The Restrainer

[brakelite]

Now, you all tell me that satan has not been loosed!
Take a look at these two films of New York city.
Now make the comparison of all that you see, to today, being only 223 years later.

New York film-1896-1901: New York film-1896-1901 - YouTube
.
New York film-1911: New York film-1911 - YouTube

Sorry to mention this, but from 1896 to 2019 is only 123 years. An even shorter time...although I still disagree that such is a sign Satan has been recently been loosed. Satan was well and truly active throughout the past 2000 years, as the evils and persecutions of the dark ages blaringly attest.

 

[brakelite]

@Naomi25 LOL Puppies do tend to have that effect on a household.

 

[Naomi25]

The truth is that the Bible doesn't say what Paul told the Thess., so the only evidence we have to go on is historic evidence. Josephus, who wasn't even an ECF, is many times referred to for support of Biblical positions - are you saying we should now disregard what he has to say, or do you think a Jew who rejected Jesus as Messiah is a more reliable source than the ECFs?

I think the key word in all this would be "support". We can use these things to 'support' biblical texts...but if the bible is silent on a particular issue, we must not pick something up from history and declare it to be biblically sound.
It's a pretty easy distinction...the bible was inspired. Therefore everything in it is to be trusted. Everything else was written by men. As we have daily proof in our media and social media...men lie...for a multitude of reasons. Even Christian men who mean the best and have the best intentions, can interpret things differently. This board is another example of how many different interpretations there can be. All would claim a love of Christ and of God's word. But their reading and understanding of it?? And so even just saying that ECF's had written something....interesting..yes. Weighty? Yes. Inspired? No.

"And now ye know what withholdeth..." That's about as outright as it gets.

Not sure of your point. MY point was that DESPITE them knowing, it is still not written in scripture.

Post #23 - England's greatest prophecy teacher whose scholarship is unsurpassed, H. Grattan Guiness. Skip to point 5. Also, here are excerpts of ECFs writing which modern prophecy teachers totally censure as if they don't exist because they destroy modern accepted ideas about a future Antichrist...y'know, much like evolutionists hide the overwhelming supporting evidence for a young Earth Biblical creation for the same reason:

Okay. So...I don't say that it is NOT very interesting that all these men view the Roman Empire in this light. However, there are certain questions that I feel must be asked, as there seems to be certain dots that are not connecting;
First...while they all seem to think it 'obvious' that the Roman Empire be the 'restraining' force, not one of them actually states outright that this idea has been passed down through the Church as a teaching from Paul.
Secondly, when reading about Tertullian's beliefs, we can see that he believes that 2 Thess 2 is also talking about a final Antichrist that Christ himself will defeat at his coming. This becomes a little problematic if we are to understand this happens 'when the Roman Empire falls'. The same problem comes when we read on the page you linked to about Chrysostom. He says, on his commentary on 2 Thess 2, that "as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans, so will this be by antichrist’, and he by Christ.”
He clearly sees that the events come one after the other as domino events. Again, this raises questions. The sort that can perhaps be answered by this: one reaccuring theme seems to pop up again and again when we read the 'big' writers of Churchdom. A number of them seemed to believe they were living within the terminal generation. It's quite fascinating, really, when you read about it. From the expectation within scripture that Paul gives that he himself could be present when Christ returns, to Martin Luther, to now...not all of them could (and obviously were not) right. And yet...that biblical expectation seems to prime us....

So....I suppose my tendandcy is to come down on this side: these men you have quoted have other doctrinal issues that many of us disagree with; clearly they are not infalible in all regards. They don't seem to say outright this was an Apostolic teaching. They seem to mistakenly assume that the Roman Empire MUST be the restrainer, because who else could it be and as soon as it's gone the FINAL AC will emerge for Christ to slay at his return (which clearly didn't happen).

Now...sure...I'm interested in what you have to say in regards to the question of...how does the timeline issue add up...how can it be they these men can insist that the RE can be the restrainer IF when it falls the FINAL AC is to emerge (as per 2 Thess 2), which we know to be an eschatological event as Christ slays this person AT his return.

