I'm going to tag @Heart2Soul and @VictoryinJesus we'll see what their thoughts are.
Also it seems I've been labled as preterist whatever that means, my ? Is should this thought process you've posted fall under a preterist ideal?
Does the Holy Spirit prevent wicked from being revealed¿
- Thread starter Waiting on him
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Also it seems I've been labled as preterist whatever that means, my ? Is should this thought process you've posted fall under a preterist ideal?
Phillip could be right...
I did some extensive web search and this one seemed to be the most informative.
Who / What is the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:6? | GotQuestions.org
Last edited:
Well Paul being the man who pinned this letter, fully understood that we are the temple?well, well, well, WOH, you know how to pick em. ... lol. I was reading some of the post this moring before I got busy for the day, there was some intresting posts.
I will not put my two cent in just yet, but I'll deposit 1 of the two. the answer is right there in the chapter itself, but maybe additional reading from another chapter, or book could shed some light on the subject, that is reference to this event.
so my 1 cent in is the keyword "TEMPLE". no it's not the third temple, nor any of the such, but search it out. ....
PICJAG.
Paul fully knew that we are the temple and I assume the recipients of this letter knew they were the temple.
See I don't believe a third future temple has any significance. I believe this is more conjecture.
So I was saying Phillip could be right because Daniel mentions Michael restraining satan.
I read it, it seems to follow that same line of group think. I'm very interested in seeing what 101 has to say. He seems to have a focus on the temple being the key too answering who he is, but I'll say again these men in Thessalonica should have known they were the temple of God if converted
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Hah, i had to look up the term too..
By the definition I found in wiki, i guess my opinions would prob fall somewhere in a partial preterist label i guess.. Seems to cover a wide range of opinions...
Peace!
Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,801
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Not really, sorry. People have ideas, they can point to scriptures they think perhaps might refer to it, but nothing outright, nope.
And what I mean by things that might infer to it; people might point to Rev 20, where an angel 'binds' satan. Or Jesus, where he speaks of 'binding' the strongman. 'Bind' and 'restrain' more or less mean the same thing.
Ultimately, it just goes back to God. If it's an angel doing the restraining, he is doing so with God's power and authority. If its the Holy Spirit...well, same thing. When people suggest its "the Holy Spirit IN the Church", its really nothing more than a theory created to get the Church out of the way, rather than the Holy Spirit. The HS is God and therefore everywhere. If and when he chose to withdraw his restraint on something it would be something he could do without having to withdraw from 'the whole earth' or the people within whom he resides.
Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,801
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
No, he is not the author of confusion. But sometimes there are things in scripture we just don't need to know.
Let me give you another example.
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. -Matthew 27:51–53
Don't you read that and just go...what? How is this not talked about more? Why is it not referenced by others? By historical accounts? Wouldn't you think this is a huge deal? The dead came back! Biblical zombies!!!
But, apparently....we don't need to know. Or at least, not yet. It's not an essential part of his salvational plan for us. So, for us, we look at verses like this and we take it on faith that it happened because it says it did, and that for us, who now see through a glass darkly, some things remained veiled.
I'm....not particularly sure what this verse has to do with your point. Sorry. Just because we are made new in Christ, does not mean we are promised knowledge of all things. Even in the next age, when we stand face to face with God and sin will be no more to interfere with our understanding, we will still not understand 'everything'. And the simple reason is this: God, and who he is, is infinite. He is beyond our possible reckoning. Even should we live for an eternity...even when we do...we shall still be learning new things of him. So...to think that all things should be revealed to us in this age, when we 'see dimly', is just incorrect.
I think this makes my point, however. There are verses and ideas that we can infer relates to "the restrainer", but no outright references to him except that which Paul mentions. Hence the often fierce debate that rages. I'm not dismissing your idea, or indeed many of them. But they are just ideas that must be put forth and then debated based on merit of strength or weakness on how they stand within scripture. The OP seemed to want a 'yes' 'no' answer or verse to end the debate. There is none. That's WHY there is so much debate.
Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,801
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
There are so many of them in the bible. Some outright, like the Matt 27 verse, but other ones if you just stop and think. Like: what was God doing before "he created the heavens and the earth"? It says "in the beginning". Well, that was OUR beginning, but it wasn't his. He is eternal. What was HE doing before that? Again, not something we need to know....but wouldn't you love to??
Yes....
I have a Chronological Bible that is put in order by date of occurrence....very first page, first sentence...In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Now talk about getting blown away....it's like having to relearn the Bible.
It doesn't change any of the scriptures just the order.
Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,801
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
What does it do with Genesis/John, if you don't mind me asking? Does it string passages of both together, like that passage you just quoted from John, which obviously refers to 'the beginning', and also 'in the beginning', or does it still do it book by book? Do you think it changes your perception in any way of the overarching story of redemption? Just curious!
No it puts in chronological order....hold onWhat does it do with Genesis/John, if you don't mind me asking? Does it string passages of both together, like that passage you just quoted from John, which obviously refers to 'the beginning', and also 'in the beginning', or does it still do it book by book? Do you think it changes your perception in any way of the overarching story of redemption? Just curious!
Last edited:
The Bible put into chronological order requires a lot of interpretation and it does expose our understanding of how the sequence of events occurred.
Take for example the Story of Joseph. Scripture tells us that Joseph was 30 years old when he was placed second in command over all of Egypt by the Pharaoh. However, when was Joseph given this authority with respect to the start of the seven years of plenty?
We have to ask what the impact of Genesis 38 has on our understanding of the story of Joseph, on the story of when Isaac gave Jacob the Blessing, when Jacob went up to get a wife from around Haran and when He returned to live with his father Isaac? With respect to the story of Joseph, the Chronological sequence of events would suggest that around 15 years passed after Joseph's elevation to second in command over all of Egypt and the beginning of the years of plenty.
The Hebrew word translated in Genesis 1:1 when used elsewhere in the OT, is usually associated another event, i.e. at the beginning of "king such and such's" reign, the prophet did such and such. In the case of Genesis 1:1, I would humbly suggest that the Hebrew word "bə·rê·šîṯ" is best translated as "first" in that in the creation story, God first created the heavens and the earth. or "First, God created the Heavens and the earth."
Having this understanding of the first verse means that God did not miraculously appear out of no where and then begin the creation process. By reading that "First, God created the Heavens and the Earth." It implies that God existed before He began the creation process, and at some stage, he had created both the heavens and the earth.
As we read further we are told that the earth was in darkness and void of form and that evil, i.e. darkness was over the face of the deep, i.e. the Bottomless pit, and that God's spirit was hovering over the face of the waters. In the second verse we are introduced to Righteous and Evil and God then set out to introduce His light to the earth, such that there was a division between Good and Evil and God saw that this was good as He unfolded the salvation process for the whole earth to spring forth. The beginning of the God's story in bring righteous into reality against the opposition that existed at that time in the presented Creation narrative undertaken by God during the first six time periods in the recorded accounts of the creation story.
Shalom
Shalom
PS: - The Gospel of John can also be considered to read, "First was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word."
Last edited:
Similar threads
