Woman of Revelation 12

[dhchristian]

4 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

The Scripture is TRUE,  no change there, in HARMONY PERFECTLY WITH ALL SCRIPTURE.

You even quoted Ephesians.

But you don't agree with all SCRITURE, not even with Ephesians that you quoted.

But your "No,"  as if it meant something,  means nothing pertaining to the topic.

Not sure what you mean by your last line, Ephesians is addressed to the saints AND the faithful in Christ Jesus. The Saints are different, Set apart from the rest. all of the verses I posted show this if you take the time and read themcarefully.

I understand that this doctrine that all who are born again are saints is so ingrained in the protestant churches, like I said I was Born a Baptist so I heard it all my life in church. But as you study scripture, you begin to realize the saints are different, and were addressed throughout the New testament as a distinct group apart from the Brethren as a whole. Take the time to do the search. You will find some verses that support what you are saying, but not all of them. We all run the race, but not all finish it in time. The thief on the cross was Born again, but he was not a saint. 

Look, I am not here to convince you, you need to be Berreans and do your own research. I am Just here to share what I have found.

[simplejeff]

40 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Not sure what you mean by your last line, Ephesians is addressed to the saints AND the faithful in Christ Jesus. The Saints are different, Set apart from the rest. all of the verses I posted show this if you take the time and read themcarefully.

Sorry, no,  you were mis-informed and are mistaken.   Whatever.   See from the Greek, Expanded New Testament:

Ephesians 1:1 ..... "to the saints, the ones who are [in Ephesus], namely, believing ones in Christ Jesus."

[simplejeff]

43 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Look, I am not here to convince you, you need to be Berreans and do your own research. I am Just here to share what I have found.

I don't know if that is good to do or not(for you to share).  From what you posted,  what you "found" is wrong,  in error, and not correct by a LONG WAY.

It perhaps is good if you learn the truth,  and correct the errors in what you "found".

[simplejeff]

48 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I understand that this doctrine that all who are born again are saints is so ingrained in the protestant churches, like I said I was Born a Baptist so I heard it all my life in church. But as you study scripture, you begin to realize the saints are different, and were addressed throughout the New testament as a distinct group apart from the Brethren as a whole. Take the time to do the search. You will find some verses that support what you are saying, but not all of them. We all run the race, but not all finish it in time. The thief on the cross was Born again, but he was not a saint. 

Perhaps the source of your learning ("who" said so?)  would help understand why these errors(OR differences?) are mixed in with some truth ?    Does some particular doctrine say such things as you posted here,  OR are you all alone in these ideas ?

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

Here are some points:  in verse 3b the man of sin IS REVEALED in Paul's argument.

Verses 6-8 tell us he cannot be revealed until the force restraining him is "taken out of the way.  Since HE IS revealed in 3b, then in 3a,  the one restraining must be "taken out of the way." This is just logic. He cannot be revealed until the restraining force is removed.

The only possible conclusion then is that some how hidden in the word apostasia is the force restraining being take out of the way.  think about it. Can sin restrain sin? Can a falling away restrain sin. Can back-slidden people restrain sin or the man of sin? 

 

It can only be one of two things in my mind: either before the "falling away" the Holy spirit was using those believers to restrain - OR before the rapture God was using believers to restrain the man of sin.  since the THEME of the passage is the gathering, it makes more sense to be that Paul's intended meaning is the rapture of the church removes the believers in whom the Holy Spirit was using to restrain. Once the rapture takes the church out of the way, the man of sin will then be revealed.

What is most sad, perhaps, is that the church is helping the enemy today, and not restraining him.

This includes the deceptive teachings about the things quoted above/ studied as if to find the truth, but the truth hidden in plain sight,  is overcome by the traditions of men. (mostly roman catholic additions to and instead of the truth in Yahuweh's Word.

It is so rare to find the truth ,  that most people relax and accept what others accept and what others teach and preach,  whether because it sounds good, tickles the ears,  or because they really don't know better,  and it 'fits' in with other false ideas (also not known to be false) being widely accepted.

