He who restraineth???

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Your response is not redundant. Answering the point with your opinion is not redundant. I was saying that it would be redundant for Paul to imply the Holy Ghost being the restrainer if it was indeed the Holy Ghost he referred to. For that reason, I think it cannot be the Holy Ghost, is all I am saying.

I don't see how it would be redundant for Paul to be referring to the Holy Ghost as the restrainer

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't see how it would be redundant for Paul to be referring to the Holy Ghost as the restrainer

I already said why I think it would be redundant. Ultimately the Holy Ghost restrains anything that is ever restrained by any lesser instrument.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You're the second one who said that here, and I am surprised I never heard that view before.

I studied it when studying Prewrath view.

http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/bi...Restrainer.htm

Here is littel article on it. I have some very good ones somewhere. THe key IMO is when it talks about standing and sitting. Scanned the article and I am not sure how deep he went on that aspect in the book of Daniel and it's meaning.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I studied it when studying Prewrath view.

http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/bi...Restrainer.htm

Here is littel article on it. I have some very good ones somewhere. THe key IMO is when it talks about standing and sitting. Scanned the article and I am not sure how deep he went on that aspect in the book of Daniel and it's meaning.

Thanks. Will check it out.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already said why I think it would be redundant. Ultimately the Holy Ghost restrains anything that is ever restrained by any lesser instrument.

I read what you posted but the "why" part didn't make any sense.

The Holy Ghost also heals and fills and does all kinds of other things so why should Paul ever mention the Holy Ghost doing anything if it's gonna be redundant?

In fact if it's redundant and the HG restrains anything..isn't that an admission that the restrainer IS the HG?

Paul didn't say "the Holy Ghost is the restrainer"...He said when He is out of the way" and WE were asked "Who is the HE, Paul was talking about"...Paul is not being redundant. He is revealing something about when and how the Lawless one would be revealed

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I read what you posted but the "why" part didn't make any sense.

The Holy Ghost also heals and fills and does all kinds of other things so why should Paul ever mention the Holy Ghost doing anything if it's gonna be redundant?

In fact if it's redundant and the HG restrains anything..isn't that an admission that the restrainer IS the HG?

Paul didn't say "the Holy Ghost is the restrainer"...He said when He is out of the way" and WE were asked "Who is the HE, Paul was talking about"...Paul is not being redundant. He is revealing something about when and how the Lawless one would be revealed

I know Paul is not being redundant, but that is why I believe it cannot be the Holy Ghost.

[Praxeas]

That doesn't make any sense Mike. Being redundant is being excessive. That's like saying Paul said "Jesus is the savior" because it's obvious. Yet Paul didn't even say "The restrainer is the Holy Ghost"...using your logic that could be the only way Paul could have been redundant

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That doesn't make any sense Mike. Being redundant is being excessive. That's like saying Paul said "Jesus is the savior" because it's obvious. Yet Paul didn't even say "The restrainer is the Holy Ghost"...using your logic that could be the only way Paul could have been redundant

Not sure why you are still talking about this, but I cannot get away from Paul simply saying the son of perdition is being restrained, rather than explicitly point out a restrainer. And to me it would be redundant if he implied the Holy Ghost for reasons I gave. Seems to me it would be something more particular than that for Paul to refer to a he like he did.

It doesn't fit to say the Holy Ghost would be "taken out of the way.". Where was such terms or even concept ever used for the Holy Ghost before?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not sure why you are still talking about this, but I cannot get away from Paul simply saying the son of perdition is being restrained, rather than explicitly point out a restrainer. And to me it would be redundant if he implied the Holy Ghost for reasons I gave. Seems to me it would be something more particular than that for Paul to refer to a he like he did.

It doesn't fit to say the Holy Ghost would be "taken out of the way.". Where was such terms or even concept ever used for the Holy Ghost before?

Why? Because that is the topic of the thread maybe?

He didn't imply anything but the fact that he was referring to a HE that is probably the Holy Ghost is no more redundant than repeating jesus is the Savior or Jesus is the Lord

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why? Because that is the topic of the thread maybe?

I did not mean the topic but why you were interested in my issue, since I think we settled our differences in that. No biggie.

He didn't imply anything but the fact that he was referring to a HE that is probably the Holy Ghost is no more redundant than repeating jesus is the Savior or Jesus is the Lord

Whatever. I simply cannot see it as the Spirit being "taken out of the way." Sounds like a third party, not a third person. lol