The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn’t say I don’t think I need the Spirits help. That’s your either misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position. I’m saying the purpose of the Spirit isn’t to give us insight into ambiguous NT teachings that have no commentary nor explanation by the author. If the Spirits purpose was to give us understanding of these types of things, there wouldnt be 101 different interpretations and denominations.

I disagree. It's not God's fault that there are a bunch of false interpretations. Doesn't mean He never helps anyone understand the correct one.

The Holy Spirit would teach all things and bring to remembrance all things “that Jesus had said to the disciples”

“All things” is defined but what Jesus told the disciples - the kingdom is not of this world, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, dying and being raised on the 3rd day, etc…

You missed the point. Of course I know that verse is talking about what Jesus said to the disciples. The point is that the Holy Spirit helped them to understand what Jesus had told them. Some of which is written in scripture for us to read still today. I believe the Holy Spirit can help us understand what Jesus said, as recorded in scripture, as well as all other scriptures similar to how He helped the disciples understand what Jesus said.

I completely agree it didn’t happen according to your framework.

LOL. You're funny. Everyone would agree with that.

however, different frameworks exist.

No, really? I had no idea.

For example, if the coming of the son of man on the clouds was to occur like the ancient of days (several OT examples of God descending upon the clouds in judgement upon nations and enemies) AND the gathering post destruction of Jerusalem is to be understood in similar fashion to the parable of the wedding feast (city destroyed then good and bad being gathered into wedding hall) , then your argument that it didn’t happen, is not necessarily true.

I'm talking about the gathering that happens when Jesus comes, the dead in Christ are resurrected, and we all are caught up to meet Him in the air. That parable obviously is not talking about that event. Since that event was written about by Paul to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, I think it's safe to assume that the gathering when Jesus comes that Paul references in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the same gathering at Christ's second coming that he wrote about to the Thessalonians previously. Do you disagree?

 

[covenantee]

I lean toward physical temple in Jerusalem, which is possible. But I think another viable option, which could be stronger now that I think about it, is that it could be idiomatic - sits in the temple of god - basically a symbolic seat of divinity (not literal physical temple nor the church)

Not possible. It was destroyed in 70 AD.

There is no confirming Scripture in which the "naos" temple of God is "basically a symbolic seat of divinity (not literal physical temple nor the church)". Nor is it in the BDAG.

There's only one remaining alternative which makes any sense.

The Church.

 

[covenantee]

The papacy uprooted these kingdoms? I thought these were defeated by the Byzantine empire?

When?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not possible. It was destroyed in 70 AD.

There is no confirming Scripture in which the "naos" temple of God is "basically a symbolic seat of divinity (not literal physical temple nor the church)". Nor is it in the BDAG.

There's only one remaining alternative which makes any sense.

The Church.

He won't acknowledge that the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him that Paul references in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has yet to happen. That's his problem. He thinks Jesus came in 70 AD, which He did not. And there was certainly no gathering to meet Christ in the air in 70 AD. So, because of his false preterist doctrine, he goes off the rails right off the bat with the first verse of the chapter. It's not possible to understand the rest of it without understanding what the first verse is about.

 

[claninja]

I disagree. It's not God's fault that there are a bunch of false interpretations. Doesn't mean He never helps anyone understand the correct one.

I never said it’s God’s fault. I think it’s more like putting framework first. If you are convinced your framework is the correct one, you’ll negotiate with the text in one way or another.

You missed the point. Of course I know that verse is talking about what Jesus said to the disciples. The point is that the Holy Spirit helped them to understand what Jesus had told them. Some of which is written in scripture for us to read still today. I believe the Holy Spirit can help us understand what Jesus said, as recorded in scripture, as well as all other scriptures similar to how He helped the disciples understand what Jesus said.

Right, Jesus revealed the OT scriptures were about Him and his kingdom and his gospel - the Spirit teaches and brings to remembrance what Jesus taught about that.

And I agree, the NT letters reflect a spirit led understanding of what Jesus taught. But that’s not to say that some of the letters weren’t written in a confusing way (cough cough, what Peter said about Paul), as to make it difficult for audiences understand, let alone an audience 2000 year removed that wasn’t included in Paul’s private teachings.

I'm talking about the gathering that happens when Jesus comes, the dead in Christ are resurrected, and we all are caught up to meet Him in the air. That parable obviously is not talking about that event. Since that event was written about by Paul to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, I think it's safe to assume that the gathering when Jesus comes that Paul references in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the same gathering at Christ's second coming that he wrote about to the Thessalonians previously. Do you disagree?

I’m talking about the gathering that occurs at the coming of the son of man on the clouds of heaven “immediately” after the destruction and tribulation of Jerusalem, which follows the pattern set in the parable of the wicked tenants - city destroyed then good and bad gathered into wedding feast.

