SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The restraineing

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

Logic wrote,

Quote:
Ive told you what those seven mountains are already, so it must be Jerusalem .



Just because you named seven hills in Israel does not lock down your theory.
We must stay flexible on an issue such as this.

There are seven hills in Rome,
1.Aventine
2.Caelian
3.Esquiline
4.Viminal
5.Quirinal
6.Palatine
7.Capitoline

You also said,

Quote:
The beast can not be the revived Roman empire because Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits.



I honestly see no defense for your argument in this verse. I still put to the table that this could be an apostate false church under the control of the Vatican, which is located on seven hills in Rome. There by intertwining the two into one.

bro Doug

 2006/9/10 20:42Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Logic on 2006/9/9 17:21:51 posted

Quote:
In the book of Revelation, God turn His attention from His grafted in church to the origonal branches to graft them back in when the fulness of the Gentiles is complete


You are using one assumption to prove another assumption. Can you not see how circular this argument becomes?

What you are saying is 'this also fits into my hypotheses'... but I can't accept your hypothesis.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/9/12 5:56Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
philologos wrote:
You are using one assumption to prove another assumption. Can you not see how circular this argument becomes?

I don't understand how that is an assumtion
How am I takeing for granted aything in the text you quote? Doesn'nt it imply what I make ot out to say?
If not, please explain.
I've always though Israel was the crux of prophetic times, or the "time clock of prophecy".

Quote:
What you are saying is 'this also fits into my hypotheses'... but I can't accept your hypothesis.

This is because I've studied the other hypotheses and found them to be wanting in reguards to the outline that I hold to.
I am not so hard to my position that I will not bend, infact I have moved from some of your views that alot of you hold.
I used to think that Papal Rome was the whore, the Restrainer was the Holy Spirit, and pre-trib rapture; but in my studies I have moved to what make more sence.
None the less, I no where you all are coming from and am trying to give you the analysis that I have come acrossed that moved myself.

 2006/9/12 12:03Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I don't understand how that is an assumtion
How am I takeing for granted aything in the text you quote? Doesn'nt it imply what I make ot out to say?
If not, please explain.
I've always though Israel was the crux of prophetic times, or the "time clock of prophecy".


Well, two of the assumptions would be that the book of Revelation is showing God taking up with the Jews again and that Israel was 'the time clock of prophecy'

I can't accept either of these assumptions.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/9/13 18:44Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

Hi philologos,

I may have missed it but what/who do you believe the restainer is?

bro Doug

 2006/9/13 18:52Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I think the Restrainer was probably the Roman Empire. The removal of the secular power of Rome opened up the way for the religious power of the Roman church.

(please note my sign-off, especially the final line!!)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/9/13 19:01Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

Have you ever studied about the restrainer as being the Holy Spirit? The Greek seems to allude to that interpretation.

bro Doug

 2006/9/13 19:16Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Have you ever studied about the restrainer as being the Holy Spirit? The Greek seems to allude to that interpretation.


I don't think the Greek does tend to that interpretation although it is one that I adopted early in my Christian life.

I suppose you are alluding to the use of the different pronouns in “And now ye know [u]that[/u] which restraineth, to the end that [i]he[/i] may be revealed in [u]his[/u] own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is [u]one that[/u] restraineth now, until [i]he[/i] be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of [i]his[/i] mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of [i]his[/i] coming;”
(2Th 2:6-8 ASV)
In the above quotation I have underlined the words which represent pronouns in the original Greek. The italics signify words which are not in the origanl Greek but have been supplied by the translator to make easier sense to English speakers.

We must be very careful to distinguish between genders and sexes in Greek as in many European languages. To say that a word has a 'female gender' has nothing to do with its 'sex'. In French and German and Greek the word 'door' takes the feminine gender; it has nothing at all to do with 'sexual gender' this is grammatical gender. It is an interesting exercise to guess why some words have taken masculine and some feminine gender but ultimately fruitless.

So in all the instances above where you have a word in italics there is no sense of 'sexual gender'. The nouns to which the words are attached will have grammatical gender. Let me illustrate: many folks are offended by the fact the the KJV seem to refer to the Holy Spirit as 'it'..eg “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”
(Rom 8:16 KJVS)This is effectively a mistranslation although it is a literal translation! The first word in the sentence is 'αυτο' which the KJV has translated as 'itself'. But Biblical Greek properly doesn't have a word which is an exact equivalent of our 'itself' or 'herself' or 'hisself'. It has personal pronouns whose 'case' is determined by the grammatical gender of the noun. In this case the noun is Πνευμα which is grammatically in the 'neuter' gender'. It does not mean that 'a spirit' is neuter but just that the word is neuter. Consequently, although Tyndale et al were very 'accurate' in translating the word as 'itself' in fact they have implied something in the English translation which is not there.

OK back to 2 Thes 2 and more Greek intricacies! There is a Greek construction which joins a definite article to a participle to give the sense of characteristic. eg John frequently used the construction 'the (one) believing', which the KVJ renders as 'whosoever believeth' and which really means 'the believer'. The man (or woman) characterized by their continual 'believing'. (This has important implications for the 'golden verse'. John 3:16)

2 Thess 2:6,7 has this construction twice.“and now, [u]what is keeping down[/u] ye have known, for his being revealed in his own time, for the secret of the lawlessness doth already work, only [u]he who is keeping down[/u] now [will hinder] — till he may be out of the way,”
(2Th 2:6-7 YNG) The definite article + the participle create the sense of 'The Restrainer'. Youngs, above, has tried to show the fact that in the fist instance the definite article is grammatically neuter, while in the second instance the definite article is in the 'masculine'. This means that the writer was thinking about a neuter noun in the first instance and a masculine noun in the second. Some have concluded that this means he is thinking of something like 'The Empire' for the first use and something like The Emperor for the second use.

This would fit well with the comment I have made earlier that for some reason Paul chose not to say plainly what or who the Restrainer was. What hypotheses can we find for this? The Christians of the next century were united in their conviction that Paul was referring to the Roman Empire. Why was he so cryptic? This was a semi-public letter which, as with other letters, would ultimately be copied and passed on to many other congregations. If this letter had said 'The Roman Empire' it would not have been Paul who suffered for it (I have no doubt that such would NOT have made him cautious) but the sufferers would have been the people who were found in possession of the letter. For their sakes, not his own, he reminds them that he had already explained these things to them.

My apologies for any for whom this is just too much information. :-( I post it for the sake of those who are digging a little deeper.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/9/14 6:17Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

philologos,

This may interest you concerning your interpretation of the restrainer. I can't say for all, but many Calvary Chapel pastors believe that the Roman empire never died completely and is still around to this day. They do believe it will be revived but just as the church is still around, just in need of revival, so to the Roman empire is still around but in need of being revived.

 2006/9/14 8:32Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:

Dougmore wrote:
This may interest you concerning your interpretation of the restrainer. I can't say for all, but many Calvary Chapel pastors believe that the Roman empire never died completely and is still around to this day. They do believe it will be revived but just as the church is still around, just in need of revival, so to the Roman empire is still around but in need of being revived.


I see this as the European Union AKA the Ten Horns of Revelations.

 2006/9/14 11:56Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy