Who Is "the Restrainer" In 2 Thess. 2:6-7

Marcus O'Reillius said:

So the "end" can refer to their end, or to the end times. It can be taken either way. The truth of the statement is not changed by either way it is viewed, but it can be misconstrued if only taken one way and wholly rejections the other.

Click to expand...

Marilyn C said:

Hi Michael,

We all know that one of the fundamental rules of scripture is to read in context, -

`These 12 Jesus sent out & commanded them saying, "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, & do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel....` (Matt. 10: 5)

So clearly we see that it is Jesus who is sending out the 12 disciples & telling them specifically WHERE to go & what to say (v. 7 f ).

One of the glaring errors people do when reading God`s word is to make the Body of Christ the centre of the bible when Christ is, - His character & His purposes.

Marilyn.

Hello Marilyn,

Click to expand...

Michael V Pardo said:

I don't want to argue against sound hermeneutical principle, but given that our Lord spoke in the power of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy, how would we then know whether or not His words had more than one meaning? I do appreciate your understanding of the verse though and wouldn't attempt to make an argument against it, but there are things that Jesus said with regard to judgment which if already fulfilled (in the times he said them and in their context) would imply that we are currently living in "the millennial period" which is a view that I'm unable to receive.
So we attempt to examine other points of view to examine their efficacy in explaining our world and times, and endeavor not to insult those with another point of view to the degree that their argument is cogent and supported by scripture. I'm not real big on dogma and while I find that most of the things which the Lord teaches me from scripture have some agreement among other students of scripture, some certainly do not.

Click to expand...

ATP said:

I'm thinking Zech 11:10 confirms Michael the restrainer stepping aside at the middle of the 70th week.

Click to expand...

Phoneman777 said:

It's interesting that the only organization to interpret the command of Jesus to "eat My flesh and drink My blood" is the Catholic church, which punished with death millions who refused to believe that the wine and host underwent a "transubstantiation" at the Latin words of the priest, "This is My body, this is My blood."

This, among many other reasons, is why the Protestant Reformers saw in the Papal power in Rome the Antichrist of prophecy. Their view that the Restrainer was the Roman Empire which restrained the rise of the Antichrist, which they saw as Papal Rome, is the only view that doesn't require "gap" fantasies and a deliberate disregard or de-emphasis of key historic church facts in order to establish competing views.

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

What is really interesting is that you are, once again, wrong and twisting the truth. At no time did the Catholic Church or any church punish millions who refused to believe that the wine and host underwent a "transubstantiation". That is utterly ridiculous and not based on fact or history.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church is not the only organization to interpret Jesus command that way. There are multiple other churches (Protestant included) that believe in the transubstantiation concept. If you really wanted to know the truth behind that belief then you would read scripture and history.

[SIZE=12pt]Jesus said: I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died ( He was referencing Exodus16:4)[/SIZE]. This is the bread (He is referencing himself) which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever” (John 6).

[SIZE=12pt]Paul later re-affirms what Jesus said: I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.[/SIZE] Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:15) So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27)

[SIZE=12pt]We must remember that Paul did not hear this from Jesus. He was taught this most likely by Peter. So if Peter is telling Paul that "the bread that we break is a participation in the body of Christ" then Peter must have believed it also. Furthermore, how can we eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner AND be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord if it is just a symbol? One can LOGICALLY conclude that Jesus meant what he said which was backed up by Paul which was taught to him most likely by Peter.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So if we look at scripture which is a historical writing AND is God breathed then obviously God is telling us that it is not a symbol. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Now lets take a look at what our history books tell us and what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist. [/SIZE]


The Didache (written around 80 AD) says: But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." The early Christians, during the time of the Apostles, believed the Eucharist was "holy" because they believed it is the body and blood of Christ.



