"That Wicked" has problems!

[Earburner]

Every person who does not have the Holy Spirit of God, is none of His. Rom. 8:9. John 3:3

They remain to be "condemned ALREADY", because they have NOT believed in Jesus. John 3:18.

As a result, THEY are only living their life as "the natural man", of which when Christ returns, in all His Glory and flaming fire, they shall be destroyed (go into perdition). 2 Thes. 1:7-10

Therefore, THEY ARE "that man of sin, the SON OF perdition, because they remain to be a child (son) of the devil, who is their father. John 8:23; 44

 

[Phoneman777]

I have been seriously studying on four words in 2 Thes. 2:8-9, using both the KJV/Strong's and the Young's concordance: specifically the words "that Wicked", and "even him"
.
I am not looking at any other bible versions, because they are translated from the Wescott & Hort Greek text- 1881. All of such translations purposely and specifically cause the reader to falsely learn that 2 Thes. 2:8 is in the singular, as being one man.
.
In the 1611 KJV, it is very possible that a wrong word was used, being the word "that". If so, then in 1611, it could it have been done so, in order to give support to a popular false belief at that time, the Pope being antichrist.
.
In the Textus Receptus Greek- 1512, ["the" wicked] is used and not ["that" wicked].
However, in the 1611- KJV, the opposite is expressed, being ["that" Wicked].
.
Secondly, now that we may have a wrong word of "that" being used, I can see why the word "Wicked" is written with an upper case "W". It's done so as to force the reader to see it in the singular.
.
At that time, during the Protestant Reformation period, it was commonly held by most Protestant churches, that the Pope was "the" Antichrist.
.
However, if the word "the" was used, and the word "wicked" was without an upper case "W", then the entire context of 2 Thes. would be interpreted in perfect harmony, and in the plural.
.
The word "Wicked" is found in the Strong's, but it is NOT found in the Young's concordance.
I have learned that when the Young's Concordance omits a word, it's because the word was purposely inserted by the translators of the KJV.
.
Conclusion:
The correct word to be used in that scripture is "the" and not "that", and therefore a capital "w" for "wicked" would not have been used as being necessary.
When the upper case "W" is used, it denotes the singular. When it's not, the plural is relevant to the verse and the context.
.
So now, having said that, let's read 2 Thes. 2:8 in a portion of the context, with the acceptable changes:
[ 7 ] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[ 8 ] And then shall [the wicked] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[ 9 ] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[ 10 ] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
[ 11 ] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
[ 12 ] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
.
OK, we are not done yet. I have found that the words "Even him", are also suspect of being an insertion by the translators. Those words are not found in the Textus Receptus Greek text. Nor are they found in Young's concordance or the Strong's.
Those words are an insertion by the KJV translators also, being evident to give support to the erroneous words "that Wicked".

So, are we looking at a fabrication, or an oversight in translation?
Given the fact that the "Protestant Reformation" was in full swing, through Martin Luther, I can see how the translators might give support to such a "just cause". Departing from the RCC was no small matter.
.
Since it is "open season" for insertions, then let it be this: "Even them".
At least, it will blend with the plural nature of the context, as well as the context of the KJV New Testament scriptures, specifically the book of 1 John.
So now, let's read it all, with all the acceptable insertions:
[ 7 ] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[ 8 ] And then shall [the wicked] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[ 9 ] [Even them], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[ 10 ] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Now I have a question, is THIS the "strong delusion to believe a lie, that God will send"?
Is "that spirit of antichrist" singular or plural?
No doubt, the wording implies that it is to be read and understood IN THE PLURAL.
.
If so many are reading that to be singular, as being one man, is that THE lie that many shall believe??

Whether the words of 2 Thess. 2 are "that Wicked" or "the wicked", it is of zero consequence. These words - absolutely without question - refer to the thematic, contextual subject of the passage: the man of sin.

You claim this "man of sin" Antichrist refers to one single future evil dude - the main premise upon which rests the doctrine of Jesuit Futurism by 15th c. Jesuit priest Ribera, which doctrine was sent into the world to deny Protestantism's claim the papacy is the Antichrist (for those not satisfied, the papacy also offers for your consideration Jesuit Preterism by Jesuit priest Alcazar, who theorized the individual arrived before the papacy existed).

If Paul's "man of sin" must refer only to an individual, then this same Paul's "man of God" must refer only to one individual, as well...which is ludicrous, right?

Is not the "little horn" of Daniel 7 the Antichrist, same as the "man of sin" of 2 Thess. 2? Then, how can anyone insist on arguing for a future Antichrist when Daniel says the little horn arose "among them" (the other ten horns) way back in the 6th century?

Amazing how Christians look for spiritual enlightenment at the papal well of confusion where not only is found every conceivable error regarding all other forms of Biblical truth, but also a mixed bag of ridiculous "past/future" Jesuitical eschatological confusion, as well.

 

[Phoneman777]

If Revelation "recapitulates" (repeats itself) through a series of 7 parallel accounts, then the Papacy is only one of the Antichrists with more to come. Islam is in view now.

The fact that Revelation picks up where Daniel's details leave off does NOT demand multiple Antichrists.

God, like any good teacher, utilizes in prophetic revelation the best methodology of teaching since time immemorial: "repetition and enlargement" where in the process of presenting truth, a cycle of presenting a brief review of the former details followed by the presentation of new details is repeated until the sum total of knowledge on that truth is realized.

The Whore of Babylon which rides the Beast is the final revelation of all the cumulative details which the Bible reveals about the Antichrist:

The Whore is comprised of those who claim to be God's people but are spiritually unfaithful to Him - the false Roman church, to which God says to His people therein, "come out of her, My people" - and the Beast upon which the Whore rides is the power of the secular state which submitted itself to her authority in her work to persecute relentlessly the true church of Revelation 12...and as we approach the close of Earth's history, when the "deadly wound" of the papacy finishes its last stages of healing and she once again has the full cooperation of the global state, the Protestant image of the Beast will be set up and compel the entire world as that Whore did so until that deadly wound was inflicted.

Congratulations: you're helping to fulfill Bible prophecy.

 

[Earburner]

Whether the words of 2 Thess. 2 are "that Wicked" or "the wicked", it is of zero consequence. These words - absolutely without question - refer to the thematic, contextual subject of the passage: the man of sin.

You claim this "man of sin" Antichrist refers to one single future evil dude - the main premise upon which rests the doctrine of Jesuit Futurism by 15th c. Jesuit priest Ribera, which doctrine was sent into the world to deny Protestantism's claim the papacy is the Antichrist (for those not satisfied, the papacy also offers for your consideration Jesuit Preterism by Jesuit priest Alcazar, who theorized the individual arrived before the papacy existed).

If Paul's "man of sin" must refer only to an individual, then this same Paul's "man of God" must refer only to one individual, as well...which is ludicrous, right?

Is not the "little horn" of Daniel 7 the Antichrist, same as the "man of sin" of 2 Thess. 2? Then, how can anyone insist on arguing for a future Antichrist when Daniel says the little horn arose "among them" (the other ten horns) way back in the 6th century?

Amazing how Christians look for spiritual enlightenment at the papal well of confusion where not only is found every conceivable error regarding all other forms of Biblical truth, but also a mixed bag of ridiculous "past/future" Jesuitical eschatological confusion, as well.

Your argument has derailed, because you neglected to digest the factual evidence found in my research and study. Try again along the lines of the research, instead of interjecting fanciful religious thoughts from denominational meanderings.

 

[Earburner]

The fact that Revelation picks up where Daniel's details leave off does NOT demand multiple Antichrists.

God, like any good teacher, utilizes in prophetic revelation the best methodology of teaching since time immemorial: "repetition and enlargement" where in the process of presenting truth, a cycle of presenting a brief review of the former details followed by the presentation of new details is repeated until the sum total of knowledge on that truth is realized.

