Ginomai

[Hidden In Him]

5 minutes ago, Diaste said:

So what leads you to use 'remains' in verse 6?

He's referring to what still needs to occur. By the words, "Do you not remember that when I was with you I was telling you these things?" Paul is referring in all likelihood to having taught them Matthew 24, much of which was already coming to pass. What remained was for the man of lawlessness to be revealed, which is also discussed in the same discourse.

9 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Verse 6 would read, "And now you know it yet remains for Jesus to be revealed in His own time." That's good.

No. I think "it yet remains for him to be revealed" is in reference to the Antichrist.

  

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, Hidden In Him said:

No. I think "it yet remains for him to be revealed" is in reference to the Antichrist.

  

Have you considered this idea is not in keeping with the thesis of 2 Thess 2:1-7? This short passage is all about timing and order of the coming of the Lord and the gathering of the elect.

Paul begins with this. It's abundantly clear this is not about the beast's arrival but the Lord's.  Paul says as much in v 3, "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,". In this verse we see an impediment to the Day of Christ and the gathering; the apostasy and the appearance of the man-god. The former comes after the latter and in essence Paul says, "Apostasy and the man-god withhold the Coming of our Lord.", iterated in verse 6.

Since the purpose of the passage is to assure the brethren the day has not come, with facts about when the day will come, so they understand what conditions will exist before the day comes; Paul certainly did not switch mid-concept to the revealing of the beast when the Coming of Jesus is the thesis. 

I also think 'remains' is not appropriate. Even if it is a viable form it does not fit the concepts.  

[Hidden In Him]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Have you considered this idea is not in keeping with the thesis of 2 Thess 2:1-7? This short passage is all about timing and order of the coming of the Lord and the gathering of the elect.

Paul begins with this. It's abundantly clear this is not about the beast's arrival but the Lord's.  Paul says as much in v 3, "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,". In this verse we see an impediment to the Day of Christ and the gathering; the apostasy and the appearance of the man-god. The former comes after the latter and in essence Paul says, "Apostasy and the man-god withhold the Coming of our Lord.", iterated in verse 6.

Since the purpose of the passage is to assure the brethren the day has not come, with facts about when the day will come, so they understand what conditions will exist before the day comes; Paul certainly did not switch mid-concept to the revealing of the beast when the Coming of Jesus is the thesis. 

I also think 'remains' is not appropriate. Even if it is a viable form it does not fit the concepts.  

Well that's ok. We appear to both be locked into our own interpretations on this passage. I think everything you are saying here is indeed inherent in the text. Our disagreement is simply with what this particular use of ginomai is in reference to. I place this passage in a very "up to the minute" present context because Paul is using present tense in v.11 in the better texts, and it refers to things that were already happening at the time, meaning he was referencing fulfillments of Matthew 24 already taking place, making the focus simply on all that remained now (the things you are talking about; the apostasy and the Antichrist's appearing).

Anyway, just thought I'd run it by you.

God bless!

Hidden 

[Adstar]

On 5/5/2018 at 11:48 PM, Aryeh said:

Here are two passages from the New Testament. In both cases we are dealing with a wrong translation. It is interesting that such a wrong translation, at least in the English and Russian Bible. Who tried so hard?

The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath. (Revelation 16:19 –  NASB)

And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
(Revelation 16:19 –  KJV)

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. (2 Thessalonians 2:7  –  NASB)

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let,] until he be taken out of the way. (2 Thessalonians 2:7  –  KJV)

Strong – 1096:

ginomai <1096>

Definition:

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made

In both cases, Holy Scripture refers to the same event: the birth of the unity of saints in Jesus Christ, the gathering of Christians who left the "Babylon" of Christian religions after the completion of the construction of the Third Temple in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel.

This is the appearance of Heavenly Jerusalem on the land of Israel.

Attention! Here is the corrected translation:

The great city was arise in three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath. (Revelation 16:19)

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains so until he  is born out of the midst. (2 Thessalonians 2:7)

 

 

 

You have placed your trust in the ""gospel??"" of Strongs  and have declared it to be the infallable Word of God which is to judge all Bibles and declare them to be unholy..

So be it..

Let each person trust in whom they shall trust..

 

Out of curiosity do you know the infallable Apostles who produced Strongs ?

[Diaste]

On 5/11/2018 at 7:22 AM, Adstar said:

You have placed your trust in the ""gospel??"" of Strongs  and have declared it to be the infallable Word of God which is to judge all Bibles and declare them to be unholy..

So be it..

Let each person trust in whom they shall trust..

 

Out of curiosity do you know the infallable Apostles who produced Strongs ?

Strong's is just a catalog. The Greek dictionary that appears with the catalog is just a dictionary. Are dictionaries and catalogs of Satan?