2Thessalonians2:6-7 explained

[post]

3 hours ago, douggg said:

Each group took one section, working on one book at a time.

First, each translator made his own translation of the book, which was reviewed by each other member of the group. Then the whole group reviewed the book. When they all agreed on the translation, they sent it to the other five groups for evaluation. Those groups then returned it to the original committee, marking anything they disagreed with. The original group would then go over the book again.

so just as i said was probably the case, at least one man in the group assigned to 2 Thessalonians liked to use the word "letteth" to mean restrains. of course no one disagreed or found any problem with this, because that was exactly the common usage of the day and no one at that time, hundreds of years ago, would even dream that it could be misunderstood. the immediate context of verse 6 provides more than ample persuasion for anyone reading it - anyone familiar with the common usage of English 4 to 5 centuries ago - to understand completely without hesitation that the word meant "restrain" not "allow."

no one would have disagreed. no one would have thought it was strange. there is abundant extra-Biblical source material that shows conclusively that this is exactly how the word was used in everyday speech. "let" can mean "keep" or "restrain." 

the translators let us all know in the preface that they determined to vary the words they used. they wanted to diversify the words. so they had no reason to disagree with using "letteth" instead of "withholdeth" twice, as the existing Geneva Bible did, and they had an express predilection for changing the wording of the Geneva Bible so that they would be using two different English words for the same Greek word, instead of just using the same word twice.
they would not have disagreed, and they would have purposefully changed the wording to include variety in the English that wasn't present in the Greek. 



the only problem here is that you are reading an archaic form of the language with an incomplete understanding of how the language was used 400 years ago. 

please don't let a cultic idolization of the KJV tempt you to deny and ignore the actual scripture which is written in Greek, not English, and leaves no room for doubt or argument at all as to what the proper meaning of the word is. 


this kind of thing is exactly the reason that modern English translations were made, and it really highlights the need for them.
((in addition to fixing errors in the old KJV -- because it's not error free))

 . .  and willfully blinding yourself to the truth of the matter, retaining an incorrect understanding of the Bible simply for the sake of 'remaining true' to the KJV, is exactly the sort of reason why people call 'KJV-only-ism" a cult. the irony in this case though, is that the KJV isn't 'wrong' here; it's just that it's archaic, and you're being confused by an old, unfamiliar word usage.
so it's not so much KJV-only-ism as it is doug's-interpretation-of-only-KJV-only-ism ! 

 

[post]

one more snippet from the 1611 preface ((full text found here)) :

For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? 

[douggg]

2 hours ago, post said:

it is conclusively established that 2 Thessalonians 2:7 agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:6 -- there is a "restrainer" who "restrains" the Evil One until the proper time for that restrainer to be taken out of the way, and that lawless one to be revealed. the Lord Himself will at that time destroy him with the brightness of His coming. 

You are creating a title that is not in the bible.   What is in the KJV bible for verse 7 is the pronoun "he".    "he" refers to the person directly - who has no biblical title - the restrainer.    What is in the HCSB compromise bible is also the pronoun "he".    No "the restrainer" in the text.

You wrote: above is verse 6. they all say "τὸ κατέχον" -- the restrainer.

From wikipedia -  τὸ κατέχον, "that which withholds"       The kjv translates it "what withholdeth"      No "the restrainer".

The man of sin person can't just show up at any time of history he wants - that he has to be restrained.     What is being "let" is the mystery of iniquity at work in the meantime.   And when the world has reached the time of when all of the end times prophecies are lined up like Gog/Magog having taken place, and the Jews having received the person as their messiah,  as the King of Israel with Israel existing again - then Jesus will "let" the person the man of sin commit the act of going into the temple and claim to be God.     But not before the rapture of the church, the believers.    The KJV has it right.

The notion that the man of sin has to be restrained by the created  "the restrainer" titled person from  showing up whenever he wants in history, and committing the transgression of desolation,  disregards all of the other end times prophecies in the bible associated with and prelude to it.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, douggg said:

You are creating a title that is not in the bible.   What is in the KJV bible for verse 7 is the pronoun "he".    "he" refers to the person directly - who has no biblical title - the restrainer.    What is in the HCSB compromise bible is also the pronoun "he".    No "the restrainer" in the text.

You wrote: above is verse 6. they all say "τὸ κατέχον" -- the restrainer.

From wikipedia -  τὸ κατέχον, "that which withholds"       The kjv translates it "what withholdeth"      No "the restrainer".

