Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[Davy]

What a joke these two clowns are.

 

[claninja]

How does that relate to a description of the resurrection of the dead in Christ occurring followed by them being caught up with those who are alive and remain and then meeting Jesus in the air at which point we are then together with Him forever?

There is no language stating the dead will rise into the air, in the OT.

There is simply similar styles of language in the OT - God descending from heaven in judgement on nations and enemies (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19,). On that day, gathering from the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11). Bodies being reassembled and coming out of the grave, returning to the land of Israel (Ezekiel 37).

Is Paul using similar language/literacy style, or is he being hyper literal?

Yes, but you need to determine what that entails exactly before tackling what verse 2 means.

We know Paul is talking about the coming of Christ and gathering.

The question is about Paul’s logical argument in order to prevent deception that it already occurred.

In your mind. Thank God that you are not Paul. What you are not even considering is that he very well could have been illustrating just how absurd any claim that the day of the Lord had already come by reminding them that the things that had to happen first before the day of the Lord had not even happened yet. That's how absurd it was to think it could have already happened since an event obviously can't happen even before the events that are supposed to happen before that event.

That’s some logical gymnastics you got there. Paul doesn’t say it’s absurd to think it already happened because certain things must happen first.

He provides those prerequisites in order to prevent deception that it already occurred.

In a truly unmistakable, literal cosmic renewal event, prerequisites do not function as a tool to prevent deception about whether it happened or not. It’s just absurd to think so.

But apparently if someone claimed sun exploded, or a meteorite destroyed the entire earth, apparently you,or you believe others, would need some kind of prerequisite evidence to demonstrate those events haven’t actually already happened?

 

[claninja]

Do you not have an overall external framework that you use to make sure that you don't contradict scripture? Why do you act as if it's a bad thing to have an external framework? I try to be as careful as possible to make sure that my understanding of what Jesus said doesn't contradict any other scripture. Is that not what you try to do? Or do you just try to interpret each passage in isolation from the rest of scripture? I truly don't understand your approach to interpreting scripture.

All frameworks have contradictions. All frameworks negotiate with the text.

My framework is to remain consistent grammatically, contextually, and lexically, keeping in mind audience relevance. This results in my negotiating of concepts/nature (like the nature of son of man coming on the clouds) as long as there are precursors to go off of. For example, there are several instances in the OT where God descends on the clouds from heaven to judge nations. Was the coming in the OD like the ancient of days in the OT?

 

[PinSeeker]

There is no language stating the dead will rise into the air, in the OT.

There is simply similar styles of language in the OT - God descending from heaven in judgement on nations and enemies (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19,). On that day, gathering from the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11). Bodies being reassembled and coming out of the grave, returning to the land of Israel (Ezekiel 37).

Is Paul using similar language/literacy style, or is he being hyper literal?



We know Paul is talking about the coming of Christ and gathering.

The question is about Paul’s logical argument in order to prevent deception that it already occurred.




That’s some logical gymnastics you got there. Paul doesn’t say it’s absurd to think it already happened because certain things must happen first.

He provides those prerequisites in order to prevent deception that it already occurred.

In a truly unmistakable, literal cosmic renewal event, prerequisites do not function as a tool to prevent deception about whether it happened or not. It’s just absurd to think so.

But apparently if someone claimed sun exploded, or a meteorite destroyed the entire earth, apparently you,or you believe others, would need some kind of prerequisite evidence to demonstrate those events haven’t actually already happened?

I think you and SI are kind of talking past each other, claninja. Which is very often the case with him (or her... not sure about that...), and on this board in general. He or she seems to be missing your point, whether purposefully or not. And that's not necessarily a knock on anybody, it just is what it is.

But I will say, regarding your statement here that "There is no language stating the dead will rise into the air, in the OT," you may or may not disagree, but regarding specifically what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, the "our" used there is a collective pronoun really referring to all of us in Christ, whether alive at His second coming or having previously died, so including the Thessalonian Christians to whom he was speaking. This was one of the chief concerns of the Thessalonian Christians, that they would be excluded from being gathered with Christ; they thought the day of the Lord, which, yes, "will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God," had already come.

And now regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:3 regarding the rebellion, in view of verses 9-12...

"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

...a rebellion of humanity as a whole is probably in view.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[claninja]

That's not what I'm saying. Good grief. You are being evasive. What I'm saying is that we all should try to determine what the day of the Lord entails first before determining what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:2. Why would you have a problem with that?

Let’s simplify — is the day of the Lord,As described in the NT, an unmistakeable global cosmic, world ending event? Or is the day of the Lord similar to the OT — cosmic and world ending language used to describe a local and/or national judgement?

Which one of these could you be more easily deceived into thinking already happened?
Which one of these would a prerequisite series of events better help prevent potential deception that it hadn’t already occurred.

Why would you not think that determining the timing of the day of the Lord would be relevant to your question? Remember, this all started with you questioning whether the temple of God that Paul referenced is a physical or spiritual temple. If we can determine the timing of its existence, then that can help us answer that question. Don't you agree? Obviously, if it still exists now, then it can't be referring to the physical temple. So, determining the timing of its existence, which can be determined by determining the timing of Christ's coming and our being gathered to Him, is very relevant.

I don’t understand your question. If what still exists now, then it can’t be referring to the physical temple?

 

[claninja]

Did you even read what I said about the birth pains? You obviously didn't read it carefully because I was using the reference to birth pangs to support my point about the beginning of birth pains. I didn't say they are different. What I said was very sensible, so why are you unwilling to address it? Any time I make a reasonable and sensible point, you want to do whatever you can to avoid addressing it.

I pointed out how in Romans 8 Paul figuratively referred to birth pangs/pains to describe a time period of thousands of years. So, if birth pains can be used figuratively to describe a time period of thousands of years, then why would the beginning of birth pains have to refer to things that happen near to Christ's return? This is a reasonable and valid question that I'm asking here, so you should be willing to address it instead of being evasive.

Different Greek word, different context, and different use.

This is not a convincing argument. In 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 the elect (those who are in Christ) are gathered from heaven (the souls of the dead in Christ with Jesus when He comes - 1 Thess 4:14) and from earth (the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain).

I cant find any scholarly work that agrees with you that it means from on earth and in heaven. All I can find it was an expression to mean from ends of the earth or horizon to horizon.

So This seems to be your own personal interpretation.

In Matthew 25:31-46 the good and bad are all gathered at the same time when Jesus comes with His angels. Not over the course of time starting in 70 AD.

Is this your opinion, or is this something you can provide grammatically, contextually, or lexically?

No, I didn't. The difference is that the gathering of Matthew 22:1-13 relates to the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time while the gathering that occurs when Jesus returns is a one time event that happens on the day He returns.

Well it seemed like you did in post 242

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is no language stating the dead will rise into the air, in the OT.

Right. And it's not just the resurrected dead who will be caught up to meet Jesus in the air when He descends from heaven, but also those who are alive and remain. There's no examples of that kind of language being used symbolically anywhere in scripture, so there's no basis for not taking it literally. It's clearly a one time event that will happen when Jesus comes again and is not an ongoing event. It clearly has not yet happened. So, you should interpret 2 Thessalonians 2 accordingly.

There is simply similar styles of language in the OT - God descending from heaven in judgement on nations and enemies (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19,). On that day, gathering from the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11). Bodies being reassembled and coming out of the grave, returning to the land of Israel (Ezekiel 37).

Is Paul using similar language/literacy style, or is he being hyper literal?

The language isn't really that similar. There's no reason at all to not take him literally there.

We know Paul is talking about the coming of Christ and gathering.

The question is about Paul’s logical argument in order to prevent deception that it already occurred.

Part of determining the answer to that question involves determining what event the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him refers to and whether it has happened yet or not. It has not. So, coming back again to the original reason this discussion started, the temple of God that Paul referenced cannot be a physical temple because it is a temple that will still exist when Jesus comes again in the future and we are caught up to meet Him in the air.

That’s some logical gymnastics you got there. Paul doesn’t say it’s absurd to think it already happened because certain things must happen first.

Whatever. I don't care what you think about that. What you are apparently not wanting to do is determine the context of what Paul is talking about when he refers to the coming of Jesus and our being gathered to Him, which he calls the day of the Lord. That has to be determined first before determining what he's talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:2.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Different Greek word, different context, and different use.

Here you go again just immediately dismissing a valid argument rather than addressing it. It's what you do. Birth pains are birth pains regardless of what words are used to describe them.

I cant find any scholarly work that agrees with you that it means from on earth and in heaven. All I can find it was an expression to mean from ends of the earth or horizon to horizon.

What "scholarly work" are you looking at?

So This seems to be your own personal interpretation.

Wrong. Far from it. You are very ignorant. Many people believe that Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:24-27 describe the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. And 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 talks about elect being gathered from heaven and being with Jesus when He comes (1 Thessalonians 4:14). So, they agree with my conclusion that the elect will be gathered from both heaven and earth when Jesus comes again.

Is this your opinion, or is this something you can provide grammatically, contextually, or lexically?

Do I need to do your work for you? Have you read Matthew 25:31-46? It describes Jesus coming with His angels and then all people being gathered before Him at the same time with believers being placed on His right and unbelievers on His left. Very simple. What is it that you don't understand about that?

Well it seemed like you did in post 242

What things seem like to you means nothing to me. If you are ever not clear about anything I'm saying, just ask for clarification. I don't mind clarifying what I believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think you and SI are kind of talking past each other, claninja. Which is very often the case with him (or her... not sure about that...), and on this board in general. He or she seems to be missing your point, whether purposefully or not. And that's not necessarily a knock on anybody, it just is what it is.

I'm a dude, dude. What point do you think I'm missing exactly? I would never purposely miss someone's point. Why would I do that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Okay, fine, but a futurist is one who thinks none of what is in Revelation has happened or been fulfilled at all.

That's an exaggeration. Obviously, there are at least a few things written about in Revelation 2 and 3 that happened in the first century to people in those first century churches. I would say that a vast majority of futurists understand that. And then Revelation 12:5 clearly refers to the birth and ascension of Christ. I would say a vast majority of futurists understand that as well. So, if what you said is the definition of a futurist, then it seems that there would be very few futurists.

I think where he stands is, everything in Revelation is in the process of being accomplished, which is good, actually, but that it's all purely sequential, basically, and that's not good, but thus of the historicist school. But again, wrong either way. But no matter really.

And what are you basing that on? Has he specifically said this? I can't recall him ever describing his beliefs that way, but I don't read all of his posts, either.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm a dude, dude.

Yeah whatever. Fine. Don't care, doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other, just saying I wasn't sure. But eeeeeeeverything is an issue with you, SI; I get that and have for a long time, now... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does...

What point do you think I'm missing exactly?

Nothing, except I thing you're missing what he's actually saying, the point he's making, and he you. Thus, missing each other, as I said. It's really not a big huge honkin' deal, as I said.

I would never purposely miss someone's point. Why would I do that?

Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If I'm a futurist, then you must be a Communist. Are you?

How much of the book of Revelation do you believe has been fulfilled? I would assume you understand that at least some of Revelation 2 and 3 have been fulfilled. And I'll assume you understand that Revelation 12:5 refers to the birth and ascension of Jesus Christ. How about the rest of the book?

How about the Olivet Discourse? How much of that do you think has been fulfilled, if any?

I think you claim that the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 is not yet fulfilled, right?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yeah whatever. Fine. Don't care, doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other, just saying I wasn't sure.

You sure do talk a lot about things you don't care about. You're an interesting feller.

But eeeeeeeverything is an issue with you, SI; I get that and have for a long time, now... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does...

I don't care what you or anyone else here thinks about me. You may have noticed that before.

Nothing, except I thing you're missing what he's actually saying, the point he's making, and he you.

And you're basing that on what exactly?

Thus, missing each other, as I said. It's really not a big huge honkin' deal, as I said.

I didn't say it's a huge honkin' deal. But, if you're going to make a claim that I'm missing his point, it would be helpful to know what point I'm missing, so that I can address his actual point if I am indeed missing it.

Goodness gracious.

Gracious sakes alive. You can say all you want about me, but I would never accuse you or anyone of possibly purposely missing someone's point. That's ridiculous.

 

[claninja]

Right. And it's not just the resurrected dead who will be caught up to meet Jesus in the air when He descends from heaven, but also those who are alive and remain. There's no examples of that kind of language being used symbolically anywhere in scripture, so there's no basis for not taking it literally. It's clearly a one time event that will happen when Jesus comes again and is not an ongoing event. It clearly has not yet happened. So, you should interpret 2 Thessalonians 2 accordingly.


The language isn't really that similar. There's no reason at all to not take him literally there.


Part of determining the answer to that question involves determining what event the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him refers to and whether it has happened yet or not. It has not. So, coming back again to the original reason this discussion started, the temple of God that Paul referenced cannot be a physical temple because it is a temple that will still exist when Jesus comes again in the future and we are caught up to meet Him in the air.


Whatever. I don't care what you think about that. What you are apparently not wanting to do is determine the context of what Paul is talking about when he refers to the coming of Jesus and our being gathered to Him, which he calls the day of the Lord. That has to be determined first before determining what he's talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:2.