To begin to get an idea of the truth,  dwell no this in prayer and more prayer with the Father and with Jesus:

The enemy is much more prominent around the world and in churches today than ever before.   This has been evident , as some other posters have noted in other threads this last week,   in the last few decades --- i.e. in our lifetimes.   The enemy is as it were being 'birthed' more and more in the world,  and soon will be fully 'birthed' as the wickednesses and evil are filled up overflowing as written in Yahuweh's Word: Scripture.

The believers trusting and relying on the Father,  will not be abandoned at any time by Yahushua Messiah, the Shepherd,  no,  not at any time.   Not even in being martyred, as many have been martyred in the last ten years,  and many more this year and in the years to come.   This is besides the arrests,  tortures, beatings, and other bad treatment Ekklesia receive from men. 

 

[dhchristian]

54 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Sorry, no,  you were mis-informed and are mistaken.   Whatever.   See from the Greek, Expanded New Testament:

Ephesians 1:1 ..... "to the saints, the ones who are [in Ephesus], namely, believing ones in Christ Jesus."

Is that a Hort and Wescott Translation, because if it is you need to throw it away. Or at the least always cross reference it. Many of your modern versions are based off of their translations, and is why you have so many alterations that lead scripture in the direction of Gnosticism. I am by no means KJV only, but it is the most accurate English translation out there.

From the Textus Receptus, as follows.

1:1  Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

Notice that the conjunction Kai is in there, unlike some verses where the translators added it to make the flow. If it was not in there it would be Italicized. Kai means And, primarily. It can mean also, even, indeed, But. Nowhere do I see the word "Namely" in there. 

 

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, simplejeff said:

Perhaps the source of your learning ("who" said so?)  would help understand why these errors(OR differences?) are mixed in with some truth ?    Does some particular doctrine say such things as you posted here,  OR are you all alone in these ideas ?

May God strike me down if I am lying, But this all comes with study of the word of God, and Prayer. No man is an Island, and there are always external influences, But I am alone on this topic of the Saints. Besides the RC church that venerates the Saints, only the church of England sees them as separate from faithful, and their doctrines are so messed up, it is not funny. The Problem is Most people in the churches are not Born of the Spirit. Here read this excerpt from A.W. Tozer.

Surely God has that to say to the pure in heart which He cannot say to the man of sinful life. But what He has to say is not theological, it is spiritual; and right there lies the weight of my argument. Spiritual truths cannot be received in the ordinary way of nature.

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

So wrote the apostle Paul to the believers at Corinth. Our Lord referred to this kind of Spirit-enlightened knowledge many times. To Him it was the fruit of a divine illumination, not contrary to but altogether beyond mere intellectual light. The fourth Gospel is full of this idea; indeed the idea is so important to the understanding of John's Gospel that anyone who denies it might as well give up trying to grasp our Lord's teachings as given by the apostle John. And the same idea is found in John's first epistle, making that epistle extremely difficult to understand but also making it one of the most beautiful and rewarding of all the epistles of the New Testament when its teachings are spiritually discerned.

The necessity for spiritual illumination before we can grasp spiritual truths is taught throughout the entire New Testament and is altogether in accord with the teachings of the Psalms, the Proverbs and the Prophets. The Old Testament Apocrypha agrees with the Scriptures here, and while the Apocryphal books are not to be received as divinely inspired, they are useful as showing how the best minds of ancient Israel thought about this matter of divine truth and how it is received into the human heart.

So the Who there is the Holy Ghost. If you must, Test the Spirit in me.... Jesus is the LORD (1 cor 12:3) He was fully man and came in the flesh, and fully God incarnate. (1 John 4:1) He was, and Is and Is to come. Like I said, Be Berreans, But do not reject what I am saying because it does not fit your framework of How end times are supposed to happen. At the very least the study will open your eyes to these things. 

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, simplejeff said:

I don't know if that is good to do or not(for you to share).  From what you posted,  what you "found" is wrong,  in error, and not correct by a LONG WAY.

It perhaps is good if you learn the truth,  and correct the errors in what you "found".