The Whore of Babylon which rides the Beast is the final revelation of all the cumulative details which the Bible reveals about the Antichrist:

The Whore is comprised of those who claim to be God's people but are spiritually unfaithful to Him - the false Roman church, to which God says to His people therein, "come out of her, My people" - and the Beast upon which the Whore rides is the power of the secular state which submitted itself to her authority in her work to persecute relentlessly the true church of Revelation 12...and as we approach the close of Earth's history, when the "deadly wound" of the papacy finishes its last stages of healing and she once again has the full cooperation of the global state, the Protestant image of the Beast will be set up and compel the entire world as that Whore did so until that deadly wound was inflicted.

Congratulations: you're helping to fulfill Bible prophecy.

Phone wrote:
The Whore of Babylon which rides the Beast is the final revelation of all the cumulative details which the Bible reveals about the Antichrist:
.
> Wrong understanding!
The Whore was being CARRIED by the Beast!
That's a huge difference from your version of: "rides the beast".
KJV-Rev. 17[7] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

 

[Phoneman777]

Your argument has derailed, because you neglected to digest the factual evidence found in my research and study. Try again along the lines of the research, instead of interjecting fanciful religious thoughts from denominational meanderings.

I'm saying you're research is unnecessary because whether the correct words are "that Wicked" or "the wicked" doesn't matter for they BOTH point to the subject of the passsage: the MAN OF SIN. The only question remaining is whether "man" refers to a single man or a plurality of men.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phone wrote:
The Whore of Babylon which rides the Beast is the final revelation of all the cumulative details which the Bible reveals about the Antichrist:
.
> Wrong understanding!
The Whore was being CARRIED by the Beast!
That's a huge difference from your version of: "rides the beast".
KJV-Rev. 17[7] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

I see. Thank you.

 

[Enoch111]

The only question remaining is whether "man" refers to a single man or a plurality of men.

I don't believe a hydra-headed monster is meant by "man" (singular). And that man cannot possibly be a pope.

 

[Earburner]

I'm saying you're research is unnecessary because whether the correct words are "that Wicked" or "the wicked" doesn't matter for they BOTH point to the subject of the passsage: the MAN OF SIN. The only question remaining is whether "man" refers to a single man or a plurality of men.

In my OP, that is my point, and that is what my research discovered about 2 Thes. 2:8-9
KJV- 2 Thes. 2:3-12 is to be understood in the plural, in the same way that we understand 1 Cor. 2:14- "the natural man".

 

[Earburner]

I don't believe a hydra-headed monster is meant by "man" (singular). And that man cannot possibly be a pope.

If you follow the symbolic language of Daniel, you will understand that "beasts" represent world ruling Empires. You will see that same symbolism carried over in Rev. 13[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.

Also, Beasts are ALWAYS described in the masculine gender, whereas a church, as well as one that is fallen, is ALWAYS in the feminine gender.
NEVER is a beast feminine, nor is a church ever masculine.

 

[Earburner]

The fact that Revelation picks up where Daniel's details leave off does NOT demand multiple Antichrists.

God, like any good teacher, utilizes in prophetic revelation the best methodology of teaching since time immemorial: "repetition and enlargement" where in the process of presenting truth, a cycle of presenting a brief review of the former details followed by the presentation of new details is repeated until the sum total of knowledge on that truth is realized.

The Whore of Babylon which rides the Beast is the final revelation of all the cumulative details which the Bible reveals about the Antichrist:

The Whore is comprised of those who claim to be God's people but are spiritually unfaithful to Him - the false Roman church, to which God says to His people therein, "come out of her, My people" - and the Beast upon which the Whore rides is the power of the secular state which submitted itself to her authority in her work to persecute relentlessly the true church of Revelation 12...and as we approach the close of Earth's history, when the "deadly wound" of the papacy finishes its last stages of healing and she once again has the full cooperation of the global state, the Protestant image of the Beast will be set up and compel the entire world as that Whore did so until that deadly wound was inflicted.

Congratulations: you're helping to fulfill Bible prophecy.

