun.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G646&t=KJV
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2th2.pdf
Obviously there is a process if someone went from Christianity to Atheism, but that 'process' isn't what's implied in any of the two verses we find the word apostasia in. What is implied is a complete abandonment of a previous affiliation and acceptance of another...or nothing at all. You can't be an apostate and remain in your current affiliation just like the Jews of Acts 21:21 who continued with most Jewish customs and traditions. It's not heresy, perversion of scripture, or being lukewarm. It's an EVENT that brings on the man of sin!
The concept of apostasy is not merely an abandonment of religion but applies on varying levels and to varying subjects.
Acts 21:21 and 2Thes. 2 don't imply that. Look at it and see what takes place.

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Look at the context of Acts 21. The Jews were accusing Paul of "apostasy" of going from Mosaic and Judaic law to the New Covenant. That wasn't true because other than things like sacrifices no longer being needed etc., the Jews were allowed to continue in many of their customs and traditions. That shows that apostasy IS NOT a partial abandonment or even a process. Apostasy would have been a complete abandonment of the law and all Jewish customs and traditions.

There were many Jews in the Church in Jerusalem who became believers and still kept the Judaic law and continued as Jews, but they did believe. That's pretty much who the passage is directed to and what those verses are about. Paul stands his ground and convinces them that this is not an apostasy or complete abandonment of the customs and tradition of Mosaic and Judaic law.
For example, if you have been heretofore, unaware that apostasy exists as the verb form, apostatize, then you will be unable to consider this as you create your personal system of belief.
No. You're the one doing that as the word is never used in that context, and the interlinear and the lexicons DO NOT have a plural form of apostasia! YOU are the one creating a personal set of beliefs.
This specific lack of context may partly why you have not considered abandonment of one version of doctrine and acceptance of a different, "distortion" or a "perversion" of an original doctrine as a type of apostasy. If you will not consider the many meanings and actual usage of ancient words then you will not be able to understand what the ancients meant by what they said.
In my replies, I showed you the context and how the word apostasy is used in the two places in the New Testament. Much of what you say has absolutely nothing with understanding the biblical concept of apostasy.
For example, "abandonment" and "rebellion" and "relinquishment of ownership rights" and "divorce" are all variations meant by the greek word for "apostasy". If you simply assume "divorce" is meant, you will create inaccurate theories regarding the actual usage of the term among the ancients. You will need to consider that cutting and pasting a single meaning or an erroneous "common" meaning will not help you correct this deficiency.
I've noticed over the more than 12 years on forums that people who claim to read Greek have the gift of complicate things really well. They're pretty good fabricators too. How else are they to support their beliefs that are so easily debunked.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
kaoticprofit said : "..interlinear and the lexicons DO NOT have a plural form of apostasia!"

kaoticprofit, The plural form found in your interlinear scripture is "apostaseis". For example, this form is used in referring to multiple types and examples of defections king Manasseh commited before his late, repentant prayer. An example of this use is found in 2nd Chronicles 33:19. The specific, multiple ways he apostatized is partly described here as well.

If you check strongs a bit closer, it will tell you that the basic root for apostasia comes from apo and histemi. THIS basic form of the word, which still indicates a depature from a prior stand is used at least 14 times in scriptural text and more in early judeo-christian literature. There are also other forms using "meta" as a prefix to either stasis or histemi or other words referring to change of position or a stand. Examples like these demonstrate why cutting and pasting regarding a single word in a single form rarely create historically correct complex religious theories.

Since histemi and stasis refer to a stand, I couched my base definition, context and comments regarding apostasy in the simple terms of taking a stand on anything and then adopting a different stand.

Thus, if those referred to in acts 20:29-30 have adopted any religious stand, and then change that position by adopting the "distortions" and "perversion" described, then they have apostatized from their original doctrine or stand. This is not complicated. URAVIP2ME is correct in his comment on this point.

good luck in you spiritual journey on these things.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF THREE

Forum members : REGARDING ACTS 20:29-30 : I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock: 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking distortions (gk : διεστραμμενα "distortions" or “perversions", etc) to draw away the disciples after them.”

In post #47 I told the forum that cutting and pasting a single form of a single word and applying that meaning to all textual usages and then creating religious theories on that naïve model does not work. True and accurate translation simply doesn’t work that way. Consider the assumptions and see if opposing assumptions will work:

Opposing assumptions :
1) Apostasy “…is not a process because it's a NOUN.” Post #50

2) “The problem is the word apostasy is never used as a verb”. Post #56

3) The word only occurs in two places Post #58

4) “… people who claim to read Greek have the gift of complicate things really well…” Post #58




Regarding assumptions #1 and #2 and #3

Below are multiple verb forms and uses of this base word that demonstrate apostasy is not merely a “noun”. The word, in its various base forms occurs in almost 200 places AND, one can LOOK at how the word is used in the majority of cases and see if it actually means “divorce” and “rebellion” in the majority usage. Also, you will see that knowing just a bit of greek does not “complicate things”, but makes them very, very simple.

