The Restrainer

[Naomi25]

You're such a gentle soul! If I come of as arrogant, believe me I am not in the least! I can't help it if I mingle a little of what some people today call "toxic masculinity" with my contention for "the faith once delivered to the saints".

Eh...maybe not so gentle..! Let me tell you what I think about this so called 'toxic masulinity' rubbish... Sure...some men are jerks. But some women are harpies. But men are just men, and so they ought to be.

Without posting a long read, suffice it to say that if we start in Daniel 2 and work our way through the rest of Daniel and into Revelation, the four kingdoms which have the most impact on the history of God's people are Babylon, M.P., Greece, and Rome. Daniel 7 clearly says "the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom (Rome), and this beast has TEN HORNS. When the fourth beast fell, the ten horns arose, which were the ten barbarian nations which evolved into Europe, and which were seen standing when the dust from Pagan Rome settled:

1. Anglo Saxons - England
2. Allemani - Germany
3. Visigoths - Spain
4. Francs - France
5. Suevi - Portugal
6. Burgundians - Swiss
7. Lombards - Italy
8. Vandals - EXTINCT
9. Heruli - EXTINCT
10. Ostrogoths - EXTINCT

Daniel says, "I considered the (ten) horns, and behold, there came up among them another Little Horn, before whom three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots..." All agree that this Little Horn is very much Antichrist - it's depicted as blasphemous (which the Bible says means "claiming to be God and claiming the power to forgive sin"), persecuting, self-exalting, etc. The "three horns plucked up by the roots" were these extinct nations that were totally destroyed by the influence of the church of Rome because these opposed the church, and once they were gone, the Papacy stood completely unopposed and ascended the former throne of the caesars and united church and state...which is when the most ferocious persecution of God's faithful broke out to the point where true Christians who opposed Rome's blasphemous dogmas were driven from public view and remained hidden for over 1,000 years of papal Antichrist darkness.

Therefore, the Antichrist had to have arisen waaaaayy back in the 6th century after the fall of Rome and among the ten horns.

Okay, thanks. I'll try and chisel out some time to do some reading about this. I'm listening to some talks brakelite recommended as well. I truly can't say which 'side' I'll come down on, but I don't like making judgement calls when I don't know enough, that seems foolish and based on nothing but a stubbon need to hold onto familiar teaching.

 

[Enoch111]

Why would Satan restrain the Antichrist?

That is one of the most absurd ideas that is floating around, and has absolutely no basis in either Scripture or common sense.

There is only one Restrainer of Satan and the Antichrist, and it is God Himself. God the Holy Spirit. Even Michael the Archangel would not rebuke Satan, and will fight against him at God's behest before the Antichrist appears.

 

[Enoch111]

Nancy girl, we've GOT to hold the line and stand for truth.

What "truth"? You have some crazy theory about Rome being the restrainer of the Antichrist, when the Antichrist is the one who will manipulate Rome with his little finger when the time comes.

 

[friend of]

I respectfully disagree with those saying he will claim to be "Christ"

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

In addition to vehemently hating all religion in the world, especially Christianity, the MoS will exalt himself above Christ and above every known god, and Christ just so happens to be world reknown. There will, however, be many false Christs and false prophets that arise at that time who will claim to be Christ incarnate (more than usual). The MoS will fashion and worship his own god, a god of fortresses. Daniel 11:38

Convincing the world that he is Christ is simply not compatible with his M.O. Matthew 24:24 is not referring to the MoS, but the common antichrist deceivers.

 

[brakelite]

Millennial kingdom

Aaaaah, no thanks. Are you setting up in opposition to Netflix? It's just one topic, and there can't be that many biblical referenced references explaining or proving humans are living in the planet during the millennium. Can you not give me just one or two to get started then I can take it from there?

 

[brakelite]

And that we are to seekl for immortality had passed your notice?

There is only one immortal....I am fully aware of that. Nor am iI ignoring it. Nor am I claiming immortality. Now or in the future... But we are promised the very same life
After the resurrection that Jesus received from His Father after His resurrection. He that hath the Son hath life. Shall never see death. Shall not partake of the second death.
And yes, the kingdom of God is within i
Us. And yes, in this life it doesn't come with observation. I get that. But none of that negates that resurrection life is observable.