The man of sin person can't just show up at any time of history he wants - that he has to be restrained.     What is being "let" is the mystery of iniquity at work in the meantime.   And when the world has reached the time of when all of the end times prophecies are lined up like Gog/Magog having taken place, and the Jews having received the person as their messiah,  as the King of Israel with Israel existing again - then Jesus will "let" the person the man of sin commit the act of going into the temple and claim to be God.     But not before the rapture of the church, the believers.    The KJV has it right.

The notion that the man of sin has to be restrained by the created  "the restrainer" titled person from  showing up whenever he wants in history, and committing the transgression of desolation,  disregards all of the other end times prophecies in the bible associated with and prelude to it.

I don't see a problem with this all co-inciding simultaneously.

For example, when the antichrist comes to power amid signs and wonders and deceives the world, isn't this the same moment as the beast coming to power as in Rev 13 amid signs and wonders and deceiving the world? I think so. When the beast comes to power, he only has this authority for 42 months, and this authority ends when the beast is destroyed (Rev 19) at the second coming.

It doesn't really matter what English word you use, some entity will "let" or "allow" the antichrist to remain secret. This entity will "withhold" or "restrain" the revealing of the antichrist. All four words work pretty well. The important thing to realise is the context of 2 Thess 2 is a contrast between the secret being kept, and then the sudden exposure/revealing. This occurs exactly 3.5 years before the second coming.

I believe there is no coincidence that in Rev 12, at the same moment of just 3.5 years left; Satan is forcibly removed from the midst of his heavenly position and exposes himself with the fullness of his wrath on earth. Surely it is Satan himself who is keeping the identity of the antichrist secret? The victory of the gospel overcomes Satan and he is forcibly removed to earth. He is exposed along with the antichrist, who is revealed. 

[BlindSeeker]

15 hours ago, douggg said:

Did you not copy and paste that document from a website of yours?

Yes, it is on my website, but it was edited some for before posting here. I had more scriptures with it which are only alluded to here.

15 hours ago, douggg said:

What was your reason for you originally writing the document you presented ? 

To address scriptural reason as to why Paul would have been intentionaly vague in his mentioning this subject in his open epistle to the Thessalonians.

15 hours ago, douggg said:

 Overall what were you trying to convey?

What it was that "letteth," or however whatever translation whoever is using states it...

[douggg]

11 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said:

To address scriptural reason as to why Paul would have been intentionaly vague in his mentioning this subject in his open epistle to the Thessalonians.

Okay.   So, without reading your document again, you are going through some reasons - why Paul in 2thessalonians2:7 just didn't come right out and say who the "he" was in that verse ?       And then drawing your conclusions what Paul was referring to ?

It could be just me, but I had a hard time following your rationale, because I couldn't tell where you were heading, and the material you presented to me was wandering.     I couldn't figure out if you were trying to criticize the Papacy, or the reformers.    And just when I thought you were saying the prostestants overlooked some books by Catholics on the Antichrist, seemingly to me that you were trying to vindicate the Catholic church - you then say "Rome" is what Paul was referring to..... and I still don't know what you meant by "Rome".     To me, the document is just so confusing.     I can't figure it out.

[BlindSeeker]

5 minutes ago, douggg said:

Okay.   So, without reading your document again, you are going through some reasons - why Paul in 2thessalonians2:7 just didn't come right out and say who the "he" was in that verse ?       And then drawing your conclusions what Paul was referring to ?

It could be just me, but I had a hard time following your rationale, because I couldn't tell where you were heading, and the material you presented to me was wandering.     I couldn't figure out if you were trying to criticize the Papacy, or the reformers.    And just when I thought you were saying the prostestants overlooked some books by Catholics on the Antichrist, seemingly to me that you were trying to vindicate the Catholic church - you then say "Rome" is what Paul was referring to..... and I still don't know what you meant by "Rome".     To me, the document is just so confusing.     I can't figure it out.

You don't know what Rome was?

[BlindSeeker]

8 hours ago, douggg said:

Okay.   So, without reading your document again, you are going through some reasons - why Paul in 2thessalonians2:7 just didn't come right out and say who the "he" was in that verse ?       And then drawing your conclusions what Paul was referring to ?