Below are cut and paste examples, from bible hub (something ANYONE with very, very basic knowledge can do) You will see that in each case, apostasy and it’s various forms and uses all apply to leaving a place or a “stand”. This is NOT complicates, but instead, it is very, very simple.

Below are examples of Αποστασια/ apostasy in it’s VERB form (I think the site gives 14 examples of apostasy….from new testament alone – it also occurs in this form in the old testament in greater numbers as well)

Acts 5:38 V-AMA-2P
GRK: λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν
NAS: I say to you, stay away from these
KJV: I say unto you, Refrain from these
INT: I say to you Withdraw from the

Acts 12:10 V-AIA-3S
GRK: καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέστη ὁ ἄγγελος
NAS: the angel departed from him.
KJV: forthwith the angel departed from him.
INT: and immediately departed the angel

Acts 15:38 V-APA-AMS
GRK: ἠξίου τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ' αὐτῶν
NAS: that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia
KJV: with them, who departed from them
INT: thought it well the [one] having withdrawn from them

Acts 19:9 V-APA-NMS
GRK: τοῦ πλήθους ἀποστὰς ἀπ' αὐτῶν
NAS: the people, he withdrew from them and took away
KJV: the multitude, he departed from
INT: the multitude having departed from them

Acts 22:29 V-AIA-3P
GRK: εὐθέως οὖν ἀπέστησαν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ
NAS: him immediately let go of him; and the commander
KJV: straightway they departed from
INT: Immediately therefore departed from him

2 Corinthians 12:8 V-ASA-3S
GRK: παρεκάλεσα ἵνα ἀποστῇ ἀπ' ἐμοῦ
NAS: three times that it might leave me.
KJV: thrice, that it might depart from me.
INT: I begged that it might depart from me

1 Timothy 4:1 V-FIM-3P
GRK: ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς
NAS: some will fall away from the faith,
KJV: some shall depart from the faith,
INT: latter times will depart from some the

2 Timothy 2:19 V-AMA-3S
GRK: αὐτοῦ καί Ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας
NAS: of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.
KJV: of Christ depart from
INT: his and Let depart from unrighteousness

Hebrews 3:12 V-ANA
GRK: ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ
NAS: heart that falls away from the living
KJV: in departing from
INT: in departing from God

The examples above all refer to VERBAL usage of apostasy as a “departure” of some sort, none are more correctly rendered as “divorce” or “rebellion”, but in main, refer to a departure from a physical or psychological stand. Thus, Apostasy IS used as a verb form in greek just as the english noun "apostasy" exists in a verb form "apostatize" and, obviously it occurs in more than two places. I also might point out regarding the assumption that greek readers "complicate things". This is a very simple, single, specific point.



Consider the base word εστημι (histemi) (strong lists 153 occurences of this word alone).
Below is a cut and paste of the various forms of this word in biblical literature and how many times they are used and you will note that they all apply to a stand, either physical or mental. Add either apo απο or μεθ or μετα and you will produce a word meaning a “departure” from that initial stand or position.


εἱστήκει — 7 Occ.
εἱστήκεισαν — 7 Occ.
ἑστάναι — 3 Occ.
ἐστάθη — 4 Occ.
ἐστάθησαν — 1 Occ.
ἔστη — 9 Occ.
ἕστηκα — 3 Occ.
ἑστήκαμεν — 1 Occ.
ἕστηκας — 2 Occ.
ἑστήκασιν — 3 Occ.
ἑστήκατε — 4 Occ.
ἕστηκεν — 5 Occ.
ἑστηκὼς — 2 Occ.
ἑστηκὸς — 1 Occ.
ἑστηκότα — 1 Occ.
ἑστηκότες — 2 Occ.
ἑστηκότων — 4 Occ.
ἔστησαν — 9 Occ.
ἔστησεν — 7 Occ.
ἑστὼς — 10 Occ.
ἑστῶτα — 8 Occ.
ἑστῶτας — 6 Occ.
ἑστῶτες — 5 Occ.
ἑστώτων — 1 Occ.
ἑστῶτος — 1 Occ.
ἑστὸς — 2 Occ.
ἱστάνομεν — 1 Occ.
στάντος — 1 Occ.
στὰς — 2 Occ.
στᾶσα — 1 Occ.
σταθῇ — 1 Occ.
σταθῆναι — 4 Occ.
σταθήσεσθε — 1 Occ.
σταθήσεται — 5 Occ.
σταθῆτε — 1 Occ.
σταθεὶς — 6 Occ.
σταθέντα — 1 Occ.
σταθέντες — 2 Occ.
στῆναι — 4 Occ.
στῆσαι — 3 Occ.
στήσαντες — 2 Occ.
στήσῃ — 1 Occ.
στήσῃς — 1 Occ.
στήσητε — 1 Occ.
στήσει — 1 Occ.
στήσονται — 1 Occ.
στῆτε — 2 Occ.
στῆθι — 3 Occ.


CONTINUED ON POST TWO OF THREE (NEXT PAGE)
CLEAR
 
Last edited:
Top