 

[brakelite]

you are not co-responding here bl, you are strictly jerking me off ok. Yes, i have just inferred that you can read what you like there, that included.

So, we put on immortality, yes. I really am trying to see where you are coming from, you are not my enemy, and I'm not afraid of you so much that I need to avoid grappling with what you are saying. For me putting on immortality means putting on Christ, for in Him we live, and move, and have our being. We will never have life that is not dependant upon God. Nevertheless, it is eternal, and it started yesterday, if we remain faithful.
As for sadventists, yep, I've met them to. And I come from a Pentecostal background, so the contrast is frustrating.

 

[brakelite]

In my opinion, that is because the Millennium is preceded by a restoration rather than a completely new creation

Yes, well it would have to be wouldn't it, but there's not a hint of it in scripture. Anywhere.

 

[bbyrd009]

So, we put on immortality, yes. I really am trying to see where you are coming from, you are not my enemy, and I'm not afraid of you so much that I need to avoid grappling with what you are saying. For me putting on immortality means putting on Christ, for in Him we live, and move, and have our being. We will never have life that is not dependant upon God. Nevertheless, it is eternal, and it started yesterday, if we remain faithful.
As for sadventists, yep, I've met them to. And I come from a Pentecostal background, so the contrast is frustrating.

wow, one extreme to another there huh?

what does eternal mean, in that context?

 

[brakelite]

wow, one extreme to another there huh?

what does eternal mean, in that context?

No, I'm not going from one extreme to another, just taking a view of scripture that incorporates all verses relating to the topic. .
Eternal... Life without end?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Yes, well it would have to be wouldn't it, but there's not a hint of it in scripture. Anywhere.

The OT is full of restoration talk. Both spiritual and physical. Read Ezekiel chapters 40-48.

 

[bbyrd009]

No, I'm not going from one extreme to another

um, you? I meant Pent>SDA there, not you necessarily, sorry.

Eternal... Life without end?

you have kids, right, and they have kids...the term for the other one is "immortal" bl. But fwiw i notice Hollywood is working OT to conflate the two also, i could provide examples if you like.

Of course i totally get what you are concerned about here, ok; your self, yes?
No shame in admitting this, me too; i want the same thing, care about the same thing, wanna goto the same place you do after literal death, alla that ok. No diff. Ha ok one diff, one tiny diff, i don't know

Yes, well it would have to be wouldn't it, but there's not a hint of it in scripture. Anywhere.

What? Gotta witness for LC there bro, sorry. Plenty of Scrip for that, too. The "one, set period for all" pov is crap i guess...although that can prolly be Quoted too, only there are at least two ways to Read that, right, Bc "all" who are Restored will experience millennium, the one-eyed thing, about the two eyed thing i dunno, prolly not

 

[CoreIssue]

Aaaaah, no thanks. Are you setting up in opposition to Netflix? It's just one topic, and there can't be that many biblical referenced references explaining or proving humans are living in the planet during the millennium. Can you not give me just one or two to get started then I can take it from there?

I posted proofs there is. And that wasn't all I could have.

 

[Davy]

IOWs, to God, 24 hours is as 1000 years, and 1000 years is as 24 hours.
What exactly is the Holy Spirit saying about "time" from God's perspective?
.
So then, according to 2 Peter 3:8, will the popular belief of a Millennium be for a literal thousand years, or will it be for a literal 24 hours?

Both 2 Peter 3 and the Psalms Scripture I quoted are enough to keep it simple. God's timetable is not our earthly timetable. And yes, a thousand years to us can be like a day to God.

 

[Davy]

I'm not misunderstanding 1 Peter 5, but I think you might misundertand me.
Let me ask you something: In Matt 12:28 and Luke 10:18 we see two things: the first is this: Christ informs the Pharisees that they see what they do in him (the casting out of demons) because the Kingdom has come, and that in order for a person to 'rob a strongmans house, you must first bind the strongman'. The clear reference here is that Christ has authority on earth because he has 'bound' Satan...the strongman.
The second verse sees Christ telling his disciples that they have authority over serpants and "all the power of the enemy", as he saw 'Satan fall like lightning', and that "nothing shall hurt them".
Now...we know for a historical fact, and from other biblical passages, that when Christ told them that 'nothing shall hurt you', he was not, clearly, talking of physical harm. Right? All except John died a horrible martyrs death for their faith. And yet we have clear teachings that even if the body was killed, the soul would be safe in Christ.
Thus we start to get to the meat of things here. When Jesus 'bound' Satan so he could 'plunder' his house...it wasn't so his Christians could march forth and not be touched. It wasn't so that Satan couldn't touch a hair on our heads. No...it was so the gospel of Jesus Christ would grow throughout the world and Satan couldn't do a thing to stop it. His lies would be useless in this regard. Pointless, useless, empty...bound.
But does this mean he doesn't attempt to outright kill us? You better believe he does. We know he does, even during Christ's time when Matt 12 outright tells us he has been 'bound' for the plundering to occur...Christ himself is killed...the Apostles are killed.
Again, let me remind you that Rev 20 does NOT say that Satan can not kill the members of Christ's body. It just says he is refrained from decieving. Again, that means what Jesus points out in Matt 12....the Kingdom WILL advance...as it has.

The 1 Peter 5:8 and Revelation 20:1-3 passages are clear that Satan is not... bound yet today. The time of his being literally bound is when the resurrection happens at Jesus' 2nd coming.

There is a huge... difference between our Lord Jesus on earth showing His power over Satan, and giving His Church the ability to cast out demons during this present world and His Kingdom in the world to come. You can turn and twist Scripture all you like to try and force it into a doctrine of men like Amillennialism, etc., but it just won't work.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Let me tell you what I think about this so called 'toxic masulinity' rubbish... Sure...some men are jerks. But some women are harpies. But men are just men, and so they ought to be.

I agree totally. If half the human race had been sensitive-little-flower, "beta males" down through the centuries, would we have survived as a species? The God-given role of protector and provider blesses a man's family and community, and ultimately him as well, as he gains the respect of his family and community. That is the only route to having self-respect for men or women--doing what is right. What is called, "toxic masculinity" is really just sin.

By the same token, this new brand of "feminism" is what I would call "toxic femininity." It is also, in reality, just sin. Convincing some women that abortion is good for them has made those women who are so-convinced, into emotional wrecks. Abortion is evil and anyone who promotes it is participating in genocide--they might as well be Nazi exterminators. In a more moral world, if a woman (or girl) was not ready, willing or able to care for a child, she would give the infant to others who are ready, willing and able to do so. Killing life is not a role that women readily adapt to and any woman will suffer greatly for taking it on. She either suffers for years with guilt and depression or she deadens herself to the pain and suffers even more--having fits of anger toward anyone who suggests that it damaged her. Even though she often doesn't realize the source of her suffering--the abomination of abortion--the damage occurs nonetheless. In a more moral world, men would take on the responsibility of protecting women from making such disastrous choices and protecting their unborn children. Adam was there with Eve in the Garden--he should have tried to protect her from falling.

 

[Davy]

I respectfully disagree with those saying he will claim to be "Christ"

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

In addition to vehemently hating all religion in the world, especially Christianity, the MoS will exalt himself above Christ and above every known god, and Christ just so happens to be world reknown. There will, however, be many false Christs and false prophets that arise at that time who will claim to be Christ incarnate (more than usual). The MoS will fashion and worship his own god, a god of fortresses. Daniel 11:38

Convincing the world that he is Christ is simply not compatible with his M.O. Matthew 24:24 is not referring to the MoS, but the common antichrist deceivers.

You're simply wrong.

In Matthew 24:24, the Greek word for "false Christs" is pseudochristos, made up from Greek pseudo and Christos. The context of the Matthew 24:23-26 passage is singular...

Matt 24:23-27
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.

Is Jesus being specific about the idea of many saying they are Christ? No, of course not. He is warning about a specific false one OTHERS will believe is The Christ. Huge difference.


24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Again, that "false Christs" is actually the Greek word pseudochristos which Dr. James Strong translated as 'a spurious Messiah' in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Strong's no.5580).

