The Restrainer is the Holy Spirit, Not Michael the Archangel

[benny balerio]

Hi mark,

If I have an appointment in two weeks, I can't come in next week. I have to wait. I have a time set aside for me. That's my own time.

Then you are not seeing your doctor in your OWN time.

You are seeing your doctor in the time that he has prescribed for you, unless your doctor were to tell you to come whenever you want. Then you would be seeing your doctor in your OWN time.

2:6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

And now you know what withholdeth UNTO the revealing of him in his OWN time.

If you are seeing your doctor during the time that HE HAS ALLOTTED FOR YOU, then you are NOT seeing your doctor in YOUR OWN TIME. You are seeing your doctor in the time that he has scheduled for you.

Take your pick..how do you desire to word it?

2 Thessalonians 2:6

New International Version (©1984)
And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And you know what is holding him back, for he can be revealed only when his time comes.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

International Standard Version (©2008)
You know what it is that is now holding him back, so that he will be revealed when his time comes.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You know what it is that now holds him back, so that he will be revealed when his time comes.

King James Bible
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

American King James Version
And now you know what withholds that he might be revealed in his time.

American Standard Version
And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.

Bible in Basic English
And now it is clear to you what is keeping back his revelation till the time comes for him to be seen.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

Darby Bible Translation
And now ye know that which restrains, that he should be revealed in his own time.

English Revised Version
And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.

Webster's Bible Translation
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

Weymouth New Testament
And now you know what restrains him, in order that his true character may be revealed at his appointed time.

World English Bible
Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.

Young's Literal Translation
and now, what is keeping down ye have known, for his being revealed in his own time,

[watching]

I pick this one:

2:6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

[benny balerio]

I pick this one:

2:6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

Sorry,..no speakee spanish.


The idea that somehow we can by some human enterprise bring the Kingdom prior to its planned time is not true.

Now the reason for the restraint, back to verse 6, so that in his time he may be revealed. God has this restraining force imposed on Satan in his plan for Antichrist because God has appointed a season and no sooner. You say, "What is the season?" Listen very carefully, you'll understand it. God is redeeming His church. Before the foundation of the world, God ordained who would be redeemed. Their names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life. If Satan were not restrained, he would come, he would send the Antichrist, he would bring the holocaust of final blasphemy and disaster and then God would step in and judge the whole thing and the day of the Lord would come and the end would come but the problem would be there would still be people who had been planned by God to live and believe and populate His eternal Kingdom who would not yet have been born. You understand that? So God must wait until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, to borrow Paul's term in Romans 11, until the whole plan is consummated, until all those from before the foundation of the world set for eternal redemption are born and believe
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/53-10

[mark s]

The time that belongs to you. Genitive case, I believe. Not that you've chosen the time.

[mark s]

ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

Yes, thank you for posting the Greek again.

ἑαυτοῦ

The "ou" ending is the genitive/ablative. So, either possession or origin. I'm thinking possession. I guess you're thinking origin.

Love in Christ,

Mark

[watching]

The time that belongs to you. Genitive case, I believe. Not that you've chosen the time.

Hi mark,

What are you talking about?

No comprende.

Could you please explicar por favor?

(Just kidding......I don't speak Spanish either.)

(Btw, I was just kidding about the Spanish part. I really don't know what the genetive case means.)



edit: Or the ablative.

[watching]

Hi mark s,

I don’t know what the difference is between the genitive or ablative case.

All I know is that ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ means “in his own time” or you could say, “in the time OF himself.”

ἐν (in) τῷ (the) ἑαυτοῦ (OF himself) καιρῷ (time)

So, in other words, the one who has possession of the time, would be himself.

In other words, the time BELONGS TO himself.

So, if you are the one who has possession of the time that you are going to do something, then you should be able to choose what time you are going to do it.

For example, if I were to say, you may finish this test in your own time.

That means you get to choose how long you want to take before you finish the test.

It’s like saying, “take your time.”

How can you take your time, if the time is not yours to take?

[mark s]

Genitive (designates possession) / Ablative (designates origin) case (1 case) is demonstrated in:

I'm giving you an appointment for next Tuesday at 3pm. So that is your appointment

The appointment comes from me (ablative), but it is your appointment (genitive).

[watching]

Hi mark,

I am still not understanding.

So, what exactly is it that would make that distinction?

Could you cite some examples (in Greek)?

[watching]

Hi mark,

In any case, I don’t see what difference it makes, whether the time was GIVEN to him, or not.

The fact still remains, that he is the one in possession of the time, that was given to him, for the purpose of revealing himself.

For example, if I were to say, “take all the time, you need, to respond to my post.”

Then I am the one, who is giving you the time.

But, that doesn’t change the fact, that the time, to respond to my post, is at your disposal, for you to take whenever you like.

[benny balerio]

Hi mark,

In any case, I don’t see what difference it makes, whether the time was GIVEN to him, or not.

The fact still remains, that he is the one in possession of the time, that was given to him, for the purpose of revealing himself.

For example, if I were to say, “take all the time, you need, to respond to my post.”

Then I am the one, who is giving you the time.

But, that doesn’t change the fact, that the time, to respond to my post, is at your disposal, for you to take whenever you like.

You quote:
The fact still remains, that he is the one in possession of the time, that was given to him, for the purpose of revealing himself.

My Reply:
Now that is interesting,.....So how does the antichrist know that he is the antichrist?
Can the antichrist choose the time and place when he is born?
The antichrist does not have possesion of the time of his revealing.
His revealing as the false messiah is due to his actions, which is recognized by the Jews by the warning that the Lord gave them.

[mark s]

All that it takes for you to sin is for the new creation, the "new man", to relax it's control over the flesh, the "old man". Cease to control the flesh, and the flesh will sin. It's what it does. It's what it will always do.

Think of it as a constantly pressing force. The old man's desires are always and only sinful. Even when you are walking according to the spirit, it's still there, lusting after all those things it wants. Relax control a little, it sins a little. Relax control a lot, it sins a lot.

I see this as similar to what Paul is describing. The Lawlessness is working in this world, sometimes more, sometimes less, but diffuse through humanity. Once the control is relaxed, at the time of God's Own choosing, then that lawlessness will be revealed in one man, the man of sin.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

Hi mark,

In any case, I don’t see what difference it makes, whether the time was GIVEN to him, or not.

The fact still remains, that he is the one in possession of the time, that was given to him, for the purpose of revealing himself.

For example, if I were to say, “take all the time, you need, to respond to my post.”

Then I am the one, who is giving you the time.

But, that doesn’t change the fact, that the time, to respond to my post, is at your disposal, for you to take whenever you like.

Hi watching,

I'm just going to have to disagree with you. I do not see this passage giving the man of sin control of his timetable. I see it that there has been a time (season) established for the lawless one to be revealed, and that there is a restraint against the secret working of lawlessness so that the man of sin's revelation will not come before his appointed time.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[watching]

Hi mark,

I'm just going to have to disagree with you.

That's fine.

I do not see this passage giving the man of sin control of his timetable. I see it that there has been a time (season) established for the lawless one to be revealed,................

But where is the scripture for this?

.................and that there is a restraint against the secret working of lawlessness so that the man of sin's revelation will not come before his appointed time.

And where is the scripture for this?

Mark, you may see it that way, but if you do not have any scripture to back you view, then it is just your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to believe.

What can I say?

[mark s]

Hi watching,

It's the Scripture that we've been discussing . . . that's why we will simply disagree. I understand it to be saying one thing, you understand it to be saying something different.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[benny balerio]

Hi mark,

I'm just going to have to disagree with you.

That's fine.

I do not see this passage giving the man of sin control of his timetable. I see it that there has been a time (season) established for the lawless one to be revealed,................

But where is the scripture for this?

.................and that there is a restraint against the secret working of lawlessness so that the man of sin's revelation will not come before his appointed time.

And where is the scripture for this?

Mark, you may see it that way, but if you do not have any scripture to back you view, then it is just your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to believe.

What can I say?

Matthew 24;15(there's the scripture you asked for)
The moment he reveals himself as the Antichrist by desecrating the Jew's rebuilt Temple and blaspheming God, the Jewish people will revolt. They will reject him as Messiah, and he will respond in fury by attempting to annihilate them.

He does not come right out and say "Hey guys!..I am the antichrist",..it's his prophecied actions that reveal that he is an imposter. The Lord told the Jews what sign to look for and by this given sign they are to flee into the wilderness.
The antichrist does not say "Hey! this is day 1,261...therefore God said to me that I am to reveal myself this day."
The antichrist is revealed by foretold prophecy,..not by his choice to reveal himself.

[watching]

Hi benny,

Where does it say in Matthew 24:15 that the anti-Christ is being restrained, so that he will be revealed in his own time, which is not his own time?

[benny balerio]

Hi benny,

Where does it say in Matthew 24:15 that the anti-Christ is being restrained, so that he will be revealed in his own time, which is not his own time?

If you find it to say that he is restrained in Matthew 24;15..then you let me know

But it does reveal the the antichrist is restrained in 2 Thessalonians 2.
The Restrainer is referred to as both neuter (τὸ κατέχον [to katechon] , “what is restraining”) and masculine (ὁ κατέχων [ho katechōn] , “He who now restrains”).

Now the reason for the restraint, back to verse 6, so that in his time he may be revealed. God has this restraining force imposed on Satan in his plan for Antichrist because God has appointed a season and no sooner. You say, "What is the season?" Listen very carefully, you'll understand it. God is redeeming His church. Before the foundation of the world, God ordained who would be redeemed. Their names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life. If Satan were not restrained, he would come, he would send the Antichrist, he would bring the holocaust of final blasphemy and disaster and then God would step in and judge the whole thing and the day of the Lord would come and the end would come but the problem would be there would still be people who had been planned by God to live and believe and populate His eternal Kingdom who would not yet have been born. You understand that? So God must wait until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, to borrow Paul's term in Romans 11, until the whole plan is consummated, until all those from before the foundation of the world set for eternal redemption are born and believe
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/53-10

[Douggg]

All that it takes for you to sin is for the new creation, the "new man", to relax it's control over the flesh, the "old man". Cease to control the flesh, and the flesh will sin. It's what it does. It's what it will always do.

Think of it as a constantly pressing force. The old man's desires are always and only sinful. Even when you are walking according to the spirit, it's still there, lusting after all those things it wants. Relax control a little, it sins a little. Relax control a lot, it sins a lot.

I see this as similar to what Paul is describing. The Lawlessness is working in this world, sometimes more, sometimes less, but diffuse through humanity. Once the control is relaxed, at the time of God's Own choosing, then that lawlessness will be revealed in one man, the man of sin.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Hi Mark, I think the mystery of iniquity (2thess2:7) is the denial that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah. That is what was already working in the world. John also wrote of this mystery as the spirit of antichrist in 1 John 4. The spirit of antichrist is denial that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah (1 John 4:3). The spirit of antichrist is a spiritual position that Jesus is not the messiah. It is a manner of thinking based on rejection of the truth (2thess2:10).

Since the spirit of antichrist is a spiritual position that Jesus is not the Christ, then by that same spiritual position, the conclusion must be another person, not Jesus, is the Christ, messiah as termed by the Jews.

Now we get into that lawlessness issue. There is a requirement in Deutronomy 31:10-11, 10And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

11When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

In Daniel 9:26, the prince who shall come, the Antichrist, confirms the covenant (which is the reading of the law) for 7 years, i.e.he restarts the seven year cycle required to confirm the law, called "the law" in Deuteronomy 31:11 above.

In the middle of that 7 years, he breaks "the law" by stopping the daily sacrifice required under the law "and in the midst of the week (the 7 year cycle) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Daniel 9:27). It is not his moral conduct per se, albeit he is the man of sin, that earns him the title the lawless one, but his breaking of "the law" stopping the daily sacrifice.

At that time, his own time, he reveals himself as the man of sin by going into the temple of God declaring his self as God.

All 2thess2:6 is saying is that it is not his time yet. And it will not be his time until a time appointed (Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. 36And the king (the Antichrist) shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.)

And the Antichrist's time is contingent upon the pre-determined time in history when Jesus returns, the signs given in Matthew 24, because Jesus is going to destroy him. 2thess2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

To synopsis 2thessalonians2, Paul is simply saying to the Thessalonians that it was not the time for the Antichrist (which is tied to the return of Jesus, the Day of the Lord, who will destroy him) because there had not been the great falling away from believing that Jesus is the messiah....although that mystery of iniquity was already at work back in Paul and John's time. The mystery of iniquity, the spiritual position that Jesus is not the messiah, on a grand scale does not take place until the time of the Antichrist, which officially does not begin until he confirms the covenant for the required 7 years cycle of the reading of "the law" to Israel, as the false messiah "another coming in his own name".

During the first 3 1/2 years (nominally) of that 7 years cycle, the great falling away, the denying that Jesus is the messiah, will take place because the world for the most part will believe that the Antichrist man is the messiah. Which will correspond to the requirement that the great falling way take place before he is revealed as the man of sin - in the middle part of the 7 years cycle.