Have you ever considered that Israel once was "a church", being "called out ones"?
.
Remember, a church is ALWAYS spoken of in the feminine gender, even if fallen. KJV- Acts 7:38

 

[Earburner]

I see. Thank you.

You are welcome!
BTW, in today's world, do you see anything that once was a "church", and is being "carried" by a Beast?
.
You see it very plainly, but the false doctrines of "church-ianity" won't allow you to bring yourself to admit it or say it.

 

[Davy]

To explain it is one thing, but to hear it requires the Mind of Christ, being that of Isa. 55:8-9.

You are miles away from being able to lecture me on having the Mind of Christ. Your trying to change the simplicity of the Scriptures shows you've left Christ's Word.

 

[Davy]

It's not what I have done, but rather what Jesus said, and did Himself!
John 2[21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

And again, that idea is an attempt to add something to 2 Thess.2 that is NOT taught there at all! not even hinted at.

 

[Davy]

Before you came to Christ (hoping that you have), when you were born, were you born WITH the Holy Spirit, or were born as only a "natural man"?

I am a baptized Protestant Christian, and if you had kept to the simplicity that is God's written Word instead of trying to support a false doctrine of Judaizers about the temple Paul mentioned in 2 Thess.2, then you would have known early on how I am a true servant of Jesus Christ. But when someone like you brings a doctrine of Judaizers trying to change Apostle Paul's Message of warning about a coming Antichrist to Jerusalem to sit in a literal temple there, then that makes me have doubts about you being a true believer.

 

[Earburner]

Phoneman replied to Earburner:
"You claim this "man of sin" Antichrist refers to one single future evil dude - the main premise upon which rests the doctrine of Jesuit Futurism by 15th c. Jesuit priest Ribera, which doctrine was sent into the world to deny Protestantism's claim the papacy is the Antichrist (for those not satisfied, the papacy also offers for your consideration Jesuit Preterism by Jesuit priest Alcazar, who theorized the individual arrived before the papacy existed)."

Sorry, it's you that claims "that man of sin" is to understood in the singular.

 

[Davy]

Sorry, it's you that claims "that man of sin" is to understood in the singular.

Say your sorry to Jesus Christ when He comes. I see no repentance in your words for comparing my Lord Jesus Christ's body with that temple in 2 Thess.2 that the future Antichrist is to come and sit in to play God in Jerusalem.

 

[Earburner]

I am a baptized Protestant Christian, and if you had kept to the simplicity that is God's written Word instead of trying to support a false doctrine of Judaizers about the temple Paul mentioned in 2 Thess.2, then you would have known early on how I am a true servant of Jesus Christ. But when someone like you brings a doctrine of Judaizers trying to change Apostle Paul's Message of warning about a coming Antichrist to Jerusalem to sit in a literal temple there, then that makes me have doubts about you being a true believer.

Your argument is based on the religion and fabricated religious doctrines of your favorite denomination of "church-ianity".
Of course, I do expect you to argue against me, because your head is filled to the brim, with their false teachings.
Because you do believe, that you have much to protect, your stand is always in defense of it, unwilling to let go of their lies, and embrace the Lord's thoughts about His OWN words. Isa. 55:8-9;
John 16:13.

 

[Davy]

Your argument is based on the religion and fabricated religious doctrines of your favorite denomination of "church-ianity".
Of course, I do expect you to argue against me, because your head is filled to the brim, with their false teachings.
Because you do believe, that you have much to protect, your stand is always in defense of it, unwilling to let go of their lies, and embrace the Lord's thoughts about His OWN words. Isa. 55:8-9;
John 16:13.

Your doctrine is from the "synagogue of Satan".

 

[Earburner]

Say your sorry to Jesus Christ when He comes. I see no repentance in your words for comparing my Lord Jesus Christ's body with that temple in 2 Thess.2 that the future Antichrist is to come and sit in to play God in Jerusalem.

Lol! No one repents from The Truth, only towards The Truth!
.
As I did say to "Waiting on Him":
"To explain it is one thing, but to hear it requires the Mind of Christ, being that of Isa. 55:8-9."