The Restrainer.....Who....When

[Michael37]

1 minute ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi omegaman....

Yup, that's a pretty good article.

As I have said in another reply, I too believe that Michael is the Restrainer, though I'm not dogmatic about it......well, not 100%

But it does make the most sense. 

Good stuff. Thank you.

Well, I do my best...

[ShinyGospelShoes]

On 8/16/2018 at 6:13 PM, JoeCanada said:

... I too believe that Michael is the Restrainer...

Michael is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God (I did not say He was a created being, Jesus is eternal).

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Steve_S
Removed external link.

[JoeCanada]

2 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Michael is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God (I did not say He was a created being, Jesus is eternal).

See for yourself - http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=10930346204581685709

Hi shinyGS....

My oh My.....

So you believe that Michael the Archangel is Jesus?

Are you either a seventh day adventist....(or a Jehovah's  witness?)....as they both claim this

But when the archangel Michael contended with the Devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9).

Michael is one of the chief princes....

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia (Daniel 10:13).

Jesus is NEVER called the chief prince. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS" (Revelation 19:16).

Nope, never going to convince me that Michael and Jesus are the same.

One might say....."blaspheme"

 

[OldCoot]

And folks had better make sure they have that right.  If they don't, they have "another Jesus" and by extension, they are not saved.  

It is probably best to let Yeshua (Jesus) tell one who He is.   From everything I have seen in scripture, there are only 3 options on who He is.....

1) A Liar and really wasn't who He claimed to be

2) A lunatic and was deluded

3) The God of all eternity.  

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 44:6 (NKJV) “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

Revelation 22:12-13 (NKJV) “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

Revelation 2:8 (NKJV) “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:

I think that pretty much summarizes who Yeshua is.  I even took the time to look these exact verses up in the JW's New World Translation online (2013 revision) and they say the same and have not been corrupted.  So even JW's, or any others, are going to have a tough time explaining things at the judgement how they were deceived when it was staring them in the face all along.

Edited September 3, 2018 by OldCoot

[iamlamad]

On 8/15/2018 at 4:07 AM, Diaste said:

In taking a close look at the 2 Thess 2:8 fragment, "but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way." in a literal way I see the words, "Only hold fast until the emergence in the midst", or "Just wait for now until the coming into being in the middle".

I see this make sense in the context of the first 7 verses and I can see how they got, "only he who now letteth will let till he be taken out of the way" even though it's obscure, like trying to see through a dirty window.

A better way to put it in my mind would be, "The holding back will continue until the time when the holding back ceases." This is in the same context as 1-7 where it's abundantly obvious the return of the Lord and the gathering are waiting on the rebellion and the revealing of the beast.

Actually, the KJV did a fairly good job with "taken out of the way." It could also be rendered "gone from the midst." What is happening is that the force doing the restraining is moved or gone so that it is no longer restraining. 

The truth is, Paul TOLD us who the restrainer is, but did it in a way most miss. Why did he write, "and now you know" unless he had just told them? All we need to is back up verse by verse and look for something that is "gone from the midst" or "taken out of the way." 

What we can find is in verse 3: which has another clue: in 3b the man of sin IS revealed, showing is that in 3a the one restraining had to be taken out of the way. The secret is in the word, apostasia. the KJV missed it with a falling away. A better translation would be a departing. It is a compound word, with "apo" as the first. And if we study Strongs, we see that this word can mean, "a part of a whole [group] removed spatially and taken somewhere else." For example, a similar Greek word is used for divorce, where of the two people in the marriage, one leaves and goes somewhere else. 

Since the theme of the passage is the rapture of the church, it makes good sense that this was Paul's intent. 

This interpretation also agrees with Paul in 1 thes. where the church is taken out before the DAY begins.

[Michael37]

17 hours ago, iamlamad said:

What we can find is in verse 3: which has another clue: in 3b the man of sin IS revealed, showing is that in 3a the one restraining had to be taken out of the way. The secret is in the word, apostasia. the KJV missed it with a falling away. A better translation would be a departing. It is a compound word, with "apo" as the first. And if we study Strongs, we see that this word can mean, "a part of a whole [group] removed spatially and taken somewhere else." For example, a similar Greek word is used for divorce, where of the two people in the marriage, one leaves and goes somewhere else. 

Speaking of Strong's Concordance and the derivation of apostasia we have:

G868

ἀφίστημι
aphistēmi
af-is'-tay-mee
From G575 and G2476; to remove, that is, (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: - depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.
Total KJV occurrences: 15
 

and "defection from the truth" a valid meaning of apostasia.