Doug L.

[Douggg]

Hi mark,

In any case, I don’t see what difference it makes, whether the time was GIVEN to him, or not.

The fact still remains, that he is the one in possession of the time, that was given to him, for the purpose of revealing himself.

For example, if I were to say, “take all the time, you need, to respond to my post.”

Then I am the one, who is giving you the time.

But, that doesn’t change the fact, that the time, to respond to my post, is at your disposal, for you to take whenever you like.

Hi watching, since the Antichrist will be destroyed by Jesus at his second coming, that makes the time of the Antichrist predetermined. The signs of Jesus's return are in Matthew 24.

Also in Daniel 11, the time of the Antichrist is predetermined to be at the time of the end by these verses.

35And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36And the king (the Antichrist) the shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

The Antichrist man has no control over when he is born. That he will be revealed as the man of sin in his time - his time is a predetermined end times time - called "his time". The duration of his time is a predetermined 7 years. During that 7 years, his time, he will be revealed as the man of sin.

The "what" in 2thess2:6 that is witholding the Antichrist is that his time is contingent upon Jesus's return, the Day of the Lord, which is preset. The Antichrist man has no choice of when he is born. His time is preset in history.

The great falling away is a sign that just precedes the act of the Antichrist revealing himself as the man of sin. The mystery of iniquity is the spiritual position that Jesus is not the messiah. The Holy Spirit testifies that Jesus is the messiah. When time of the Antichrist arrives, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, He who let's everyone know that Jesus is the messiah, will be taken away from current level that He pleads with men. He who let's - our God - allows the lie that the Antichrist is the messiah to prosper because them that will believe in the Antichrist, will have rejected the truth that Jesus is the messiah unto salvation (2thess2:10-12)

What is being restrained is not the Antichrist, but the lie that Jesus is not the messiah. Verse 7 doesn't say the man of sin, or he (in reference to the man of sin), but "the mystery of inquity" 2thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

So, it is not the Antichrist the person that is being restrained, but the lie that Jesus is not messiah. The mystery of iniquity is a spiritual position that Jesus is not the messiah. That spiritual position that Jesus is not the messiah does not come into full power until the time of the Antichrist. But it is at work right now, and at the time of Paul and John.

Doug L.

[morpheus]

benny, You wrote...

Obviously,..you are not aware that the four gospels had different groups of people in mind.

FIrst of all, I know this theory.
Secondly, I disagree with the link you gave about the Olivet DIscourse. There is a better answer than the one presented.
But third, you prove my point I was making.

Just as the gospel writers gave four different accounts of Jesus, yet they were about the same person and events, so too does scripture give us different accounts of end times, yet they are about the same people and events. Maybe the different writers had different groups of people in mind for their target audience. Just because one person sees a total lunar eclipse doesn't mean everybody in the world will see the same thing. The moon might only be red to others a couple hours away. Yet you insist these small differences in sun and moon going dark are due to different events not different perspectives.

Don't you get it? Whatever logic you use for the one, you should use for the other. You can't explain small differences in prophecy one way and then explain away differently the small differences in the very next chapters - the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Using your logic, Jesus must have been crucified 4 different times. After all, there are probably bigger differences in the crucifixion story then in the Olivet Discourse.

Do I think the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection stories can all be synthesized into one harmony? Yes I do. In the same way, using the exact same logic principles, I think the Olivet DIscourse and other major prophetic scriptures can be synthesized into one harmony.

Do the first four seals in Rev match up with the Olivet Discourse? How about the fifth seal? How about the sixth seal? How about the Sign of the Son of Man? How about the gathering of the elect? Do you see this huge beam or do you insist on finding small specks somewhere?

Prophecy is not as hard as some people make it out to be. Yes, there are a lot of little issues here and there that are tough to figure out - if we can even figure them out right now. But how can people miss the elephant in the room that is the Olivet Discourse matching up with Rev 6-7? The end of the Olivet Discourse only takes us to Rev 7. Then the rest is the DOTL and Millennium.

We need to build our eschatology on the major issues using the major passages and the major events. Only then do you see how the small details fit in. But just look how most people use all the little details to explain away the big details. They make assumptions all over the place and do not realize how it is their ideas that distort scripture, not scripture that determines the details.

[Jay Ross]

benny, You wrote...

Obviously,..you are not aware that the four gospels had different groups of people in mind.

FIrst of all, I know this theory.
Secondly, I disagree with the link you gave about the Olivet DIscourse. There is a better answer than the one presented.
But third, you prove my point I was making.

Just as the gospel writers gave four different accounts of Jesus, yet they were about the same person and events, so too does scripture give us different accounts of end times, yet they are about the same people and events. Maybe the different writers had different groups of people in mind for their target audience. Just because one person sees a total lunar eclipse doesn't mean everybody in the world will see the same thing. The moon might only be red to others a couple hours away. Yet you insist these small differences in sun and moon going dark are due to different events not different perspectives.

Don't you get it? Whatever logic you use for the one, you should use for the other. You can't explain small differences in prophecy one way and then explain away differently the small differences in the very next chapters - the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Using your logic, Jesus must have been crucified 4 different times. After all, there are probably bigger differences in the crucifixion story then in the Olivet Discourse.

Do I think the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection stories can all be synthesized into one harmony? Yes I do. In the same way, using the exact same logic principles, I think the Olivet DIscourse and other major prophetic scriptures can be synthesized into one harmony.

Do the first four seals in Rev match up with the Olivet Discourse? How about the fifth seal? How about the sixth seal? How about the Sign of the Son of Man? How about the gathering of the elect? Do you see this huge beam or do you insist on finding small specks somewhere?

Prophecy is not as hard as some people make it out to be. Yes, there are a lot of little issues here and there that are tough to figure out - if we can even figure them out right now. But how can people miss the elephant in the room that is the Olivet Discourse matching up with Rev 6-7? The end of the Olivet Discourse only takes us to Rev 7. Then the rest is the DOTL and Millennium.

We need to build our eschatology on the major issues using the major passages and the major events. Only then do you see how the small details fit in. But just look how most people use all the little details to explain away the big details. They make assumptions all over the place and do not realize how it is their ideas that distort scripture, not scripture that determines the details.

Is that why I often feel that I have a headace after being here in this particular forum theme, its as if I have been bashing my head against a brick wall with no way through?

[mark s]

Yes, we have to go for the big picture, but the details have to fit too.

Look at Joel 2 and 3, for instance. You point to the "blood moon", and the darkened moon, and say, "close enough!" But is it?