It could be just me, but I had a hard time following your rationale, because I couldn't tell where you were heading, and the material you presented to me was wandering.     I couldn't figure out if you were trying to criticize the Papacy, or the reformers.    And just when I thought you were saying the prostestants overlooked some books by Catholics on the Antichrist, seemingly to me that you were trying to vindicate the Catholic church - you then say "Rome" is what Paul was referring to..... and I still don't know what you meant by "Rome".     To me, the document is just so confusing.     I can't figure it out.

OK Douggg, I had some time tonight, so let's see if I can't walk you through it all. Even though I know you don't want to read it all again and would like me just to tweet it here in 140 characters of less for you, but it really is a bit beyond that. So if you really want to understand, then follow along and I will take you through it piece by piece.

Quote

II Thessalonians 2:5 - 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.

Paul’s manner of writing here should make every believer ask the question, "Why didn’t Paul just articulate these things again in more detail in his epistle?" With a matter of such great importance, what could be his reason for not putting forth a clear and coherent teaching on this apostasy which the Holy Spirit had revealed to him was going to take place? Especially when Paul’s normal pattern in his epistles was to be very meticulous and thorough when presenting to the saints the oracles of God; yet here he goes no further than to write to them “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?”

It is evident Paul felt it was wisdom to trust the Holy Spirit to help them recall these pertinent things, for he continues with “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.” Hence it seems evident that the Apostle Paul under the unction of the Holy Spirit was writing with great carefulness and was unwilling to formally document those things which he had communicated to them in person.

Our curiosity about why Paul stated things the way he did should be even more heighten when we consider that in those days, delivering a letter was considerably costlier, laborious, and time-consuming than merely writing one; especially compared to the ease of email correspondence nowadays. So it wouldn’t have been prudent for Paul to be so vague in his letter unless it was intentional.

Also, note that it is only here in II Thessalonians 2:5 that Paul is found imploring his readers to “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things,” which makes a clear departure from Paul’s normal manner of wholly giving himself to clearly define “these things” whether in person or letter. Therefore, Paul had to believe there was more wisdom in being vague and petitioning them to recall, than there was in establishing an official document outlining “these things" with Silvanus, Timothy and his name being attached to it.

His comment concerning “when I was yet with you,” makes it obvious he was confident they would recall what he had taught them in private and “know what withholdeth.” For though Paul openly preached to the Jews and Gentiles alike that Jesus was the Christ, there were some things he knew should only be taught to those who by their rebirth and salvation had a firm foundation of faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and therefore were able to be entrusted with some "meat" from God’s word.

1.    All the above is to show the reader that the way Paul stated verses 5 and 6 was intentionally vague and distinctly different from Paul’s normal manner of addressing such things in his other epistles.

Quote

Consequently, as evident even here in this thread, because of Paul’s elusiveness in II Thessalonians 2:5-7, there has been a diversity of interpretations concerning “what” it was that “withholdeth” and "who" the “he” might be “who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” For most of what is being taught and believed nowadays is contrary to what was almost a unanimous consensus of thought among protestant believers. Because for centuries most Protestants believed this “man of sin… son of perdition” Paul speaks of in the epistle refers to the position of the papacy, or the succession of popes of Roman Catholicism.

 

2.   This is to alert the reader that due to the vagueness of verses 5 and 6, it has given way in the last 100+ years to numerous theories that depart from what nearly a universal Protestant understanding of the subject matter of verses 7 and 8.

Why?

Quote

2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

What many believers nowadays are ignorant of is that this theology which is being widely taught and accepted by non-Catholics concerning the antichrist rebuilding the temple and becoming a world leader was originally taught by a French monk known as Adso of Montier-en-Der who died in 992 A.D. Though a prolific writer of poems, hymns, and biographies of the lives of saints, Adso’s most famous work was his “Letter to Queen Gerberga on the Place and Time of Antichrist,” which became known as the “Little Book on the Antichrist.”

However, this theology which was so articulated over a thousand years ago by a Catholic monk, was rejected by essentially every protestant commentator who sought to defend the truth with their pen. For they acknowledged Paul’s speaking in II Thessalonians 2:3 of “a falling away first” as being the rise of Roman Catholicism, and “that man of sin… the son of perdition” as the succession of popes.

3.    The above part of the article is inform the reader where the popular theology of today came from, the one that most “Protestant Christians” hold to today; and to show how the church has abandoned the perspective of earlier Protestant church fathers for that birth within the very ranks of that which they were protesting. Do you find that odd?