This working of great signs and wonders is also a specific working the singular false Messiah is to do to deceive the world when he comes. That is the same working of the one in 2 Thessalonians 2, and in Revelation 13:11 forward.


25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, He is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, He is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
KJV

Our Lord Jesus warns again, for emphasis, making this warning extremely important. The KJV translators would have translated that "He" as 'they' if they had understood the idea of many false Christs there. They obviously understood Jesus to be speaking of a singular false one, like the Book of Daniel shows also.

And our Lord Jesus is showing that singular false one will be a fake Christ. Jesus even shows the difference between the appearance of that fake Christ by OTHERS saying Christ is here, or there, vs. His actual coming which will be like lightning shining from east to west, i.e, meaning easy to see and recognize.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I respectfully disagree with those saying he will claim to be "Christ"

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

In addition to vehemently hating all religion in the world, especially Christianity, the MoS will exalt himself above Christ and above every known god, and Christ just so happens to be world reknown. There will, however, be many false Christs and false prophets that arise at that time who will claim to be Christ incarnate (more than usual). The MoS will fashion and worship his own god, a god of fortresses. Daniel 11:38

Convincing the world that he is Christ is simply not compatible with his M.O. Matthew 24:24 is not referring to the MoS, but the common antichrist deceivers.

I agree--the Antichrist will probably convince those who fall into his deception that he has been manifested throughout the ages as "Lord Krishna", "the Buddha", etc. and "many other gods and goddesses". I have already heard something like it from those who say, "All religions are good". I have had discussions with a "Christian atheist" who insists that, while he is not personally a believer, he thinks that Christianity is a "force for good" in the world because it "makes people behave themselves".

 

[Davy]

I agree--the Antichrist will probably convince those who fall into his deception that he has been manifested throughout the ages as "Lord Krishna", "the Buddha", etc. and "many other gods and goddesses". I have already heard something like it from those who say, "All religions are good". I have had discussions with a "Christian atheist" who insists that, while he is not personally a believer, he thinks that Christianity is a "force for good" in the world because it "makes people behave themselves".

Some of the occultists teach an idea they call "Christ Consciousness".

Christ Consciousness | Edgar Cayce Readings | Edgar Cayce's A.R.E.


Their idea is that we all should be able to attain to the Christ Consciousness, and become our own Christs. They believe Buddha did it, Zoroaster did it, Mohammed did it, etc. In reality, it's about Satan's lie in the Garden, i.e., that we can be our own god.

At the same time, the fraternities of initiation push the lie that all religions are the same, and were simply offshoots from flesh born men who attuned to the Christ Consciousness. They include our Lord Jesus Christ in that also, delegating Him to a mere mortal only, and not God The Son.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I believe Caesar was among the others of Pagan Rome which restrained the rise of the papacy, because as long as the Caesars sat on the throne, the Bishop of Rome was subordinate to him...after all, Caesar was a "god" and worshiped accordingly. Only when the succession of Caesars came to an end could the succession of Popes begin to rule in the same manner as Caesar - over BOTH secular AND religious matters.
Nancy girl, we've GOT to hold the line and stand for truth. Just as the Climate Crisis agenda people know the more the educational system dumbs down kids, the easier it is to indoctrinate them with lies, so it is that with each passing generation in the church, the young people seem to keep erasing and redrawing the line closer and closer to the edge of the cliff.

Have you ever looked at the Codex Sinaiticus? It is online and can be searched. There is nothing particularly heretical about it. It is essentially the same New Testament we have today even though a little bit of text is missing due to laying around in a Greek monastery for centuries. It was actually discovered in a pile of manuscripts that were to be trashed. It has been dated to no later than the early 300's. It is extremely fragile and has special circumstances set up to preserve it. It is not some kind of "lie from the Jesuits"--they didn't even exist until the sixteenth century.

The "best" Bible is the one that believers will actually read and study. There is enough duplication of thought that even if translational errors have occurred (and the KJV is not immune to that either) the overall message of Scripture remains as pure as the day it was given through the Holy Spirit. Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit could defend the word that He inspired?