Joel points to the dark moon as a part of the Day of YHWH, and the blood moon before the Day of YHWH. Aren't these details important?

Revelation, we can read it simply, straightforward, as it presents itself. The blood moon, before the trumpets and bowls, and Jesus' coming to earth much later, after the trumpets and bowls. The blood moon before, and the dark moon during the Day of YHWH.

I agree, prophecy is in some ways simple, but we have to take everything seriously, each little word.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

Before most broadway shows and movies, the theatre goes dark. Is this part of the show, before the show, or during the show? All three can be correct in a way. And there really is no reason to argue which is correct. We all understand how it fits. Do you agree with this situation?

God does the same thing at the start of the Day of the Lord. The Bible says the sun, moon and starts go dark at the very start of the DOTL. It can be said to start the event, precede the event, and be during the event. But this is only an accurate description because it is at the very start of the event. It is the exact same situation at the start of a broadway play.

The other thing is whether it is doing to be the exact same view for people all over the earth. The event may not be visible to everybody all at once. But as the world turns, each time zone gets to see the display in the heavens. So for some people it may be before, some the exact start, and some after the start. So it all depends on one's perspective and location.

Even if one does place the rapture immediately after this sign and the Sign of the Son of Man, they still have to admit this sun and moon going dark will appear differently to people all over the globe. How can the sun go dark for people where it is already midnight? Yeah, it all depends on your location.

Also I am talking like this is a normal eclipse - which I think it is. However, God might have something special in store and who knows how it will all look. Whatever it is, people get pretty terrified.

[mark s]

Before most broadway shows and movies, the theatre goes dark. Is this part of the show, before the show, or during the show? All three can be correct in a way. And there really is no reason to argue which is correct. We all understand how it fits. Do you agree with this situation?

Hi morpheus,

This analogy certainly serves your purpose, but whether or not I consider the house lights going dim before a play to be part of the play has no bearing on what the Bible says. It speaks more to how you interpret the text. If I held to the same interpretation, I might use the same analogy.

Now, I do see in Scripture the celestial lights going dark just before the Lord appears. And I also see in Scripture the sun turned to blackness, and the moon to blood, before the Day of YHWH.

Interesting thing about that . . . a darkened sun cannot produce a blood moon. Since the moon reflects the light of the sun, if the sun is darkened, then the moon must be darkened also.

btw . . .

God does the same thing at the start of the Day of the Lord. The Bible says the sun, moon and starts go dark at the very start of the DOTL.

Where does it say this?

It can be said to start the event, precede the event, and be during the event.

Can it be before itself?

The other thing is whether it is doing to be the exact same view for people all over the earth. The event may not be visible to everybody all at once. But as the world turns, each time zone gets to see the display in the heavens. So for some people it may be before, some the exact start, and some after the start. So it all depends on one's perspective and location.

Even if one does place the rapture immediately after this sign and the Sign of the Son of Man, they still have to admit this sun and moon going dark will appear differently to people all over the globe. How can the sun go dark for people where it is already midnight? Yeah, it all depends on your location.

Also I am talking like this is a normal eclipse - which I think it is. However, God might have something special in store and who knows how it will all look. Whatever it is, people get pretty terrified.

I think there is a little more to it than that. I touched on this earlier.

Matthew 24:29 states that both sun and moon will be darkened. This compares to:

Zechariah 14:6 “And it will be in that day, there shall not be light; the glorious ones will shrink.”

Joel 2:10 “The earth shall quake before them, the heavens shall shake. The sun and moon shall grow dark, and the stars shall gather in their light.”

Joel 3:15 “The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall gather in their light.”

Each of these references are in direct relation to the events of the Day of YHWH. All the celestial lights go dark.

This is in contrast to:

Revelation 6:12 “And I saw when He opened the sixth seal. And behold, a great earthquake occurred. And the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair; and the moon became as blood;”

. . . which compares to:

Joel 2:31 “The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of YHWH.”

There is a very important difference between these two sets of descriptions.

The first set states that the sun “shall be darkened”, “shall grow dark”, and uses language that describes its physical state, that it becomes darkened, as Zechariah says, “there shall not be light”. This is telling us the physical state of the sun, and the other celestial lights, including the moon. Of course, the moon reflects the light from the sun, and if the sun becomes darkened, the moon will be darkened also.

The second set, however, uses phenomenal language, speaking in terms of appearance, “the sun became black”, the moon became blood”, as Joel prophesied would occur, not during the Day of YHWH, but before.

And, in fact, the phenomena prophesied, specifically, “the moon became blood”, cannot occur if the sun is actually darkened. If the sun were not emitting light, the moon would not either, of any color. The moon appears red during a lunar eclipse because the sun’s light is still reaching it. If the sun were to be darkened, none of the sun’s light would reach the moon, and it would not have any light at all.

The sun can appear black during an eclipse, for instance, without actually being darkened. If, for instance, a planetary mass of the correct size passed between the earth and the sun, at the correct distance, causing simultaneous solar and lunar eclipses, this would produce the phenomena described, a sun “black as sackcloth” and a “blood moon”.

On the other hand, causing the sun to stop emitting light could not produce the blood moon, only a darkened moon.

One might argue that God is not bound by physical laws, and I would of course agree. However, even so, a blood moon is emitting light. Zechariah prophesies there will not be light.

A "blood moon" means the sun must still be lit - not darkened.

Therefore, I have to conclude that these can only be separate events, having different direct causes.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

Mark S,

You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel my friend. The passages are way more similar than different. You find separation where we should be finding synthesis. I'd like to see you try and harmonize all the gospels. It actually is not that easy. With your thinking, I bet you can't harmonize much of anything. I'm sure there will always be little differences that to you are important that make the recorded passages into totally separate events. At least that is how I understand the application of your reasoning.

Try harmonizing the trial of Jesus. Just try it and post it here. Let us look at your work. Let us see if you can apply your logic and gets results that make sense. In my opinion, until you can handle this milk, don't try for the prophetic meat.

I know you are suppose to be a moderator here, and a lot of that means keeping the peace. Even sometimes I need someone to get me back on the proper track of speaking in love. But do not confuse a title with wisdom. They rarely travel together.

[Douggg]

And, in fact, the phenomena prophesied, specifically, “the moon became blood”, cannot occur if the sun is actually darkened. If the sun were not emitting light, the moon would not either, of any color. The moon appears red during a lunar eclipse because the sun’s light is still reaching it. If the sun were to be darkened, none of the sun’s light would reach the moon, and it would not have any light at all.

