Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2. Tess 2 and specifically question about verse 7 in context
#1
I am not 100% certain about verse 7 (2Tess2:7), but I think that it can refer to both the year 70 maybe and the romans, or people or him who follows Tora-lessness. This one "holds back", but Jeshua will destroy this lawless one with His breath in His return to establish His Kingdom.

Any of you that have good explanation of this or referances to detailed teaching-articles about this. Please share with me concerning the letter or letters to the synagoge in Tessalonica, concerning what Paul talks about.

Toda.
Reply
#2
John Kenneth Wrote:I am not 100% certain about verse 7 (2Tess2:7), but I think that it can refer to both the year 70 maybe and the romans, or people or him who follows Tora-lessness. This one "holds back", but Jeshua will destroy this lawless one with His breath in His return to establish His Kingdom.

Any of you that have good explanation of this or referances to detailed teaching-articles about this. Please share with me concerning the letter or letters to the synagoge in Tessalonica, concerning what Paul talks about.

Toda.

Shlama Akhi John:
I suggest to you that you go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->. Look into Peshitta Tool Page. Study the passage using the Aramaic Peshitta and the translations of John Wesley Ethridge, James Murdock, Lamsa and the King James Version using the marking squares. Then read the entire passage of II Thessalonians Chapter 2. It will become clear in context, that the passage including verse 7, that the Apostle Paul is writing about the End of Days when Mashikha will return. and will personally shut up (take out of the way) Mashikha d'Gala (Antichrist). The use of the Peshitta Tool at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> is a very useful way to delve into the Aramaic and learn the language, even parse the various roots of the words and phrases. I'm quite sure that if you take the time to do so you will cometo a much fuller understanding of the Peshitta New Testament and the Gospel of Salvation, the engrafted WORD which is able to save our souls.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
Hi John,

I believe that the Greek which has a-nomian, is translated back to hebrew and then taken as 'torah-less-ness'
However, the Peshitta has not the word for 'Law' (musa) but an other word which is translated as iniquity.

Some words especially in Messianic congregations consider not keeping the commandmends of the Torah is as unlawful. But I don't think that apostle Paul was writing about that.
Reply
#4
Thanks Stephen Silver and distazo.

I have the translation of Peshitta by Andrew G. Roth and love it. Also looking forward to Paul Younans translation when finished.

Shlama in Yeshua to you all.

Just have to mention that in Norway we pronounce the "J" in "Jeshua" like the English speaking people pronounce the "Y" in "Yeshua", so I am used to write "Jeshua" in norwegian (should have written Yeshua here in english <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush --> ).
Reply
#5
Hi John,

In Aramaic it would simply be Eshu, -J eshu -a The J & a is not present in the Aramaic form of His Name, if I'm not mistaken that is.
Reply
#6
distazo Wrote:I believe that the Greek which has a-nomian, is translated back to hebrew and then taken as 'torah-less-ness'
However, the Peshitta has not the word for 'Law' (musa) but an other word which is translated as iniquity.

Hi Distazo,

As far as I understand it, in the Semitic mind, iniquity is always a reference to transgression of Torah. I believe that when carried over into Greek, this had to be clarified for the audience so that the term was not left open to interpretation.

Luc
Reply
#7
I am not the best in writing english, but with "Toralessness" I ment "without Torah", "against Torah" or "in opposition to Torah". In this way ofcouse it can be understood as iniquity too, though I now understand that the word in 2 Tess 2:7 means "iniquity" in the literal.

Thanks for the response!

Shlama Shalom!
Reply
#8
Luc Lefebvre wrote:
Quote:As far as I understand it, in the Semitic mind, iniquity is always a reference to transgression of Torah. I believe that when carried over into Greek, this had to be clarified for the audience so that the term was not left open to interpretation.


Torah means Torah.
Iniquity means Iniquity.

Vulgate text here agrees with Peshitta:
2Thessalonians 2:7 - Nam mysterium iam operatur iniquitatis: tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat.

Greek text says "lawlessness" which does not make sense
since Christians are freed through the body of Christ from observing Torah.
Reply
#9
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Luc Lefebvre wrote:
Quote:As far as I understand it, in the Semitic mind, iniquity is always a reference to transgression of Torah. I believe that when carried over into Greek, this had to be clarified for the audience so that the term was not left open to interpretation.


Torah means Torah.
Iniquity means Iniquity.

Vulgate text here agrees with Peshitta:
2Thessalonians 2:7 - Nam mysterium iam operatur iniquitatis: tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat.

Greek text says "lawlessness" which does not make sense
since Christians are freed through the body of Christ from observing Torah.