[SIZE=12pt]In the year 110 AD Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John[/SIZE]) wrote: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, [SIZE=12pt]which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. "[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As we know Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John. That means John taught Ignatius that the Eucharist was more than just a symbol. Peter taught Paul that the Eucharist is more than just a symbol. Jesus taught John and Peter that the Eucharist was more than just a symbol. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Athenagoras of Athens (a Christian convert) wrote around 180 AD: Three things are alleged against us (Christians): atheism, THYSTEAN FEAST and Edipoen intercourse..” [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Thyestean Feast is marked by the consumption of human flesh. In other words, via historical writings, we know that the non-Christians of the 2nd century who did not participate in church services thought the Christians were eating real flesh during services. Why did they think that? Because the early Christians believed Jesus when he said, this is my body, this is my blood. They believed it, practiced it and pronounced it just like a lot of Christians do today, 2000 years later.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]So if you want to disregard what Jesus said, Paul said (most likely taught to him by Peter) Ignatius said (most likely taught to him by John) and the early Christians obviously believed and practiced then feel free to disregard it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]I have given you the truth and facts backed up by scripture along with historical writings and practices of the early Christians. The truth shall set you free and the truth, not your twisting of scripture and history, must be spoken; which I have done.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Phoneman777 said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. The most common offense which called forth the death penalty during the Dark Ages was the refusal to acknowledge that the wafer held out before the kneeling, doomed Protestant "heretic" was Divinity. Please read Foxe's Book of Martyrs instead of Catholic apologetics - they are nothing more than lying, revisionist historians.

Jesus said, "The FLESH profiteth nothing; the WORDS I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life".

The papacy says, "The FLESH profits you everything, namely salvation, and your refusal to accept it renders you a lost "heretic".

BTW, what does your post have to do with the OP? This discussion is about the identity of the Restrainer which Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, which was to restrain the rise of the "man of sin" Antichrist until he was taken out of the way which would be followed by the rise of him. The ECF all believed that Paul was talking about the Roman Empire, and tradition even says that the early church prayed for the continuation of the Empire, knowing by Paul's words that a far more sinister system of persecution would arise after it fell.

And, when Pagan Rome fell, Papal Rome immediately arose and did just that - they slaughtered MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of true believers and they will suffer condemnation in the Day of Judgment for it.

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

Read John Foxe instead of Catholic apologetics? Are you joking? Do you know who John Foxe was and the questions of his credibility along with his blatant bias? I feel like your joking with me but sadly I think you are being serious.

I gave you 200 words from the bible, backed it up with the written words of men who walked with the Apostles which was backed up by what the early Christians practiced that all support the transubstantiation belief. You gave 17 words from the bible to support your theory. In a debate in front of undecided Christian's if we were to present the evidence for our beliefs you would easily loose to me.

Can you provide evidence to back up your statement: "The papacy says, "The FLESH profits you everything, namely salvation, and your refusal to accept it renders you a lost "heretic". I believe you have once again written something that is not factual. If your going to attack the Papacy and our fellow Christians at least base it on facts instead of your obvious bias.

My post is a response to your lie. What does your lie have to do with the OP?

Slaughtered millions and millions? Seriously? And you call Catholic apologetics lying, revisionist historians? Whatever "history" books your reading, throw them away. The truth is the Catholic Church and the early Protestant Church is responsible for the deaths of fellow Christians. It is a sad page out of our history books. You don't have to lie about it to make it sound worse than it really was.

Respectfully......Tom

Click to expand...

Phoneman777 said:

Have you never heard of the slaughter of the Albegensians? Or the Waldensians? Or the Hugenots? Or St. Bartholomew's Massacre? Or the millions of others who were burned at stake, beheaded, etc? Brother, I cannot discuss any further with you the facts of history if you are unwilling to accept them. Believe what you want. My prayer is that you will "come out of Babylon...that you be not partakers of her sins and recieve not of her plagues."

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

We all have the right to our own opinion. We don't have the right to change historical facts. I disagree with you and historically it is KNOWN that millions were not killed. Even if ONE was killed in the name of Christianity it is sad but your millions number is not backed up by historical FACTS. I sincerely hope you will seek out HISTORY books instead of biased anti-Christ(ian)/anti-Catholic books.

Click to expand...

Phoneman777 said:

What we don't have a right to are the lies of revisionist historians. The papacy slaughtered millions according to true history, and as one erudite scholar wrote:

"That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty, that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no power of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings." -- "History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe," Vol. II, p. 32. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910.

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

In proportion to its power, Protestantism has been as persecuting as Catholicism.....William Edward Hartpole Lecky

Furthermore, as usual, you failed to give the full quote so it is in context to our discussion. Full context shows that he does NOT support your millions theory: "The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty, that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no power of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings."

However, I may be missing in my research an actual number he may have put on the hands of the Church.

NO legitimate historian puts the number in the millions!! And that my friend is a FACT.

Click to expand...

Phoneman777 said:

You are utterly misinformed, friend, and you have my pity. The Papacy will be judged for the horrors it enacted on so many millions of God's faithful, and anyone who refuses to give up their sad devotion to this apostate system of Sun Worship and "come out of Babylon, My people" will be consumed together with her.