Hi Mark, I think throw the science book out the window during the great tribulation period. Is there light in heaven where God dwells? God does not need a sun to produce light for a red moon. The powers of heaven will be shaken. God created the universe and He can remove stars, moons, at His will.

That's what Revelation 6, the 6th seal is all about. The second heaven is going to be removed. The second heaven is the home place of Satan and the demons. They are going to be kicked out from the second heaven down to earth because near the end of the 7 years, the universe, the second heaven, which being their abode, is going to be removed. Those UFO's are nothing more than fallen angels.

One might argue that God is not bound by physical laws, and I would of course agree. However, even so, a blood moon is emitting light. Zechariah prophesies there will not be light.

And praise God for that, that we are counting on Him, or else there would not be anything such as the resurrection or rapture.

Zechariah 14:
6And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

[The Orange Mailman]

Hey Watching-

On another board I posted your comments (questions) from your July 13th post. Two Greek scholars weighed in and agreed, which they don't always. Here is what they had to say.


Alan Kurschner:
A few comments.

i. _Genatai_ has a semantic range of 10 meanings as mentioned in a previous
post. The meaning "to become" or "come into existence" is certainly not the
meaning in this context. The most fitting meaning here is "to occur as process
or result, happen, turn out, take place." This will be qualified below.

ii. The expression _Ek mesou_ needs to be seen with the verb _Ek mesou genatai_.
So the question should be, what was the meaning of this expression in ancient
Greek (not just _ek mesou_). This expression is not found in biblical Greek,
including the LXX. But it is found in extra-biblical Greek, which means "removed
or disappear."

We should not look up three different Greek words and combine their meanings.
This expression _in itself_ has an idiomatic meaning, which is "removed or
disappear."

iii. In v. 7b _heos_ (until) connects the restraining to the action of "taken
out of the way." So there is no gap in the text. In fact it would have been
redundant for Paul to say: "The one who restrains will do so until he is taken
away from his restraining." The "something" is the realm of restraining.

So until the Restrainer is removed or taken away he will continue to restrain.

Thanks,

Alan

Ron Wallace: Precisely!
And that other person's discussion of the Greek is a bit imprecise to say the
least.
MESOS (midst) occurs in the genitive case because it is preceded by the
preposition EK.
It does not require a "genitive" (or ablative, if preferred) function such as
"midst OF."
The word takes on a meaning dictated by the preposition that governs it.
Thus, out FROM the midst. The noun MESOS stands alone
(I mean, like, "out of the room, or land or group - thus, out of the middle)
and finds it's "mate" with the previously mentioned IDEA or THING.
Thus, as most of us here have been stating, it is the sphere of the mystery of
lawlessness
from where the restrainer is removed.

Hey - and if Alan and I agree on something, doesn't that make it DEFINITIVE . .
. . . HA!

In grace,
ron -
Thought you might be interested.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[Resurrection Torchlight]

I'm just going to have to disagree with you. I do not see this passage giving the man of sin control of his timetable. I see it that there has been a time (season) established for the lawless one to be revealed, and that there is a restraint against the secret working of lawlessness so that the man of sin's revelation will not come before his appointed time.

I agree, it is the Lord that grants Him authority to act at the appointed time. He cannot act until that authority is granted.

Revelation 13:5-8
5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.
7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

RT

[watching]

Hi Orange Mailman,

I would like to see that link, if you don't mind.

Could you please send it to me in a PM?

In any case, first of all I would just like to quote the closing statement of the two scholars.

Hey - and if Alan and I agree on something, doesn't that make it DEFINITIVE . .
. . . HA!

And second of all, I really don’t see where they have disagreed with anything that I have said.

Because, I had explained in my post that in every other case that I had looked at, containing the phrase “ek mesou” it always followed, by explaining from the middle of WHAT.

In fact, I have not seen any incidence in the New Testament, or in at least half of the Old Testament (I only looked at about half of the entries of the word “mesou” in the OT, because there were A LOT in the Old Testament), where the phrase “ek mesou” stands alone.

But for now, let’s just look at the examples of ek mesou in the NT.

ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων
from the midst OF the righteous
(Matthew 13:49)

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them
(2 Corinthians 6:17)

ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ
from the midst OF you
(1 Corinthians 5:2)

So, as you can see, in every one of these entries, the middle OF WHAT is explained.

So, I could reasonably add the word “genetai” after any one of these phrases, assuming that it is not awkward to say, “out of the middle BECOMES” as a way of saying “is taken of the way,” to begin with.

But, in any case, let’s say, that it is not awkward.

So, here are the following examples, and how they could be used to explain the middle of WHAT.

Ek mesou ton dikaiwn genitai
From the midst of the righteous he becomes

Ek mesou auton genitai
From the midst of them he becomes

Ek mesou umwn genitai
From the midst of us he becomes

So, as you can see, the middle of WHAT, could have been explained, BUT IT WASN’T.

Now, I realize that the phrase “the middle” can mean “way.”

In fact, it is still that way in the Greek today.

For, example if I wanted to say, “Get out of the way”................

................I could reasonably say, “Get out of the middle” in Greek..............

..........and it would mean the same thing.

However, if I were to say “Get out of the middle” in modern Greek, the word “middle” would NOT BE POSSESSIVE.

In other words, the middle WOULD NOT BE OWNED BY ANYONE.

NOR WOULD IT BE OWNING ITSELF.

So, it would be similar to saying, “Ek to meson” in Koine Greek (even though I have never seen that phrase used in Koine Greek, and it would obviously be said a little differently than that in the modern Greek, in any case, as well)...........because, that way, NO ONE HAS OWNERSHIP...........and the middle is just a location.

But when you say, “mesou” someone has ownership.

Either someone else has ownership of the middle (ablative, I’m assuming), as in the examples of "ek mesou," above.........

..........or the middle itself is the one that has the ownership (genitive, I’m assuming)............

..........as in the following example:

Colossians 2:14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ•

wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

ἐκ τοῦ μέσου
out OF the middle

So, as you can see, in this example, the middle, itself, is the one who has ownership.

Because it says ek tou mesou.

The word “tou” CLARIFIES who/what something/someone BELONGS TO.

So, in the above example, it is CLEAR, that the MIDDLE is the one that has ownership of ITSELF.

So, the ordinances were LIFTED OUT/FROM WHAT BELONGS TO THE MIDDLE and were nailed on the cross.

wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us;............

..........καὶ (and) αὐτὸ (this) ἦρκεν (he has lifted) ἐκ (out/from) τοῦ (belonging to) μέσου (of the middle) προσηλώσας (nailing) αὐτὸ (this) τῷ (the) σταυρῷ (cross)

wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us;............