Right, and I said let’s assume your position, the day of the Lord = cosmic global, world ending event. If that’s the case, then Paul’s argument for preventing deception that it already occurred is absurd.

as to your temple argument, In Matthew 24, the coming of Christ in the clouds and the gathering occur “immediately” following the abomination of desolation and tribulation. So according to Matthew, there would be a physical temple building immediately prior to the gathering and coming of Christ.

 

[PinSeeker]

That's an exaggeration.

Whatever.

Obviously, there are at least a few things written about in Revelation 2 and 3 that happened in the first century to people in those first century churches.

Sure. And they're pitfalls that are happening in churches today. Which historicists will say is not the case, that we have passed those times, and what is being spoken of is no longer the case. Which you can look around and know that it surely is still the case.

I would say that a vast majority of futurists understand that.

I would disagree, but no matter. Take the seven churches, for instan

And then Revelation 12:5 clearly refers to the birth and ascension of Christ. I would say a vast majority of futurists understand that as well.

That would be historicists, not futurists. Again, I think most people, in discussions like this, confuse historicists with futurists just because they think the millennium of Revelation 20 is future only. And in true futurism, it's not just about the millennium.

So, if what you said is the definition of a futurist, then it seems that there would be very few futurists.

A simple Google of "futurist view of Revelation" will give you this:

"The futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation holds that most of the events described in Revelation have not yet occurred, but will take place in the future end times. This view sees Revelation as prophecy of events that will happen right before Jesus Christ’s second coming."

And what are you basing that on? Has he specifically said this? I can't recall him ever describing his beliefs that way, but I don't read all of his posts, either.

Just my thoughts in reading some of his posts. I could be wrong. But it seems that way.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[claninja]

Here you go again just immediately dismissing a valid argument rather than addressing it. It's what you do. Birth pains are birth pains regardless of what words are used to describe them.

It’s not a valid argument if it’s a different Greek word, with different context and different use.

What "scholarly work" are you looking at?

Commentaries provided by blueletter Bible, to start.

Wrong. Far from it. You are very ignorant. Many people believe that Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:24-27 describe the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. And 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 talks about elect being gathered from heaven and being with Jesus when He comes (1 Thessalonians 4:14). So, they agree with my conclusion that the elect will be gathered from both heaven and earth when Jesus comes again.

Sure then just provide a serious theologian or scholar that argues it means gathering from heaven.

Do I need to do your work for you? Have you read Matthew 25:31-46? It describes Jesus coming with His angels and then all people being gathered before Him at the same time with believers being placed on His right and unbelievers on His left. Very simple. What is it that you don't understand about that?

You made the claim, why would I need to do the work to prove your claim.

What things seem like to you means nothing to me. If you are ever not clear about anything I'm saying, just ask for clarification. I don't mind clarifying what I believe.

Well that’s why I asked a clarifying question.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let’s simplify — is the day of the Lord,As described in the NT, an unmistakeable global cosmic, world ending event?

Yes, it is.

I have yet to see any preterist or premillennialist give an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 that makes any sense at all. Maybe you can be the first. What Paul says about it in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 confirms it as well. The reason he said that those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape" the "sudden destruction" that will come upon them when the day of the Lord comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night is because no mortal can escape fire burning up the earth.

Or is the day of the Lord similar to the OT — cosmic and world ending language used to describe a local and/or national judgement?

There is no indication of that whatsoever in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Which one of these could you be more easily deceived into thinking already happened?

As I already told you, I don't think anyone could have been deceived into thinking that Jerusalem had been destroyed for very long at all because it wouldn't have taken too long to confirm that one way or another, so I don't see this as being a valid argument. Someone could be deceived into thinking it's not a global cosmic event. You don't seem to want to consider that possibility. In that case, they could have been deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord had already come.

I don’t understand your question. If what still exists now, then it can’t be referring to the physical temple?

The temple of God that Paul referred to. Have you forgotten that what spawned this discussion in the first place was you questioning whether the temple of God Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is a physical or spiritual temple? The temple of God that will exist when Jesus returns in the future will obviously not be a physical temple. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Whatever.

LOL! Yeah, who cares if you say things accurately or not. Means nothing, right? <ugh>

That would be historicists, not futurists. Again, I think most people, in discussions like this, confuse historicists with futurists just because they think the millennium of Revelation 20 is future only. And in true futurism, it's not just about the millennium.

You don't think futurists understand that Revelation 12:5 is talking about the birth of Christ and His ascension? I believe most of them do.

A simple Google of "futurist view of Revelation" will give you this:

"The futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation holds that most of the events described in Revelation have not yet occurred, but will take place in the future end times. This view sees Revelation as prophecy of events that will happen right before Jesus Christ’s second coming."