I will stick to the Word of God, and the teachings of the Holy Ghost. The following is the addendum I added to the Tozer Post Earlier, You would do well to listen to it.

Just Like everything God does, Satan mimics his ways, and offers a counterfeit spirit and counterfeit illumination to those who reject the Word of God and reject the Truth. They "see" dreams and have visions, perform miracles, cast out devils Just like one who is Born of the Holy Spirit, But they do not KNOW Jesus who is the Truth personified. All of scripture, Prophecy and doctrine without knowing Jesus and having His Spirit teaching you is like trying to read an instruction manual in a foreign language.

So When someone believes in a different Jesus, than the Jesus of the Word of God, their illumination comes from an alternate source. They may not swear allegiance to Satan, or even Believe in His existence, but they are serving him nonetheless. They may even have a form of godliness, the spirit of religion in them, But they are Serving Satan.

This is why the test of the spirit is so vital to our walk with the LORD. This is why every Apostle warned us of false teachers and false prophets. To Ignore this test and receive these false teachers is akin to letting a child molester play with your children. You would never allow this now would you?

God Bless.

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, simplejeff said:

See from the Greek, Expanded New Testament:

Yup, Hort and Wescott. 

Unbelief Dressed as Truth

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901). Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892).

In 1881 Wescott and Hort published ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek’. It is also called the ‘Westcott and Hort text’. The very title implies that any other text is based on non-original sources. Whilst it is true that they used original sources, they omitted to tell readers that those sources were considered to be corrupt, by many centuries of biblical theologians, and so were not used for the famed 1611 KJV.

A statement made by W&H seems ordinary, but it attempts to ruin trust in the 1611 KJV: “"our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.” (Westcott, Hort, ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, appendix, p282. Macmillan, 1907). This apparently congenial statement hides their hatred for the 1611 KJV. They favoured using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus documents, both loved by Rome.

The Codex Vaticanus was stored in the Vatican and was translated with errors for some centuries. The full translation did not appear until the 19^th century and so was used by W&H. “At that point scholars realised the text differed from the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus”. (S P Tregelles, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, London 1856, p. 108).

This is important, because the Textus Receptus was used by translators of the 1611 KJV. It should be noted that “The most widely sold editions of the Greek New Testament are largely based on the text of the Codex Vaticanus.” (K Aland & B Aland, Text of the New Testament, pp. 26–30). This proves the unstable and corrupt sources of all modern versions of scripture.

Most Sinaiticus sources are in a variety of places, but just over 50% of them are in the British Library. It, too, came to notice in the 19^th century, containing books not included in the original canon of scripture, and omitting certain words and phrases. In total Sinaiticus deviates from Vaticanus on 3036 occasions. The Sinaiticus was ‘corrected’ many times, so how W&H could assume its applicability, I cannot tell! It was written in the 4^th century, so was not an ‘original’ text.

Yet, W&H used these corrupt sources to devalue the 1611 KJV: “Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. The most recent is Syrian, or Byzantine text-type, of which the newest example (thus from the critical text view less reliable) is the Textus Receptus” (Wikipedia). W&H departed from the 1611 KJV ethos, depending mainly on corrupt sources only recently and contemporaneously discovered, and the work of Higher Critics.

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Yes they did, and they Got a lot of other stuff wrong or did not know the right translation of. Part of the Problem is they did not Know Hebrew properly, where as the KJV translators had help from Hebrew scholars. The language in the verse is very plain to see thst the apostasy is the falling away. Again, You are going too far using strong's and Thayer's Lexicon. And again it is because it does not fit your framework that you discard this fact, and have to explain it away as you do.

As usual, I must disagree. This is Greek, not Hebrew. "Departing" is a good translation. If there is a divorce, one part departs. the thing is, Apostasia does not tell what is being departed from. It is just a simple departing.  IN CONTEXT it is the departing of the church.  It is the theme of the entire passage.  How can one go "too far?" To really understand a compound word and how it can be used, one must understand each part of the compound word. 

How would YOU explain that in 3b the man of sin Is (as in was) revealed?  Do you understand Paul's argument?