.............and this he has lifted out of/from belonging to the middle nailing it [on/to] (doesn't say) the cross.

Again,.............THE MIDDLE OF WHAT?????................you might say.

The text still doesn’t tell us.

But I think I have a pretty good idea.

[mark s]

Mark S,

You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel my friend. The passages are way more similar than different. You find separation where we should be finding synthesis. I'd like to see you try and harmonize all the gospels. It actually is not that easy. With your thinking, I bet you can't harmonize much of anything. I'm sure there will always be little differences that to you are important that make the recorded passages into totally separate events. At least that is how I understand the application of your reasoning.

Try harmonizing the trial of Jesus. Just try it and post it here. Let us look at your work. Let us see if you can apply your logic and gets results that make sense. In my opinion, until you can handle this milk, don't try for the prophetic meat.

I know you are suppose to be a moderator here, and a lot of that means keeping the peace. Even sometimes I need someone to get me back on the proper track of speaking in love. But do not confuse a title with wisdom. They rarely travel together.

Hi morpheus,

Synthesis for the sake of synthesis is eisegesis. What does the text show?

I've shown you Scriptures. You are showing me . . . what?

Perhaps the simplest distillation of my "reasoning" is simply this. Read the Scriptures seriously, every word. Use Critical reasoning, and think it through. And don't overlook inconsistencies for the sake of simple solutions.

Perhaps you might try commenting on my assertions, instead of simply commenting on me personally. It may be more productive to the discussion. Or do you simply wish to shame me?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

mark s,

Synthesis for the sake of synthesis is eisegesis. What does the text show?

Neither of us debate what the text is. The question is how much synthesis? We both agree that no synthesis of prophecy is wrong. We both agree synthesis of everything regardless of details is wrong. The question is how far do we take synthesis in that middle ground. We take it as far as the detail match up. I think we both agree on all this.

The questions then becomes where do the details differ enough. If I understand you correctly, you think "the moon going dark" and "the moon going blood red" as two different things. I think they are not. How do we decide who is right?

Here is link showing an actual lunar eclipse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 007_(by-sa).jpg

If an observer were to say in this photo that the moon goes dark, is it accurate? How about if they say it goes red? Both would be correct descriptions of the event. That is why I have no trouble saying "moon does dark" and "moon turns to blood" can be synthesized. I think reality backs my position.

I've shown you Scriptures. You are showing me . . . what?

I hadn't shown an actual picture example but figured you knew this astronomical info already. But maybe you did not know this. So now I am showing you an actual photo and physical proof that backs my position.

Do you think this time lapse multi photo is of one event or two different events? If you look at this photo and insist it is two different events then everybody else in the world would call you nuts. So why when you go to Scripture you insist on two?

Perhaps you might try commenting on my assertions, instead of simply commenting on me personally. It may be more productive to the discussion. Or do you simply wish to shame me?

You have put yourself in what I think is a untenable position. If you look at the photo and conclude two events, the whole world will know you are looney (get the pun?) If you say one event in the photo but then say two events in Scripture, you prove your eschatology inconsistent with reality. If you ignore answering the question and hope it goes away without anybody noticing, you will be wrong.

[mark s]

mark s,

Synthesis for the sake of synthesis is eisegesis. What does the text show?

Neither of us debate what the text is.

Hi morpheus,

Perhaps we do, unknowingly.

In saying "the moon turns to blood", this is using descriptive language. Personally, I think the way to interpret this is that it appears to turn to blood, not that it actually does.

When we read "the sun and moon are darkened", "the sun and moon will not give their light", this is phenomenal language, describing what is happening.

Are we on the page so far?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

mark s,

Of course I think "moon to blood" is a metaphor. Everybody does. I mean maybe there is one person somewhere who actually interprets this literally. Seems there is always one. But why do you even bring this up? It has nothing to do with the point under discussion.

Deal with the main point of the question. Is the photo in the link of one event or two? Is scripture talking of one event or two? Is this picture not proof that when the moon goes dark it also goes red? That is the question.

[mark s]

mark s,

Of course I think "moon to blood" is a metaphor. Everybody does. I mean maybe there is one person somewhere who actually interprets this literally. Seems there is always one. But why do you even bring this up? It has nothing to do with the point under discussion.

Deal with the main point of the question. Is the photo in the link of one event or two? Is scripture talking of one event or two? Is this picture not proof that when the moon goes dark it also goes red? That is the question.

The question is not what do we think of how we describe a couple of pictures. The question is, what does the Bible say, and how should we understand it?

The point I'm making is that the Bible says that the sun and moon will not give their light, which is a statement concerning their physical properties.

The Bible also says that the moon will become blood, which I believe is a statement of it's appearance.

And the issue here is, a blood moon is still giving light, though red. A moon that is not giving its light is not.

With me so far?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

mark s,

Quit dodging the issue. It has everything to do with the picture. What do you think the prophets saw when they wrote the Scripture? They saw something. Even if somebody only transcribed some text given them, it still must get transposed to what people eventually will see. Fact is, when the moon goes dark/red at the start of the DOTL, it will be possible to take a photo of it. We could then actually compare the two photos directly, could we not?

A red moon is in fact a darkened moon. A red moon only looks bright in a photo because they turn up the exposure. Do you understand photography or do I need to further explain this?

Will other people please join in here and ask Mark to come clean and answer the question? Or if I am being unreasonable, then let me know. I think mark s is need of a jury to hold him accountable.

In the real world, the moon going dark and the moon going to blood accompany each other. Can't you admit this fact of life?

[mark s]

morpheus,

You continue to make this personal. That's not what we're here about. I think the prophets wrote what God moved them to write, letter perfect.

Words have meaning. Without that there is nothing to discuss.

You can only see a red moon because you have light coming from it to see. I moon that gives no light will not look any color at all.

Photos of moons aside.

This is my assertion to you. A moon can be lit, showing color, or unlit, with no color. It is not both. Now, you can assert the the dark moon immediately follows the red moon, that is a different matter.

To which I'd point back to the timing differences given in Scripture.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[The Orange Mailman]

Will other people please join in here and ask Mark to come clean and answer the question? Or if I am being unreasonable, then let me know. I think mark s is need of a jury to hold him accountable.

Morpheus-

You are being unreasonable. Mark has stated his position and he is entitled to it even if he is completely wrong. If he has no further defense, then he has no further defense. It now rests on you to provide additional proof that would require additional answers from him.