Exactly! It is just makes plain sense that if the Restrainer was an agent of holiness, there's no way Paul would've kept silent about it and if the Restrainer is Pagan Rome, this is precisely why Paul refused to put that in writing.

Well...I'm afraid that does't make much sense to me! Paul could have any number of reasons for not stating outright, either way. And, had he wanted to refer to to Rome but not outrightly, he could still have done it in many different ways as well. He could have refered to it as the 'current earthly power', or, as Peter did, Babylon.
Pretty much...you're assuming. You're assuming WHY Paul left it out, and doing so because you want it to fit your theory. I don't blame you, as we all tend to. But the passage doesn't mention anything regarding Rome. It mentions the fact that when this restrainer is remover the AC will arise who Christ will kill with the breath of his mouth. Now...while I admit there are possible paths around it, it seems rather evident that the clearest reading of that is that it is speaking of a time just before Christ's return.

I said no such thing. What I said was if the Restrainer was an agent of holiness, Paul missed a monumental opportunity to encourage them about that particular issue.

Well... I suppose that depends on how you look at it! As you see it as NOT an agent of holiness, then no...I suppose you are saying Paul didn't miss the opportunity.
But...from my point of view...the one where you are kind of making a huge assumption...then, well...yes...you are also sort of assuming that the Church was not encouraged!!

 

[Naomi25]

Of course we know! If it was a good guy, there's no way Paul - as demonstrated by his never failing courage to declare the goodness and power of God before kings and commoners in Scripture - would have failed to declare it to the Thess. So, the Restrainer had to have been Pagan Rome as the unanimous testimony of the ECFs claims, and the reason Paul didn't write, "Hey guys, when the Roman Empire falls, the Man of Sin is going to arise" is because if the Romans got hold of that letter, they would saddle up and go forth to make Christians everywhere all dead.

Well...hang on, you've just made an interesting point about Paul. We DO know himto be fearless in his proclamation of the gospel andthe things of God. And yet...one of your main arguments for the reason of Paul NOT mentioning who the restrainer is in his epistle, is that he fears being arrested by Rome.

Naomi, do you not understand that much of what the early church taught was spread by word of mouth, that they were careful to be precise so as not to "add to or take away", and that what Paul told the early church about the Restrainer was spread abroad in the same careful, detailed manner as was the truths about Christ? The reason the ECFs interpreted Scripture the way they did is because that was the prevailing wisdom of the day. How else to you account for such unanimity?

Yes, I understand it was spread by word of mouth...but I also understand how things that spread by word of mouth have a tendancy to change, fraction by fraction, as they go. Have you never heard of the game "chinese whispers" (it's probably considered racist to call it now, but regardless that's what it was always called when I was growing up). The simplest and easiest message, passed on from person to person, would end up twisted and distorted. Not by malice or deliberate deception, but by misunderstanding and miscommunication and differring understandings.
Thus, while it remains interesting that many of the ECF held similar views, it still does not count as infalible witness.

Can you name one such false teaching that was unanimously held by every ECF? Of course you can't. And yet, you are suggesting that people who lived ALMOST TWO THOUSAND YEARS after the fact are somehow in a more favorable position to comment on what the early church believed about the identity of the Restrainer, when we have the testimony of those who lived way back close to the time when Paul was telling the early church who it was?