2Th 2:3
(3)  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a defection from the truth first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

G646

ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (apostasy): - falling away, forsake.
Total KJV occurrences: 2

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Actually, the KJV did a fairly good job with "taken out of the way." It could also be rendered "gone from the midst." What is happening is that the force doing the restraining is moved or gone so that it is no longer restraining. 

The truth is, Paul TOLD us who the restrainer is, but did it in a way most miss. Why did he write, "and now you know" unless he had just told them? All we need to is back up verse by verse and look for something that is "gone from the midst" or "taken out of the way." 

What we can find is in verse 3: which has another clue: in 3b the man of sin IS revealed, showing is that in 3a the one restraining had to be taken out of the way. The secret is in the word, apostasia. the KJV missed it with a falling away. A better translation would be a departing. It is a compound word, with "apo" as the first. And if we study Strongs, we see that this word can mean, "a part of a whole [group] removed spatially and taken somewhere else." For example, a similar Greek word is used for divorce, where of the two people in the marriage, one leaves and goes somewhere else. 

Since the theme of the passage is the rapture of the church, it makes good sense that this was Paul's intent. 

This interpretation also agrees with Paul in 1 thes. where the church is taken out before the DAY begins.

We have already talked about this. I have said 2 Thess 2:1-8 speaks to the rebellion and the revealing of the beast holding back the return of Jesus and the gathering of the elect. There is no Micheal in this passage holding back anything. No Holy Spirit 'restraining'. And it certainly is not the 'church' restraining evil.

You'll see. At least I think we all will. But at the end we will know the truth, which is;

The rebellion of God's people, both Jew and Gentile, will occur with them flocking to the camp of the beast, the beast will be revealed in the rebuilt Temple at the Midpoint, and then, and only then, will our Lord Jesus be able to make His return and collect the dead in Christ and the living who remain; in the one and only gathering of it's kind anywhere in the entirety of the Word.

[iamlamad]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

We have already talked about this. I have said 2 Thess 2:1-8 speaks to the rebellion and the revealing of the beast holding back the return of Jesus and the gathering of the elect. There is no Micheal in this passage holding back anything. No Holy Spirit 'restraining'. And it certainly is not the 'church' restraining evil.

You'll see. At least I think we all will. But at the end we will know the truth, which is;

The rebellion of God's people, both Jew and Gentile, will occur with them flocking to the camp of the beast, the beast will be revealed in the rebuilt Temple at the Midpoint, and then, and only then, will our Lord Jesus be able to make His return and collect the dead in Christ and the living who remain; in the one and only gathering of it's kind anywhere in the entirety of the Word.

The problem with your theory is, the way Paul wrote it, then "rebellion" has to be what allows the man of sin to be revealed. I think it makes more sense if it is the power of God or the power or righteousness that restrains evil. 

You are right, one day soon we will all know. I will be found watching for His coming and EXPECTING Him any moment!

[iamlamad]

5 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Speaking of Strong's Concordance and the derivation of apostasia we have:

G868

ἀφίστημι
aphistēmi
af-is'-tay-mee
From G575 and G2476; to remove, that is, (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: - depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.
Total KJV occurrences: 15
 

and "defection from the truth" a valid meaning of apostasia.

2Th 2:3
(3)  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a defection from the truth first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

G646

ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (apostasy): - falling away, forsake.
Total KJV occurrences: 2

You did not go far enough. The question is, CAN this word mean something else?  It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what STrong's says about "apo:"

of separation

1. of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

2. of separation of a part from the whole

   1. where of a whole some part is taken

3. of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

4. of a state of separation, that is of distance

   1. physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES. 

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

I think Paul purposely used this word in a way that was not the normal usage of his time, and then wrote, "and now you know" so people would read it more closely. 

[Diaste]

19 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

The problem with your theory is, the way Paul wrote it, then "rebellion" has to be what allows the man of sin to be revealed. I think it makes more sense if it is the power of God or the power or righteousness that restrains evil. 

You are right, one day soon we will all know. I will be found watching for His coming and EXPECTING Him any moment!

No. Paul is saying the two events, rebellion and revealing, must occur before Jesus can return and at which time the gathering occurs.

It's the rebellion and the revealing holding back the return of Jesus, Paul tells us. The truth is the rebellion and the revealing must occur before Jesus returns, not some butchered scenario from the mouths of wolves expecting an early exit, unsupported by Holy writ.