For instance, the entire book of Joel and the sixth and seventh chapters of Revelation can be laid parallel. There is no dispute on this since the phrase "moon became as blood" in Revelation 6:12 can be equated with "moon into blood" in Joel 2:31. The timing of this eschatological event in Joel 2 can be seen to have the backdrop of Israel during the great tribulation being provoked to repentance. See Joel 2:1-11 which pictures an army advancing on Israel, probably on Jerusalem with the Day of the LORD about to break forth. But just before that, God's people are provoked to repentance, Joel 2:12-17. God's response is jealousy for His people in Joel 2:18-27. Then the events which occur that ultimately usher in the end of the age, Joel 2:28-32. So you need to prove the framework of the time of Jacob's trouble, then the cosmic signs, then the Day of the LORD as Joel clearly lays out. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Joel 2:28-29 can be linked with the repentance of Israel and with the sealing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7.

The next step is to demonstrate the overall framework of Revelation 6-7. This is easily done since the church (or great multitude) comes out from the great tribulation in Revelation 7:9-17. So it is quite easy to identify the great tribulation as occurring at least at the fifth seal. The time of wrath immediately follows the seventh seal with fire, brimstone, smoke, etc. raining down on earth during the trumpets. There are other time factors here as well, such as the prayers for vengeance by the saints against those which are persecuting them. These prayers are held in abeyance until the angel with the golden censer offers them up before the LORD in Revelation 8:1-5. So it seems that in both instances, the Day of the LORD or time of God's wrath follows the cosmic signs, and these two passages are a clear parallel even according to a skeptic who refuses to see a parallel with the cosmic signs in the Olivet Discourse.

Now let's turn our attention to the Olivet Discourse. The great tribulation can be considered to run parallel with the time of Jacob's trouble. The approach is simple. Jeremiah 30:7-9 clearly shows that Israel will be delivered out from the time of Jacob's trouble, the yoke of foreign nations broke by the LORD, then the Davidic Messiah will rule over Israel. So this is the final portion of Daniel's 70th week. Most eschatology students will agree that the abomination of desolation occurs at the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week and the great tribulation described in Matthew 24:21-28 occurs during the final half of Daniel' 70th week.

So what else needs to be said? The cosmic signs of Matthew 24:29 occur as the great tribulation is ending and as Christ comes gloriously. The cosmic signs of Joel 2 occur as the time of Jacob's trouble is ending as the Holy Spirit is being poured out upon Israel at the sixth seal. We later have the description of Armageddon in Joel 3 which we know occurs in conjunction with Christ's second coming. The Revelation passage ties it all together. The cosmic signs occur, the nations are in terror and want to be hidden from the face of the One on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, the believing remnant of Israel is sealed with the Holy Spirit, the church comes out from the great tribulation.

And further, there are other threads where this has been discussed. This thread is about Michael being the restrainer. Or not. You provide the proof.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[Douggg]

And further, there are other threads where this has been discussed. This thread is about Michael being the restrainer. Or not. You provide the proof

.

Hi Orange, the question is presumptuous because it assumes that someone is the "restrainer" keeping the Antichrist from arriving.. But the text says the "the mystery of iniquity". Since the mystery of iniquity is already at work - it can't be the Antichrist that is being restrained. The appearance of the Antichrist is not being "restrained" by anyone. It is the mystery of iniquity that is being restrained. The Antichrist's time is pre-set.

The problem is that the verse regarding the mystery of iniquity (2thess2:7) is sandwiched between two verses about the Antichrist, which lead people to think that the "he who letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way" is in referral to holding back the Antichrist. But that is totally wrong.

It is the mystery of iniquity that is being restrained. The mystery of iniquity is the spiritual position against the truth that Jesus is the messiah. The level of that opposition against the truth is currently limited, because the Holy Spirit is pleading with the hearts of men that Jesus is the messiah unto salvation.

When the predetermined time of the Antichrist does come, it will be at God's design to coincide with the period 7 years before Jesus's return to this earth. When the Antichrist's predetermined time does come, the Holy Spirit will no longer keep the lie against Jesus being the messiah in check.

Doug L.

[mark s]

If he has no further defense, then he has no further defense.

Hi OM,

Actually, there is much more that can be said. We can examine both the passages and the logic in detail, as I have numerous times in the past. However, if we cannot reach agreement over the most elementary principles, how to we have a discussion? And, I do favor the thread returning to its topic.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[watching]

The Antichrist's time is pre-set.

Hi Douggg, mark s, RT, benny, etc.

I have been meaning to respond to this issue.

In any case, verse 6 reads as follows:

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

And here is how this was written in Greek:

2:6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

In the Greek, the phrase:

ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

Translates as follows:

ἐν (in) τῷ (the) ἑαυτοῦ (of himself) καιρῷ (time)

So, basically this literally translates as:

in the time of himself

If the text had simply said “in his time” then it would have been written, something to the effect of, as follows:

En tw “autou” kairw

Or

En tw kairw “autou”

That is because “eautou” means “belonging to himself.”

And “autou” means “his” or “belonging to him.”

So, “eautou”, rather than "autou" is, in effect, what I would call, a double possessive pronoun.

But, again, this is just MY OWN terminology. I don’t know what it’s really called.

Btw, how is that for another double possessive pronoun?

So, anyway, the point is…………..

It’s not just the "time of him” or “his time"...............

............but , rather………....

It is the time of “himSELF.”

So, this is comparable, in English, to saying, “in his OWN time”…………….

……………….because this would be how we would express this DOUBLE POSSESSION in English.

So, it’s not just “in his time.”

But, rather, it is “in his OWN time.”

So, when do we use this double possession, in terms of time, when speaking in English?

For example, if I were to say…………

“I will do it IN MY OWN GOOD TIME!!!”

…………………..Does that mean, that I am going to do it, at a time that someone else has predetermined for me?

(Of course, we know that God predetermines everything, but that is not the point here.)

Or, for another example, if a teacher were to say to her students………….

“You may turn in your reports, IN YOUR OWN TIME.”

………………………Does that mean, that she has a deadline for when the reports are due?

Of course not!

So, why would we assume that this double possession, means something different in the Greek, than it does in the English?

And in case you want to pretend that you don’t know what IN ONE’S OWN TIME MEANS, IN ENGLISH, here is the definition:

in one's own time
a. outside paid working hours
b. at one's own rate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time

[shorttribber]

I'll add more to this discussion in my own time

[mark s]

Hi watching,

Does this wording specify the origin of the timetable?

I can't see my doctor today, I've got my own time to see him tomorrow. He gave me an appointment.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Douggg]

For example, if I were to say…………

“I will do it IN MY OWN GOOD TIME!!!”