'Every' Church father? Certainly, you have named many, but...hardly 'every'. And...even those 'fathers' themselves believed doctrines that were considered heresies by others. Just because they shared a similar belief on something, does NOT make it right, or biblical.
Many would say the same about the RCC. Or the Muslim faith, or any other faith. They have the numbers, right? The people who agree, on paper? But...does that make them correct, historically....biblically?
Look....my only goal here is to bring it back to scripture. I think you are attempting to hang something BIBLICAL on historical writings alone. To me, that will always be put in the 'perhaps it strongly suggests, but it will never come to more than that' category. And I believe it to be serious error to do otherwise. You are trying to place weight that God's word alone deserves, on the writings and beliefs of men.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, and here your unconscious bias has betrayed you - "...not sure pagan Rome will be here at that time to restrain that final man" means you believe the Man of Sin Antichrist is yet to arise, the Restrainer must still be restraining its rise, and therefore you will go to any length necessary to reject any evidence no matter how compelling it is, even as compelling as what I've presented, in order to continue in your belief system. You don't even care that the whole idea of a future Antichrist was fabricated by the Jesuit Order as a means to deflect from itself the Protestant Reformation accusations that the papacy is the Antichrist - a truth to which the Bible and church history (like what the ECFs wrote about the Restrainer) attests to. The Jesuit Order beheaded millions for their faith and to this day considers death a just punishment for "heretics" but that's alright, the only existential threat to Christianity today is Islam, right?

Ahhh...not sure exactly HOW that was an unconscious bias...I'm pretty sure I've said before I expect a final AC to arise.
However....why on earth would I go to 'any length necessary' to reject any evidence presented?
Here's my two primary goals here and in life: Bring it back to Christ and God's word. And...to do that, consider and accept or reject things based upon the revealed word of God.
I don't HAVE an agenda past that. If I push for some doctrine, it's because I believe it to be the truth as shown in scripture. But I'm pleased to consider everything put before me in a biblical light. Any and all questions or objections I've fronted you are not based upon an agenda or some stubborn need to be right, but upon what I see as biblically valid and historically feasible. If you cannot answer my questions...I'm sorry, but...I can't see how that has to do with an agenda of mine. Shouldn't any doctrine of yours, if you are sure of it, be able to stand up to my questions?

Which brings me back to 2 Thess 2:


And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. -2 Thessalonians 2:6–8

You may speculate that the restrainer is the RE because of the writings of the Church Fathers. But the passage above tells me that while the 'mystery of lawlessness' is at work (see John's reference to 'many antichrists), there is a "time" for him to be revealed. And when he is so, Christ will kill him with the breath of his mouth BY his COMING.

Those are the details that are SURE. Everything else...including my OP supposition, by the way....is speculation.

 

[Naomi25]

"Love for God entails the rejection of false worship" as your sig says, Naomi,
but you can "believe" eternity means forever as long as you want to, ok with me

Ah yes, tomorrow's just a day away, huh? Everything will be aok tomorrow, when Jesus is there,
who needs life more abundantly or to worry about thief in the night anyway, right?
Jesus will be here tomorrow! Yay!
lol, it's clown-talk

Wadr I'm pretty sure you already realize on some level how warped your doctrine is Naomi, but Death More Abundantly calls like a siren-song, huh? Way worse than any heroin i guess.

I love how you paint it as an either/or thing. Either we believe in Christ with us now....or we believe in him coming to rescue us some sweet by and by...
Except...when one reads scripture fully, taking in the breadth of it's promises, we realise that it's both. We have the beauty of Christ with us now. We live in his power and salvation now. But the promise of his return and of the installation of a sin-free, death-free world where He will dwell phsyically as well as spiritually amoung us...as temple and sun....is also very real.
And anyone who misses those massive chunks of scripture and promise...misses half the gospel as well. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Naomi25]

Well, he's not free to do everything he wants.

Why not?

 

[Naomi25]

Satan isn't bound yet today (1 Pet.5:8). He isn't bound until the day of Christ's return, and that is the timing of the Rev.20:1-3 events.