Quote

Polycarp’s use of the term “antichrist” agrees with the Apostle John who does not reference a single antichrist, but rather a class of people functioning under a spirit of antichrist.  In the second century, Polycarp, deemed to be an apostolic father, in his Letter to the Philippians, paragraph 7, warned the Philippians that everyone who preached false doctrine was an antichrist.

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

4.    This above part is to remind the reader that the early church fathers recognized that the Apostle John spoke of a “spirit of antichrist” as well as “many antichrists.” Not just one antichrist. 

     I find it interesting that almost everyone holding to this contemporary and popular endtime antichrist world figure is either ignorant or ignores the fact that John, who coined the phrase “antichristos,” or “antichrist,” never used the phrase in the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Ever wondered why that is Douggg? Can you think of a good answer for why the Holy Spirit who inspired him with the word in his 1st epistle didn't lead him to use it in the Book of Revelation?

Quote

Nowadays, the two most popular theories being promoted about “what” it was that “withholdeth” and "who" the “he” might be “who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way” are the rapture of the church, or, the removal of the Holy Spirit of God from the world in the last days before the rise of an antichrist figure.

5.    This is just a brief summary of the “two most popular theories” being held to by modern Christians. Pretty clear this one…

Quote

First, it must be noted that while the Apostle Paul was a preacher of righteousness who was given revelations and vision, he did not preach solely from the position of his authority as an apostle. Rather it was always Paul’s habit to utilize the sure word of prophecy as his greatest resource to persuade others of the truth of the Gospel. For Paul knew if his message was in agreement with the prophets, then on the authority of that which was “written,” he had a solid foundation whereby he could persuade men that his message was worthy of their consideration.

Romans 16:25 - Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:  27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.

Ephesians 2:19 - Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

It is estimated that Paul quoted, referenced, or made clear inference to the Law and the Prophets approximately 268 times in his known epistles. His position regarding the surety of scripture is made further evident by his acknowledgement to Timothy “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” and reminding Timothy that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

6.    The above is to remind the reader, that even though Paul was given visions and revelations, he nevertheless primarily preached from the scriptures. Therefore, what he told the Thessalonians when he was with them would have had scriptural foundation, like the Book of Daniel...

Quote

Paul wrote to the Corinthians “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Likewise, he wrote to the Thessalonians that they too “became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore, when he told them to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” he did so because it was his own conviction that as a believer he too must prove all things by the scriptures. The reason I stress these things is to make the point that “what withholdeth” was something that Paul could have taught to the Church of Thessalonica from either the Law or the Prophets. This is confirmed to us by Luke’s record in the Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 17:1 - Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Having presented scriptural evidence confirming Paul’s method of revealing “the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and [was] by the scriptures of the prophets,” let us go on to the second point and examine those aforementioned “critical details concerning those events which occurred while he was in Thessalonica.”

Acts 17:4 - And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. 6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; 7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. 8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.  9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

7.    The above is just further proof that not only did Paul always preach Christ, he taught the church concerning the things that were soon to come to past, and what laid ahead for the church in the ages to come, as well as the judgement upon Israel and up to the last trump and the resurrection of the dead. And he did so from the OT scriptures which he assured us are able to make us wise unto the salvation we have in Christ Jesus. Plus, in Paul’s exhortation to us he tells us that we too must prove everything scripturally if we are to avoid being led astray or succumb to unfounded deductions that have no solid scriptural/historical bases.

Quote

What should be gleaned from the above passages is that Paul reasoned the scriptures for three Sabbaths with the Jews and certain “devout Greeks,” or converts who already believed in the God of the Jews. However, in Paul’s first epistle we learn that many within this “great multitude of Greeks” in Thessalonica were still in their pagan idolatry before they heard Paul’s Gospel and came to an acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ.

Based upon Paul’s account in his first epistle, it would seem Silvanus, Timothy and him were in Thessalonica much longer than just the three Sabbaths mentioned by Luke, for he used the time not only to win many of the Greeks to the Lord, but also the time to teach them tenets of the faith that would enable them to endure the “much affliction" he speaks of "with joy of the Holy Ghost.” He further spoke of how they had become “ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia, for from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak anything.” That is quite an endorsement of their well-established faith.