If Paul is talking about the Olivet discourse in 2 Thessalonians 2, then obviously I believe Paul was teaching something about his day, relative to his audience that would occur prior to his generation passing away. This is evidenced by the present tense grammar he uses in addition to the private conversation he had with the Thessalonians. If Paul was not talking about the olivet discourse, then I think m he was revealing some new revelation, imho.

 

[claninja]

Not possible. It was destroyed in 70 AD.

There is no confirming Scripture in which the "naos" temple of God is "basically a symbolic seat of divinity (not literal physical temple nor the church)". Nor is it in the BDAG.

There's only one remaining alternative which makes any sense.

The Church.

2 Thessalonians 2 was written prior to 70ad, so I disagree it’s not possible he was talking about physical temple.

As to “symbolic seat of divinity”, you are probably right on that. BDAG only lists 2 Thessalonians 2:4 under physical temple and not an idiom for a generic seat of divinity.

 

[claninja]

When?

Didn’t the Byzantine empire = eastern Roman Empire or no? Sorry you’ll have to forgive. The history of the messy split of the Roman Empire is not my strong suit.

 

[claninja]

He won't acknowledge that the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him that Paul references in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has yet to happen. That's his problem. He thinks Jesus came in 70 AD, which He did not. And there was certainly no gathering to meet Christ in the air in 70 AD. So, because of his false preterist doctrine, he goes off the rails right off the bat with the first verse of the chapter. It's not possible to understand the rest of it without understanding what the first verse is about.

If Paul is not talking about anything of the OD in 2 Thessalonians 2, then I can likely agree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m talking about the gathering that occurs at the coming of the son of man on the clouds of heaven “immediately” after the destruction and tribulation of Jerusalem,

There was no gathering of the elect by the angels at that time. It implies that the elect from the uttermost part of earth to the uttermost part of heaven (Mark 13:27) are all gathered at the same time. No such thing happened in 70 AD.

Also, don't you think that Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, is referring to the same gathering of Christians that he wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? He said that gathering will be of the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when Jesus comes and they will then meet Him in the air. Do you claim that has already occurred?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If Paul is not talking about anything of the OD in 2 Thessalonians 2, then I can likely agree.

Why is that? I don't think that makes any sense. The second coming of Christ that Paul referred to is the same as the second coming of Christ that Jesus referred to in the OD. There's only one second coming of Christ. Also, there's only one gathering of the elect (Christians) that will occur at the second coming of Christ. And Paul made it clear in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 that the gathering of the elect (Christians) will include the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when Jesus comes and we will all meet Him in the air.

 

[covenantee]

2 Thessalonians 2 was written prior to 70ad, so I disagree it’s not possible he was talking about physical temple.

As to “symbolic seat of divinity”, you are probably right on that. BDAG only lists 2 Thessalonians 2:4 under physical temple and not an idiom for a generic seat of divinity.

Is there any Scriptural or other record of a man of sin, sitting in the physical temple, shewing himself that he is God; between the time when Paul wrote and 70 AD?

 

[covenantee]

Didn’t the Byzantine empire = eastern Roman Empire or no? Sorry you’ll have to forgive. The history of the messy split of the Roman Empire is not my strong suit.

No prob. The Heruli were first overthrown by the Ostrogoths in 493 AD, by what was known as the Ostrogothic Papacy.

 

[grafted branch]

There's only one second coming of Christ. Also, there's only one gathering of the elect (Christians) that will occur at the second coming of Christ. And Paul made it clear in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 that the gathering of the elect (Christians) will include the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when Jesus comes and we will all meet Him in the air.

2 Thessalonians 2:1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

If what you’re saying is true, that there is only one future day of the Lord coming, then why didn’t Paul just say something like “are you ignorant? We’re not going to be on earth after the day of the Lord”? There’s a problem because they thought the day of the Lord already happened despite 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2 Thessalonians 2:1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

If what you’re saying is true, that there is only one future day of the Lord coming

Of course there is only one future day of the Lord coming. That's why Paul and Peter referred to THE day of the Lord. Because there's only one future day of the Lord and that will be the day when we are caught up to meet Christ in the air and when He brings "sudden destruction" by fire upon the earth from which unbelievers "shall not escape" (1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3, 2 Peter 3:10-12).

then why didn’t Paul just say something like “are you ignorant? We’re not going to be on earth after the day of the Lord”? There’s a problem because they thought the day of the Lord already happened despite 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

I'm not into answering hypothetical questions about what Paul supposedly should have said to them. He told them not to be deceived by anyone saying something different about the day of the Lord than what he and others had already taught them about it. Of course it wasn't possible that it had already come because of what scripture says will occur on the day of the Lord, but also there were certain things that had to happen first before the day of the Lord comes and Paul pointed that out and also indicated that is something he had already talked to them about in person.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm not into answering hypothetical questions about what Paul supposedly should have said to them. He told them not to be deceived by anyone saying something different about the day of the Lord than what he and others had already taught them about it. Of course it wasn't possible that it had already come because of what scripture says will occur on the day of the Lord, but also there were certain things that had to happen first before the day of the Lord comes and Paul pointed that out and also indicated that is something he had already talked to them about in person.

What would make more sense is that Paul taught there was more than just one future day of the Lord and the Thessalonians thought they missed the first one, Paul then goes on to explain what was to take place prior to that next day of the Lord but not the final day of the Lord.

I’m pretty sure if I were to argue that the final coming of Christ has happened, the dead in Christ have already been raised, and the believers have already met the Lord in the air, you wouldn’t be trying to point out that Satan hasn’t been released from the pit yet as your primary reason that my statement was false. No, the first thing that would be argued would be that we’re all still here and there’s still dead people in the graves. That’s how you argue against a 70AD coming, right?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What would make more sense is that Paul taught there was more than just one future day of the Lord

LOL. How would that make any sense?

and the Thessalonians thought they missed the first one,

LOL. The first one? Okay, tell me which day of the Lord that Paul wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 5? The first one? Second one? How many are there? Which day of the Lord did Peter write about in 2 Peter 3? How about we just all decide for ourselves how many days of the Lord there will be. I'll say 10. Sound good? Let's just make scripture say whatever we want it to say. That seems like what you're trying to do.

Paul then goes on to explain what was to take place prior to that next day of the Lord but not the final day of the Lord.

I can't take this seriously. There is only one future day of the Lord.

I’m pretty sure if I were to argue that the final coming of Christ has happened, the dead in Christ have already been raised, and the believers have already met the Lord in the air, you wouldn’t be trying to point out that Satan hasn’t been released from the pit yet as your primary reason that my statement was false. No, the first thing that would be argued would be that we’re all still here and there’s still dead people in the graves. That’s how you argue against a 70AD coming, right?

Your views are based on speculation and hypothetical scenarios. Try basing your beliefs on what is actually written in scripture instead.

 

[grafted branch]

I can't take this seriously. There is only one future day of the Lord.

Well, I can’t take you seriously either, did the Holy Spirit teach you there was only one day of the Lord when Thessalonians was written or do you have some verses that back up your claim?

 

[claninja]

There was no gathering of the elect by the angels at that time. It implies that the elect from the uttermost part of earth to the uttermost part of heaven (Mark 13:27) are all gathered at the same time. No such thing happened in 70 AD.

Jesus said there would be.

Matthew 24:34 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

Also, don't you think that Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, is referring to the same gathering of Christians that he wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? He said that gathering will be of the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when Jesus comes and they will then meet Him in the air. Do you claim that has already occurred?

I think it’s likely Paul is talking about the same thing in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. But, I think the bigger question is Paul, in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, talking about the same events of Matthew 24?

If Paul’s “gathering” means literal dead bodies reforming, coming out of the ground, and flying up into the air, then no I don’t claim that already occurred.

 

[claninja]

Why is that? I don't think that makes any sense. The second coming of Christ that Paul referred to is the same as the second coming of Christ that Jesus referred to in the OD. There's only one second coming of Christ. Also, there's only one gathering of the elect (Christians) that will occur at the second coming of Christ. And Paul made it clear in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 that the gathering of the elect (Christians) will include the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain when Jesus comes and we will all meet Him in the air.

What determines when two passages are describing the same eschatological event and when they are not?

A.) You argue the coming of Christ in Paul’s letters = the coming of Christ in the OD

B.) You have previously argued the ends of the ages in Paul’s letter ≠ end of the age in the OD.

C.) You have previously argued the gospel already having gone out to the whole oikoumene in Paul’s day ≠ the gospel going out to the whole oikoumene in the OD.

Just as you believe Paul was not talking about certain events in the OD, despite similar language, my argument is simply “IF” Paul is not talking about the same thing in the OD, then I can likely agree with you.

 

[claninja]

Is there any Scriptural or other record of a man of sin, sitting in the physical temple, shewing himself that he is God; between the time when Paul wrote and 70 AD?

There is definitely not. There is no other NT passage that states a man of sin, opposing God, claiming to be God, will sit in a physical or spiritual temple. Which is unfortunate.

There is Daniel 11:31-36, which has the physical temple being desolated by a king who opposes God and exalts himself above God - which Paul may be alluding to? Unfortunately, Paul provides no qualifying language if he is alluding to this passage at all.