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

Thank you for your pity! However, I would appreciate you prayers instead.

Will the Papacy (Catholic Church) also be judged for the MILLIONS of people they have helped thru charitable causes? Maybe it will all balance out?

I suppose I upset you when I quoted your source, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, to show that he thinks Protestantism is just as bad as Catholicism. Funny how you didn't ever notice that quote from him. Maybe due to your bias?

I will pray for you. That you will loose the hate you have in your heart for our Christian brothers and sisters (fellow Catholics) who will be standing next to us in heaven.

Click to expand...

So, do the crimes of Protestantism somehow excuse the Papacy or make it any less the object of the identifying marks of the Antichrist in Bible prophecy? No, the Papacy (union of church and state) is just as corrupt as the union of Jezebel and Ahab, both individuals being representations of the same.

My liberal friend, you have no idea what "hate" is, so I'll share with you the Biblical definition of hate: "failing to rebuke a brother engaged in sin" (Leviticus 19:17 KJV)

You are engaged in the veneration of an idolatrous, apostate system of worship that seeks to take the place of Christ, which if you take the time to look up "Antichrist", you will find that means "take the place of Christ". "Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins and recieve not of her plagues". Revelation 18:4 KJV

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

Got it. You like to quote William Edward Hartpole Lecky when it fits your Anti-Catholic rhetoric but a quote from him that disrupts your theory you ignore. Funny how you didn't ever notice that quote from him. Maybe due to your bias?

I never said the crimes of some Protestants cancel out anything the Catholic Church has done. I only pointed out how YOU fail to mention the crimes of Protestants that are exactly the same as the crimes of Catholics. Probably due to your anti-Catholic bias?

According to NT scripture the anti-Christ was walking among them. Are you saying the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years?

Not sure what you are quoting from Leviticus but here is what it ACTUALLY says, not what you mis-"quoted":"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him."

You accuse me of being "engaged in the veneration of an idolatrous, apostate system of worship that seeks to take the place of Christ". So according to you when I point out your lies about our fellow Christians that makes me Catholic? Since you are the one attacking our fellow Christians wouldn't that make you anti-Christ(ian)?

If the Catholics are wrong for accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church does that not make it possible that you are wrong when you accept the teachings of your church or whichever interpretation of the bible YOU choose to accept on any certain matter?

And why is it you don't answer my questions?

Click to expand...

Phoneman777 said:

I'm not sure what quote by him disrupts my theory because the fact the apostate Protestantism adopted a similar course of treatment by the Papacy of dissenters only serves to prove that Bible prophecy never fails. Protestantism was once pure, but chose to go the same route of apostasy as did the Catholic church, and while the Papal apostate system is identified in prophecy as the Antichrist, so is apostate Protestantism identified as "the false prophet" and is comprised of the "harlot daughters" of the Whore Mother of Revelation.

Friend, I must reiterate that there are many, many Holy Spirit filled people in Catholicism and Protestantism who love God and are doing the best they can to serve Him despite the lies they are taught by these false systems and our loving Heavenly Father never fails to turn a blind eye to such ignorance, but when He sends the truth accompanied by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to lead us "into all truth", it is of a necessity that we must be led out of error.

According to Revelation 12:17 KJV, God's end-time church is a body of believers who "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ". Both Catholicism and Apostate Protestantism embody teachings that distort God's commandments, and thus are disqualified as God's end-church, friend. Again, while those in Revelation 14 who accept the Mark of the Beast are going up in flames, John is told to look over at the SAINTS - those who love and follow Jesus - and behold them as they are described as "they who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus".

BTW, Leviticus 19:17 KJV disproves your claim that I preach hate because if you read it, it essentially says that the failure to rebuke your brother of his sin is hatred towards him, and conversely, rebuking him of his sin is showing love to him. These two concepts have been flipped by the devil so as to intimidate God's people from sounding the warning for those who are headed down Fool's Row as fast as their legs can carry them. My love for my fellow Christian brethren, including you, compels me to sound the warning to "come out of Babylon, MY PEOPLE that you be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues", brother.

Click to expand...

If the Catholics and Apostate Protestants (who according to you distort Gods commandments) are wrong for accepting the teachings of their church and their church leaders does that not make it possible that you are wrong when you accept the teachings of your church or whichever interpretation of the bible YOU choose to accept on any certain matter?

Click to expand...