Likewise, Paul’s mention of their “work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope” is a further indication that Paul and Silas continued to minister to the Gentiles after their turning from “the Jews which believed not.” For Paul writes how they all “became followers of us, and of the Lord” and in so doing had “received the word in much affliction,” and yet still possessed “patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Therefore, this all would seem to indicate that the duration of their stay was sufficient to not only lay the foundation of Jesus as the Christ in their lives, but to also teach them many other things that were foretold by the prophets. For now knowing these things and having faith, they were waiting “for his Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”

8.    The above clearly shows how Paul's teaching the Thessalonians sound doctrine was evident by their becoming sound in the faith and abounding in their “work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope.” For correctly preaching the truth changes people and makes them partakers of the divine nature; and doesn’t merely make them “theologians.”

Quote

However, one must not fail to give attention to those details recorded by Luke about the “Jews which believed not, [and ] moved with envy, [and ] took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.” This was no small commotion, for they “drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city,” and made charges against Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus; that these whom Jason had received “that have turned the world upside down are come hither also… and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.”

These are not minor complaints, for these are accusations of treason against Caesar and Rome. Hence “they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things and when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.” This means Jason was required to give money as a security, or bond, before they would let him go. Understanding the seriousness with which Rome dealt with those who were seditious and traitors against Caesar, a penalty of certain death, “the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea.”

Plus, before their going to Thessalonica, Paul and Silas had been in Philippi where they had been beaten and accused of going against the customs of Rome there as well.

Acts 16:20 - And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21 And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. 22 And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

9.    The part above reveals the historic scriptural setting in both Philippi and Thessalonica from which Paul and Silas were obligated to flee for their lives because of the hostility, and nature of the seriousness charges being laid against them. For these things may very well have profund bearing on why Paul was so vague and careful about what he wrote concerning those things he had clearly stated to them in person.

Quote

Thus, it is both understandable and unmistakable that the brethren had greatly feared for the lives of Paul and Silas and were greatly desirous to deliver them from any danger that might befall them based upon these new accusations. And yet, with reasonable confidence we can be sure their apprehension was not based solely upon the events in Philippi or a few Thessalonian “Jews which believed not” and those “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort.” For from both Paul’s epistle and Luke’s account in the Acts of the Apostles we can safely conclude they understood that there were many things on the horizon which were soon going to transpire concerning God’s judgment upon Israel. All this obviously being part of that to which he was referring by saying “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” It would in addition seem safe to conclude that Paul would have obviously articulated to them much of what he may have learned from Luke and others concerning what Jesus Christ had taught concerning the aforementioned “wrath to come.”

Luke 19:43 - For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

10.    Again, showing the concern of the brethren, as well as things we have scriptural leeway to conclude Paul would have been preaching to the Thessalonians as a "word in due season," Prophetic words which would have been in perfect harmony with the very words of Jesus Christ spoke concerning Israel and that generation.

Quote

However, Paul would have reinforced these words of Jesus with what was already written by the prophets when ministering to the Jews and devout Greeks which believed. Below are passages which very likely would have been addressed by Paul.

Deuteronomy 28:49 - The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; 50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young: 52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Isaiah 29:13 - Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Jeremiah 26:18 - Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.

Micah 3:8 - But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin. 9 Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. 10 They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. 11 The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us. 12 Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

Now please take careful note of the following two passages. For again, in Acts chapter 13, we find Paul speaking using Habakkuk’s prophecy to warn the men of Israel of the “wrath to come.”

Habakkuk 1:5 - Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. 6 For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs. 7 They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.

Acts 13:16 - Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience… 40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; 41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Quoting Habakkuk, Paul rebuked the Jews for being “despisers” of God’s word which was now being revealed to them through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore he warned them, that they were going to perish just as those Jews did when the Chaldeans first destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Yet we know from history that the coming destruction of which Paul was warning them was not going to be by the Chaldeans this time: rather Rome was going to be the instrument of God’s wrath whereby once more Zion was going to “be plowed as a field” and Jerusalem again destined to “become heaps.”

11.    Simply further verification Paul ministered from extensiveely the scripture which also foretold the things spoken by Jesus Christ; and therefore by the authority of the scriptures Paul too warned the Jews that destruction was soon coming to Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple.

Quote

Paul would have easily been able to preach to the brethren at Thessalonica that after “the wrath to come” of God judging the Jews, that Rome too in time, like the three empires before it, would fall.

12.    Plus, as God judge Babylon and brought that empire to its end, so to could/would have Paul preached from scripture the fall of Rome after the destruction of the nation of Israel.