1 Peter 5:8 doesn't speak about Satan being bound or being able to deceive or not deceive anyone. It speaks of him seeking to devour people. Amillennialists don't say that Satan's 'binding' in Rev 20 stops his complete action in human history. When read, we see the passage only speaks about him being bound against deceiving the nations. That still leaves a fair bit of purview to him.
As for when he is bound...how do you reconcile Matt 12 and what Christ is talking about there?
The problem with saying that Rev 20 sees Satan bound for a 1000 years before he is tossed, finally defeated, death and Hades following him, into the Lake of fire...is 1 Cor 15.
1 Cor 15 tells us that AT Christ's return, and AT believers recieving of their resurrection bodies, THEN death is defeated. THEN ALL powers, authorities and names are also defeated. Under these descriptions would include Satan and death. 'Defeated' does not mean...put aside to bother us again during a millennium and just after it. It means, defeated...done...gone. Lake of Fire gone.
And in Rev 20, this is most certainly AFTER the millennium.
And that puts Satan's solid and final defeat AT Christ's return. Which means IF he was to be bound at any point, it would have to be before Christ's return.
Both scripture and logic determine it.

Jesus didn't come the first time to establish His physical Kingdom yet. He came to die on the cross and thus defeat the devil, which sealed the judgement and sentence of the devil and his angels. But like Paul said, Jesus must first reign over all His enemies, and that is what His return is going to be about. That is when Satan will be bound for the thousand years of Rev.20, and only loosed one final time at the end of that period to test the nations that will have heard The Gospel during the thousand years.

Christ would thoroughly disagree with you:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” -John 18:36

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. -Matthew 12:28

Paul also disagrees with you. Christ is already ruling and reigning over his enemies. It is done:

that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. -Ephesians 1:20–21

Once again, Paul did not say Jesus will deliver up the Kingdom to The Father at His second coming. Paul said Jesus MUST reign first over all His enemies. The time He will deliver up the Kingdom will be when death, hell, and Satan are destroyed in the lake of fire at the end of the thousand years. The Rev.20 events are literal, not philosophical.

Well, Paul does say, in 1 Cor 15 that AT Christ's coming we shall recieve our resurrection bodies. According to him, that is when death is defeated. And according to Paul Christ is even now reigning over all...death being the last enemy. So...if death was the 'last' enemy, and it is defeated by his second advent and our resurrection....ipso facto...see above re: the timing of Rev 20...
Never said it was philosophical. But if you take them literally, then you indeed should consider that Satan and death, are both defeated foes at Christ's second coming...which is after the 1000 years.

 

[Naomi25]

.
Naomi, you are speaking truth, but you have not considered that after the symbolic one thousand years, being this Age of God's Grace, satan shall be loosed for a little season.
.
Know that he was released approx. 200 years ago!!
While man has spent the last 6000+/- years riding in horse drawn buggies etc., ONLY RECENTLY has the world been buried in technological marvels and wonders of genius designs of creation for the benefit of man, but all at a cost to all other animal life.
This earth (satan's abyss and the place of his eternal death), is HIS ONLY HOME. In the end he and the armies of the Beast will ultimately square off with Christ and the Saints upon His return.
.
Satan has been loosed!! And the Chaos that we all have been witnessing in the world in the last 200 years, is his rage and fury, by him knowing that he has not much time left.
.
The Age of God's Grace shall end when these two scriptures have been fulfilled: Luke 18:8; 2 Thes. 2:3.
.
In your recent confusion over the Amillennial view,
I remind you Lot's wife: "Do NOT look back" .

I'm fairly certain we've had this conversation recently. But, quickly, let me remind you. I am well aware Satan must be 'loosed' for a little while at the end of the 1000 years. Perhaps you should read the OP?
I find it speculation at best that suggests that the burst in technology is by Satanic means, as not all technology is evil. Satan desires to kill and destroy God's creation...mankind. If his grand plan to do that is to increase our longevity through medical and technological advancement, he needs to rethink.
Also...we need to remember that every shred of tech that Satan uses to corrupt or destroy, Christians are using it to save and to spread the gospel.
I think the only real thing that will tell us of Satan's 'release' will be how the world hates us and persecutes us. When we find no safe haven left but God, then we shall know that the father of lies has spread his poison far and wide.