Shlama Akhi Ivan:
In Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council) it was decidd by the Rukha d'Kadusha in full agreement with those Apostles present that there were four stipulations that were to be imposed upon Gentiles who have found Christ as Saviour. These four are found in Acts 15:20, 28-29.

1) but that we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols,
2) from sexual imorality,
3) from things strangled,
4) and from blood.

This is the Law of Moses (Torah) Acts 15:21)

Moreover, we must be mindful, in my opinion to Matthew 5:17-19. The Law of Moses is the written description of all sin and iniquity, both intentional and unintentional. The four stipulations above, in my understanding represent the minimum requirements so as to maintain fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. There is no place in the New Testament where Jews were ever loosed from the Law of Moses. (Matthew 5:17-19) Jesus, in his sermon in Matthew 5 is specifically to the Jews who were raised in the Law of Moses, not the stipulations of the Pharisees, though much of the Pharisaic teaching matched that of Jesus as well as Paul. As I understand these portions of scripture, the Gentiles were not subject to the full burden of the Law, only those laws that were ordained by the Rukha d'Kadusha, in the presence of the Apostles at the Jerusalem Council.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#10
Elohim says this unto the Hebrew peoples....

"This Covenant, of which Y'shua is the Guarantor, is entirely better." Hebrews 7:22

"But as it is, Messiah has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the Covenant He Mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Hebrews 8:6

"Therefore, He is the Mediator of a New Covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." Hebrews 9:15

"In that He said, "New", He has made the former old: and that which is antiquated, and has grown old, is close to decay." Hebrews 8:13

If it was "close to decay" when God spoke these words to the Hebrews through His Apostle nearly 2,000 years ago now...then how is it taught today, by some, that it is still valid. The Book of Galatians is the answer to that question.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#11
I believe in all Torah of Elohiim, that it concerns me. By the Word I have been thought to fullfill the commandments, not break them. As Yeshua did, so also me.

I distinguish between clean and unclean foods according to Torah as far as I understand, I keep away from all adultery and sexual immorality, worships only YHWH, keeps away from all which is contaminated with blood as good as I can and as far as I understand(Lev 16 and outward). (About one year ago I did B'rit Milah, physical circumcission.

I rejoice in all of YHWHs festivals, since its not my "moediim", but His "moediim".

I believe that everything in the Torah is for me to hear, learn and follow. Not only for me, but for every single person who believes in YHWH and His Word, Yeshua the Messiah.

His Way, not my way. "Do not follow the way of the headens".

And I am glad for it!

Shlama!

John
Reply
#12
It's not wrong to do so...I do so as well.

But I am careful not to teach that by doing so, we are made right with God, and are saved from God's wrath...Messiah paid it all, once and for all. We do not add to His work of redemption, as if our works are needed to make His work effectual for salvation....though, being saved by His Grace, and not by our works, good works will be produced through The Holy Spirit by those who are truly saved by God's Grace.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#13
Let me underline that I respect every ones opinion and position on whether or not keeping the Thora.

There are 3 ocurrances of 'without law' in the NT as far as I can find.

It's 1 Corinthians 9:21
Romans 2:12 and 3:12.

So, if 'inequity' would mean 'without law' this phrase should be consistent. However, the explicit phrase 'without law' simply exists in Syriac Aramaic.
Reply
#14
Stephen wrote:
Quote:As I understand these portions of scripture, the Gentiles were not subject to the full burden of the Law, only those laws that were ordained by the Rukha d'Kadusha, in the presence of the Apostles at the Jerusalem Council.
Absolute truth.
Reply
#15
distazo Wrote:So, if 'inequity' would mean 'without law' this phrase should be consistent. However, the explicit phrase 'without law' simply exists in Syriac Aramaic.

I don't think inqiquity means "without law" but trangression of law. As I understand the Greek, anomo's is the closest word to try and get across the same idea, although is more so implies being against or in place of the law.

IPOstapyuk Wrote:since Christians are freed through the body of Christ from observing Torah

No where in Scripture does such a statement exist. Any "free from the law" statements within the Scripture are found in Romans (7:3 and 8:1-2) and neither indicate that it's okay to not adhere to the commands of our Lord. On the contrary, all His righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:160).

My understanding of Acts 15 is not so much that they were free to sin (Torah defines sin - Romans 7:7 - and sin is transgression of Torah - 1 John 3:4) but where they should start as they begin to join the commonwealth of Israel and are no longer strangers to the covenants (Ephesians 2:12). You can't be one people with one mind if you have two sets of laws. No, you must grow and become one together under one Lord with one God and one Law. Otherwise, you bear the fruit of dissention and faction, fruits of the flesh (Galatians 5:20).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)