No the Restrainer is Not the Holy Spirit and TGhere Is Nothering to Be rfestrained about the Antichrist Before the Tribulation

 Ah well, it seems to bbe my spiritual gift to raise questions about other people's theologies.  Oh well.  An odd one I admitg but it's where I alwayss gravitate.  ANYWAY, this time it's again about Jan Markell's eschatology.  This week's radio show had a guest who gave the usual interpretation of the Restrainer. I'm sorry I didn'g look up the verse first, it's the verse where Paul stells the Thessalonians that the Antichrist won't be reveals until "he who restrains 

<br>

<br>

The problem is that this is interpreted as if it said the power or existence or activityh of the Antichrist can't occur until this Restrainer is "out of the way."  But all it says is that this Antichrist won't be REVEALED until then.  And surely it needs to be recognized that Paul is using very cryuptic language to avoid saying exactly who this Restrainer is, but why?  The popular interpretation is that He's the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit in the CHurch, but this makes no sense because there is no reason whatever why Paul would find it necessary ro be so careful about his language if it was the Holy Spirit.  No dire consequences would follow from identifying the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer.

<br>

<br>

But dire consequences wouldcertainly follow if the Antichrist was to be a usurper of the role of Caesar, which could certainly be said of thePope in the seventh century which is when the Bishop of Rome assumed that role, and the Restrainer was Caesar himself since Caesar would be threatened by such a claim.  

This is one bit of the Pre Trib Rapture scenario I definitely reject.  I think the Roman Church was rthe Great Apostasy and all this happened in the Weventh century and the Roman Church under the papacy continued to reign throughout the next millennium until the Protestant Reformation.  Certainly we can suppose that the Great Apostasy could resume in the last days just as I would assume that the papapc6y will again be in the ascendant and will no doubt be the seat of the ANtichrist during the Tribulation.  

I mighr as well add here that the Pre Wrath position does make some sense to me, and that was sdiscussed on Jan Markell's radio show troday too.  Nevertheelss that one also has problems, questions and doubts in my mind.  All of the different eschataologies have some problem or another as I see it.

Supposedly the First Horseman of the Apocalypse can't ride until the Church is Raptured, the first horseman being the antichrist, the Church being the possessor of the Holy Spirit.

What is "Our Blessed Hope?"

 I have bcked off the Pre-Tribulation Rapture end times scenario but that doesn'[t mean I'vew arrived anywhere else yet.  I have questions and doubts about all the different eschatologies and in some cases, ull preterism and Amillennialism for instance, I reject them completely.  

ere's another problem I have with the Pre-Tr4ib rapture position:  Jan Markell is always saying that the Rapture is "our blessed hope" according to Titus 2:13, but as I read that passage it's not talking about the Rapture or it may or may not be, it's not all t that definite as she claims it is.   It ways we are waiting for the blessed hope of the "florious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Chirst."  That's the Second Coming.  to attribute that to the Rapture is simply to assume the Pre-Trib Eschatology, but in any eschatology we all anitcipate the blessed hope of Jesus' appearing to take us home to be with Him.  I don't know why Jan is so adamant that there is only that one way of reading it.

If we are to escape the events of the Tribulation then the blessed hope would be the Rapture, band I find that argument convincing, but it's nevertheless true that the tibus passage is talking about the GLORIOUS return of Christ and that's not the Rapture.