 

[Naomi25]

You are aware I am sure that because of the very things we are discussing, some futurists who recognise the "Roman factor" in the ascent of the Antichrist, have invented a future "revived Roman Empire" in order for a future antichrist to grow out of it? I see the dismissing of the "Roman factor" equally non-sensical as a future revival. The thing is Naomi it isn't just this one small passage of scripture we have to rely on for information regarding the identity of Antichrist. While the identity of the restrainer is important, (as was the identity of John the Baptist) it isn't all we have. Daniel and Revelation gives a huge amount of detailed prophecy which when looked at objectively and by using some well established fundamental rules regarding the interpretation of Bible prophecy, brings us to the same conclusion. Pagan Rome was Satan's vehicle which gave the Papacy its throne, its power, and its authority. Papal Rome was/is the second to last creation of a global religious vehicle for destroying and/or deceiving millions that paganism could never attain to.

Indeed, as prophecy revealed...
Da 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.


Of course. Satan was behind the RCC, and again, prophecy reveals this would be the case...
Revelation 13:1 ¶ And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Only through the legislative and secular power, enforced by the sword, of the empire could Papal Rome have come to power. The main protagonists as far as legislation in this rise to fame were Constantine and Justinian. And without the armies of the empire the three horns of the Heruli, the Goths, and the Vandals, whose beliefs on the Godhead were diametrically opposed to Rome's and their own armies a great threat, would never have been vanquished...or "plucked up by the roots"...and their so-called heretical beliefs buried and forgotten.

They do not teach "basic truth". Do you understand the base meaning of "Antichrist"? It doesn't simple mean 'opposition'...it is the means by which it opposes that is intrinsic to its identity that sets it apart. It opposes by replacing. By becoming a substitute. With that in mind, think about what you know of Catholic dogma, doctrine, and tradition, and ask yourself "do these things replace Christ in the minds and hearts of their followers'?
While they teach Jesus came as a man, they do not teach He came 'in the flesh'... "in the likeness of sinful flesh"...as scripture teaches. They teach He came from sinless/immaculate Mary. Thus they deny Jesus came in the flesh. And teaching Jesus is the Son of God is useless if they replace His efficacy as Saviour with a myriad of replacement saviours and gods such as Mary and numerous 'saints' and work related sacraments that all have their roots in Roman paganism.

Really? Not that I would disagree that there are genuine Christians within the Catholic system...but come to Christ through the RCC? I would suggest despite the RCC, not because or through.

Hi brakelite. Some very interesting and challenging ideas here...many that I do not fundamentally disagree with. Do you have - I want to say 'light reading' as I don't have a huge amount of free time...even though I understand it may not be something one can understand with 'light reading' - on how the RCC came to be? You've mentioned a number of times that it fits quite neatly with Daniel's prophecies, and I wouldn't mind having a read of that. I can't rightly say I know how the RCC came to be.
And no...I'm not a huge fan. I think....I know many Catholics who ARE genuine Christians, who seem to have at least a grounding in biblical doctrine...the essentials anyway. It's probably these, more than the Church itself, that makes me nervous to 'slam' it. But the Vatican? That place makes me nervous....for many reasons.
I can't say that I agree with you about everything on this...but I'm interested enough to do some reading if you can point me in the right direction, thanks.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 Antichrist…what does that mean exactly?

I suppose the meaning could be twofold: Against Christ, or 'in the place of Christ'...is how I'd see it. Which, I suppose, is ultimately the same thing. Anyone putting himself in the place of Christ is against him. But anyone doing the latter would be attempting to...ah...be duplicitous about it? Wearing the white hat?

 

[Naomi25]

This is interesting...are there any other verses we can bring in to determine whether we are in fact in this millennial kingdom now? Any verses about what will happen or be going on in that millennial kingdom, so we can compare them to our right now and see if it is so?

Well...I'd probably put these in for consideration:

The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. -Luke 10:17–19

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” -John 18:36

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. -Matthew 12:28

that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. -Ephesians 1:20–21

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.....
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?” -1 Corinthians 15:22-26,50–55

 

[bbyrd009]

I love how you paint it as an either/or thing. Either we believe in Christ with us now....or we believe in him coming to rescue us some sweet by and by

good point, yes, didn't mean to do that. It is just what i mostly hear from believers, didn't realize I was doing it. I'll go review, but would love to know which line gave you that impression too. edit ok cancel that, that was my point also, yes

 

[brakelite]

good point, yes, didn't mean to do that. It is just what i mostly hear from believers, didn't realize I was doing it. I'll go review, but would love to know which line gave you that impression too. edit ok cancel that, that was my point also, yes

I don't know about you or Naomi, but the Christians I know would entertain both concepts as being essential to their faith...one not any more or less important than the other.