Right. That's what I'm saying. So, the key word there is "most", not "all" like you said.

Just my thoughts in reading some of his posts. I could be wrong. But it seems that way.

Maybe. I haven't seen the posts where he would have indicated that, but it's possible. But, the main reason he doesn't like the futurist label is not really because he can't be considered a futurist in a sense, but rather that he thinks everyone who thinks of someone as a futurist assumes they are pre-trib dispensationalists and he doesn't want to be associated with them. Which is understandable, but they are not the only futurists.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s not a valid argument if it’s a different Greek word, with different context and different use.

Are there different types of birth pains or can more than one word be used to describe birth pains? The latter, right? I don't know what you're trying to say here. Different words can be used to describe the same thing. There are these things called synonyms. I'm not saying that what Paul said in Romans 8 proves my case with 100% certainty, but I'm showing that the timing of things in relation to birth pains can be understood in the sense of a long period of time, so that's something worth considering when reading what Jesus said about the beginning of birth pains.

Commentaries provided by blueletter Bible, to start.

Such as? Give me a link or something. I'm not going to take your word for anything.

Sure then just provide a serious theologian or scholar that argues it means gathering from heaven.

The Apostle Paul. I'm sure he was very familiar with the Olivet Discourse and he taught that those who sleep in Jesus (the dead in Christ) will be with Him when He comes. Since they are physically dead, it must be referring to the souls of the dead in Christ being with Him after He descends from heaven. That would mean they were gathered from heaven. And then the bodily resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain would be those who are gathered from the earth.

Other than Paul it looks like Anthony Hoekema, George Eldon Ladd, William Hendriksen and Louis Berkhof are examples of serious theologians who interpreted Mark 13:27 as I do.

You made the claim, why would I need to do the work to prove your claim.

So, you have no interest in being like the Bereans and studying this for yourself to see if what I'm saying is so. I see.

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

The gathering is said to take place when Jesus comes with His angels. And it shows all people being gathered before Him at the same time and then being separated to His left and right, so it implies a one time gathering and not a gathering that takes place over a period of time.

 

[PinSeeker]

You sure do talk a lot about things you don't care about.

Right. When it's worth saying, sure.

You're an interesting feller.

Thanks.

I don't care what you or anyone else here thinks about me. You may have noticed that before.

Well you obviously do. But, if you don't, then why even respond to that? So yeah, I have noticed some things, yes... <smile>

And you're basing that on what exactly?

Just some things he and you have said to each other.

I didn't say it's a huge honkin' deal.

I didn't say you did. I said, in effect, that you turn everything... almost everything, anyway... into like a fight to the death. Even matters like this one in particular, which is just not of terrible importance. A little discussion, sure. But arguing about it for pages and pages? It's just not. But you're obviously all worked up about it, which is evident because you keep going back and forth about it, and I'm just saying, you know, it's not something to get all worked up about. Or, maybe you're not, really, which then would beg the question why you're spending hours and hours trying to hash it out... and you and he are obviously not on the same page about what is really being hashed out, which speaks to my original point here about you and he just kind of missing each other.

But, if you're going to make a claim that I'm missing his point, it would be helpful to know what point I'm missing,

<chuckles> I'm not getting involved. Because... I don't really care. I just offered what I see. If you or he or both of you want to dismiss that, then go right ahead; I don't care. I was just trying to help a little, that's all.

You can say all you want about me, but I would never accuse you or anyone of possibly purposely missing someone's point.

Oh no, you wouldn't accuse anybody of anything, would you, SI?

That's ridiculous.

Hmmm, yeah...

Yeah, who cares if you say things accurately or not. Means nothing, right? <ugh>

<eye roll>

You don't think futurists understand that Revelation 12:5 is talking about the birth of Christ and His ascension?

No.

I believe most of them do.

Okay.

Right. That's what I'm saying. So, the key word there is "most", not "all" like you said.

Hmmmm... okay...

Maybe. I haven't seen the posts where he would have indicated that, but it's possible.

Ergo, my statement that... well, at least you seem to be missing him... And he you. No big deal, but from what I've seen, you both seem to be sort of talking past each other. Two ships passing in the night.

But, the main reason he doesn't like the futurist label is not really because he can't be considered a futurist in a sense, but rather that he thinks everyone who thinks of someone as a futurist assumes they are pre-trib dispensationalists and he doesn't want to be associated with them. Which is understandable, but they are not the only futurists.

Hmmm... I think it's because he's not really a futurist, in the proper sense of the term/label. But okay.

Grace and peace to you.