…………………..Does that mean, that I am going to do it, at a time that someone else has predetermined for me?

Hi watching , you are doing the talking in your example... "I" will do it in my own good time!!!..... The Antichrist is not doing the speaking in 2thess2:6.

It is a bogus question, on every Christian forum, not just here, because people "assume" that the Antichrist is being restrained. However, it doesn't say "who" in 2thess2:6, but "what". The "what" is that the Antichrist's own time cannot be at any time in history except right before Jesus returns. Jesus's return is the controlling factor, which again is the "what" in 2thess2:6. The Antichrist time is being delayed until the other signs of the end times are in place - like Israel being a nation again.

The "who" question is a different issue, because that question is in 2thess2:7 - which is about the mystery of iniquity. The mystery of iniquity is denial that Jesus is the messiah - in whom salvation is found.

(Of course, we know that God predetermines everything, but that is not the point here.)

Or, for another example, if a teacher were to say to her students………….

“You may turn in your reports, IN YOUR OWN TIME.”

………………………Does that mean, that she has a deadline for when the reports are due?

Of course not!

I never had a teacher say that to me! I would turn in my report a hundred years from now. I think she would have put some constraints on "in your own time" within the next week or some thing similar.

It doesn't matter because God is not giving the Antichrist that sort of option. The Antichrist's time in history is predetermine. God is not saying to the Antichrist that he can appear at the time of his (the Antichrist's) choosing.

The reason it says "in his own" time is because the spirit of antichrist was already at work in apostates back in the first century who John referred to as "antichrists". But the time of the Antichrist himself is in "his own time", as opposed to theirs. Plus, as Paul was trying to ease the concerns of the Thessalonians ("do not be shaken", 2thess2:2) that the Day of the Lord had begun, the comparison was the Antichrist's time was not in their time, but in his own time - implying later in history.

Doug L.

[Douggg]

:snack: I'll add more to this discussion in my own time

now hand over some of that popcorn.....

Doug L.

[watching]

Hi watching,

Does this wording specify the origin of the timetable?

I can't see my doctor today, I've got my own time to see him tomorrow. He gave me an appointment.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Hi mark,

Do you ever refer to your dentist appointment as "your own time" with your dentist?

Seriously...........................Wouldn't that be kind of weird?

Besides that, the text is referring to the REVEALING OF HIM in his own time.

So, there is a verb action in connection with "his own time."

So, if you were to say......................

"I am going to see my dentist in my own time."

Would the other person think that you are talking about your pre-set dental appointment?

[watching]

Hi watching , you are doing the talking in your example... "I" will do it in my own good time!!!.....

Hi Douggg,

It doesn't matter who's "own time" it is.

It could be "my own time," "your own time," "his own time"..............

That's why the definition that I gave was for "ONE'S own time;" because it could refer to anyone.

But, that still does not change the meaning of what "one's own time" means.

[Douggg]

Hi watching , you are doing the talking in your example... "I" will do it in my own good time!!!.....

Hi Douggg,

It doesn't matter who's "own time" it is.

It could be "my own time," "your own time," "his own time"..............

That's why the definition that I gave was for "ONE'S own time;" because it could refer to anyone.

But, that still does not change the meaning of what "one's own time" means.

Hi watching, did you choose when you would be born? This is your own time in history. Your time is appointed by God. You didn't have a choice in the matter. Neither will the Antichrist.

Generically speaking, your examples entail a choice that the individual is given. In regards to the Antichrist or any human, there is not the element of choice of when they are born into the world.

When was Abraham Lincoln's own time? Did he choose to be born at that point in history? Abraham Lincoln became president in his own time. He did not become president in our time. Similarly, that's all Paul was telling the Thessalonians, that their time was not the time of the Antichrist. As a proof that it was not the time of the Antichrist, Paul told them that there would be a great falling away first.

When the Antichrist's own time in history does come, he will be revealed as the man of sin by going into the temple of God and declares that he is God. Even so, at that particular point in history, there would be a great falling away first. The great falling away is during the first three and half years (nominally) of the Antichrist's time. The identity of the Antichrist was not revealed to Paul it appears to me.

Doug L.

[mark s]

Hi watching,

Does this wording specify the origin of the timetable?

I can't see my doctor today, I've got my own time to see him tomorrow. He gave me an appointment.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Hi mark,

Do you ever refer to your dentist appointment as "your own time" with your dentist?

Seriously...........................Wouldn't that be kind of weird?

Besides that, the text is referring to the REVEALING OF HIM in his own time.

So, there is a verb action in connection with "his own time."

So, if you were to say......................

"I am going to see my dentist in my own time."

Would the other person think that you are talking about your pre-set dental appointment?

Hi watching,

You are converting ancient Koine Greek to English, then arguing the English idioms.

I would certainly say, I have an appointment. The appointment is mine. It was given by the dentist. Doesn't everyone talk that way?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[watching]

Hi watching, did you choose when you would be born? This is your own time in history.

Hi Douggg,

The time that I was born would not be my OWN time.

Because I'm sure there were a lot of other people being born at the same time that I was born.

So, what exactly would justify, my having DOUBLE OWNERSHIP, over the time that I was born?

I could see the time that I was born being called "my time."

But, I do not see any justification for calling it my "OWN" time, since there were other people being born, and other events occurring in history, at the time that I was born.

However, if you were to say, that I decided to come out of my mother's womb IN MY OWN TIME, then that would make sense, because that would just mean that I didn't come out of my mother's womb until I was ready.

So, there would be a justification, in that case, for calling it my "own" time.

But to say that the time I was born, was MY OWN time in history, would definitely NOT BE CORRECT, because there were many other things occurring during that time. So there would be no justification, whatsoever, for calling that period of time in history "my OWN time."

Generically speaking, your examples entail a choice that the individual is given. In regards to the Antichrist or any human, there is not the element of choice of when they are born into the world.

So, are you saying that the anti-Christ will simply just be a man that will be born sometime in history, who will somehow manage to take over the world, without there being any premeditation involved BY ANYONE OR ANYTHING, and the system that will be in place for him to do that, will have occurred BY ACCIDENT?

Because that is certainly not impression, that I get, based on what the apostle, John, had to say about the anti-Christ.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

When the Antichrist's own time in history does come, he will be revealed as the man of sin by going into the temple of God and declares that he is God. Even so, at that particular point in history, there would be a great falling away first. The great falling away is during the first three and half years (nominally) of the Antichrist's time.

So, are you saying that the anti-Christ will be revealed three and half years before he is revealed?