 

[bbyrd009]

We have the beauty of Christ with us now. We live in his power and salvation now.

um, "we" who?

But the promise of his return and of the installation of a sin-free, death-free world where He will dwell phsyically as well as spiritually amoung us...as temple and sun....is also very real.

well, you say that, but i guess the Bible does not, but if you like you are welcome to Quote um His Return, or "death-free world" which I get you but the terms are messing me up now, the world will be passed away then imo, plus a seed does not bear any fruit unless it dies, plus "He will dwell physically..." big yikes there...but mostly Naomi, the really big deal imo, is there @ "is also very real." Your use of "is" there is...um. Is just a sign to me, ok, what does "is" mean there? From um, where you are Standing i mean

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, he's not free to do everything he wants.

but those two are free of a central bank I guess, and don't forget every single story or news you hear about them comes from your own household, right. Don't be deceived imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't know about you or Naomi, but the Christians I know would entertain both concepts as being essential to their faith...one not any more or less important than the other.

I would like to reason this with you, but i guess you would not like it, bl, and have avoided it when i tried in the past. But i know i am off-putting in those, so let me marinate for a bit and see if i can make a proposition to this handy interpreter i have been blessed with, while i can, and we'll see what happens i guess, Bc my immediate response won't work.

 

[brakelite]

I suppose the meaning could be twofold: Against Christ, or 'in the place of Christ'...is how I'd see it. Which, I suppose, is ultimately the same thing. Anyone putting himself in the place of Christ is against him. But anyone doing the latter would be attempting to...ah...be duplicitous about it? Wearing the white hat?

I wrote that article explicitly from a Biblically prophetic perspective, which IMO reveals the whole "means to the end" scenario as being a counterfeit created with the express purpose of opposing and usurping the throne, by stripping away those loyal to the throne through deception. I suspect this was Satan's/Lucifer's ploy when in heaven.
The 'priest/prophet/king' counterfeit I think very compelling as a principle identifier of the real Antichrist. BTW, if the Papacy as a system, answers to the criteria as the Antichrist, that removes your problem with the restrainer being pagan Rome and the Antichrist rising immediately after and lasting throughout history until he's thrown into the lake of fire. There are many criteria listed in scripture that pertains to the Antichrist, and I have yet to come across any that doesn't fit with the Papal power. And several that cannot be applied to anyone, or anything, else. Although there are several criteria offered by some (for example he must be an Assyrian Jew...or one or the other etc etc which I struggle with having been unable to find such in scripture in any direct relation to the man of sin, the little horn, or any other prophetic identifier).

 

[brakelite]

I would like to sift this with you, but i guess you would not like it, bl, and have avoided it when i tried in the past. But i know i am off-putting in those, so let me marinate for a bit and see if i can make a proposition to this handy interpreter i have been blessed with, while i can, and we'll see what happens i guess

You are right, I may not like it. But I have no issue with sifting. I know you struggle with the concept of a physical return, and that you believe that any faith in such a scenario is based on very flimsy evidence; evidence that you perceive as pertaining to a completely different paradigm of reality. But what I struggle with is 'what is the alternative'?

 

[bbyrd009]

You are right, I may not like it. But I have no issue with sifting. I know you struggle with the concept of a physical return, and that you believe that any faith in such a scenario is based on very flimsy evidence; evidence that you perceive as pertaining to a completely different paradigm of reality. But what I struggle with is 'what is the alternative'?

Imo prolly this immortal must put on immortality for that

 

[brakelite]

Imo prolly this immortal must put on immortality for that

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.