Quote

So let’s look at what has been discuss so far-

1. Paul and Silas were accused, beaten, and thrown in jail in Philippi for teaching customs which are not lawful to receive, neither to observe for the Romans.

2. Shortly after Paul and Silas go to Thessalonica, only to have to flee because a strong accusation was asserted that “Jason and those he had received [Paul and Silas], were doing things that were contrary to the decrees of Caesar, and saying that there is another king, one Jesus.” These charges asserted treason and seditious activity, crimes which carried the penalty of death in Rome.

3. It is evident Paul preached on the “wrath to come” which easily can be seen to be in agreement with Jesus’ prophecy concerning Jerusalem and Israel.

4. That Paul could have easily taught the Thessalonians concerning the fall of Rome according to scripture is sufficient enough cause to believe that he did so. Thus, Paul is seen in Acts quoting Habakkuk while in Antioch earlier before his coming to Thessalonica to the Jews, confirming to them the destruction that was coming to Jerusalem.

13. The above was just a summary of the things covered already… Still with me Douggg? (Not that I expect you to be agreeing, just following.) 

Quote

Now add to that how historically it can also be seen exactly how both Constantine’s alleged conversion to Christianity and the eventual fall of Rome literally gave way to the Rise of Roman Catholicism and the Papacy.

Through these points it becomes evident why those Christians, who were mercilessly persecuted for centuries for clinging to their faith in Christ Jesus for refusing to acknowledge as legitimate the usurped authority of Catholicism and the Papacy, had universally considered the profane institution of Rome to be the “great apostasy” and wholeheartedly viewed the position of the papacy as “that man of sin [which would ] be revealed, the son of perdition."

14. As history bears record, the above shows how the fall of Rome (the empire) gave way to the rise of Roman Catholicism and the rise of the “man of sin, son of perdition.” 

Quote

In this light, it should be easy to see why it was wisdom for Paul to be elusive and not to write in his Epistle to the Thessalonians that Rome was going to have to fall first in order to make way for this great apostasy and the son of perdition. Furthermore, the phrase “son of perdition” is only used twice in scripture, once by Jesus in reference to Judas who ended up being a false apostle, and here again used by Paul in reference to the Papacy which by Catholicism is said to be overseen by a continuation of apostles now referred to as popes. However, in the eyes of true Protestants, the popes have all been false apostles and betrayers of truth just as surely as Judas was. So perhaps all this lends us cause to understand Paul this way...

II Thessalonians 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; 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? [How that God will judge His people, and afterwards will likewise judge those nations whereby He chastised those who are called by His name, causing those nations to fall?] 6 And now ye know what withholdeth [Rome] that he [the false apostle] might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he [Rome] who now letteth will let [prevent his rise ], until he [Rome] be taken out of the way [falls]. 8 And then shall that Wicked [lawless one] 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.

15.  Just a simple review with some text added in square brackets indicating my insertion of thought to help the reader see the plausible intent of Paul in the passage being discussed in this thread.

However Douggg, even though I stated “In this light, it should be easy to see why it was wisdom for Paul to be elusive and not to write in his Epistle to the Thessalonians that Rome was going to have to fall first in order to make way for this great apostasy and the son of perdition,” I do understand many people today have a very difficult time following a multipoint, developing line of thought to its conclusion.

Which, just once more, is basically that had such Paul's epistle been intercepted and delivered into the hands of Romans with him clearly stating Rome (the empire) must fall before the rise of the man of sin/son of perdition," well, it would have been all over for Paul. For he would have been charged with treason and therefore killed for preaching and conspiring the fall of Rome (the empire)...

Got it?
 

 

[ghtan]

On 5/23/2016 at 11:16 AM, douggg said:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The he who now letteth is Jesus

The he who will let is Jesus

The he to be taken out of the way is Jesus - not himself  - but that which being the body of Christ, the believers, i.e the rapture of the church.

 

It seems to me that to support your thesis you need to show at least one passage where Paul unequivocally refers to the church as 'Jesus' or 'Christ' and not its usual long-form 'the body of Christ'? Is there such a passage?

[douggg]

5 minutes ago, ghtan said:

It seems to me that to support your thesis you need to show at least one passage where Paul unequivocally refers to the church as 'Jesus' or 'Christ' and not its usual long-form 'the body of Christ'? Is there such a passage?

 

I think I would look at 1Corinthians12:12-27.   Paul wrote that letter.

12  For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.