Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Uh huh. Don't bother being specific about anything because that would take effort and would require you to care. And you've made it clear that you don't really care about anything discussed on this forum.

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.

That's your opinion, which means nothing to me when it comes to this topic. It's possible for someone to find something to be important that you don't think is important. You don't dictate what others should think is important. I have a strong disdain for preterism, so that's why I'm passionate about this topic relating to the timing of 2 Thessalonians 2 and the identity of the temple of God that Paul references there. If you don't share that disdain, good for you. Doesn't matter to me.

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.

As if you have never gone pages and pages discussing something without being on the same page as the other person. I know for a fact that you have. Hahaha.

<chuckles> I'm not getting involved. Because... I don't really care.

That's great, dude. I'm so glad that you have decided to chime in here about something that you don't really care about. I can't express how valuable that is to this forum to have someone like you here to let us all know that you don't really care about the things that you post about.

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.

Okay, I will then. Can't decide that for him, of course.

I was just trying to help a little, that's all.

Well, by golly, I appreciate your effort. You're not helping at all, but I can't fault someone for trying to help.

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

Only if I had a good reason to. Accusations are fine in and of themselves. False accusations are the problem.

<eye roll>

No.

So, you have seen a lot of futurists deny that Revelation 12:5 is not about the birth of Christ and His ascension? I've maybe seen that a couple times, but I don't think that's the norm for them.

Ergo, my statement that... well, at least you seem to be missing him... And he you.

I'm talking about not seeing any of Davy's posts that would indicate that he's a historicist rather than a futurist. You were saying that claninja and I were missing each other's points. You seem to have gotten a bit confused here.

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.

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

You definitely are confused. It was claninja (a preterist) and I who were talking to each other when you chimed in, not Davy and I.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

The dead in Christ were not resurrected in 70 AD and no one was caught up to meet the Lord in the air in 70 AD. So, the day of the Lord has definitely not yet happened, which means the temple of God in 2 Thess 2 is a spiritual temple no matter what you say. I'm moving on from this discussion now.

 

[claninja]

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.

Doesn’t matter how long. The fact is, as even you admit, they could actually be deceived that it already happened.

On the contrary, They couldn’t be deceived that a global cosmic, world ending event already occurred.

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?

the abomination of desolation and tribulation occur “immediately” prior to the coming and gathering. So, According to Matthew 24, it’s the physical temple prior to the coming/gathering.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Doesn’t matter how long. The fact is, as even you admit, they could actually be deceived that it already happened.

That they could potentially have been deceived that the day of the Lord already happened or already arrived is clearly implied in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, so that isn't something to "admit". That's obvious.

In the case of your claim that the day of the Lord related to the destruction of Jerusalem, it matters how long they would have believed it before receiving Paul's letter (2nd Thessalonians) because you have to consider whether they could have been deceived that Jerusalem had been destroyed from the time that they were falsely told that the day of the Lord had already come to the time that they received Paul's letter (2nd Thessalonians) which would have informed them that they had been deceived. I find that to be highly unlikely.

Beyond that, as I've already told you, it makes no sense that they would have been shaken in mind and troubled by the destruction of Jerusalem when they would have known that was prophesied to happen. They would only be shaken in mind and troubled if they weren't aware that it was going to happen. But, even then, how shaken and troubled would they have been by that? It wouldn't have affected them directly. It seems that the context is in relation to them being shaken in mind and troubled by their own circumstances, not with what was going on elsewhere, including something that would have been happening far away in Jerusalem.

On the contrary, They couldn’t be deceived that a global cosmic, world ending event already occurred.

Of course they couldn't. That's not what we're debating. No one would argue that.

the abomination of desolation and tribulation occur “immediately” prior to the coming and gathering. So, According to Matthew 24, it’s the physical temple prior to the coming/gathering.

There was no coming of Christ, no resurrection of the dead, and no gathering of Christians to meet the Lord in the air in 70 AD, so that is absolutely false.

 

[PinSeeker]

Don't bother being specific about anything because that would take effort and would require you to care.

That's one of the first absolutely true things you've said in a while. Yes, I think this argument between you and @claninja is inane. It's mostly just you, though. But yeah, I don't care about the argument, because of its inanity. And my intent was to give you both an out, to use a good poker term... But no, to you, it's a "duel to the death," like every, uh, well, just about every "conversation" you enter into on here.

And you've made it clear that you don't really care about anything discussed on this forum.

<eye roll> Yes, which is obvious because of my very presence here, right, OppositeDude? <chuckles> I neither said nor insinuated any such thing. I just don't care to get involved in inane arguments, except occasionally, when I think they can be easily diffused, and should be, which is what I said. But you, you just can't let anything go... I mean you could..., but yeah, even small things are a "duel to the death" with you.

(claninja) and I who were talking to each other when you chimed in, not Davy and I.

Yes, I'm well aware. I'm not even sure where that came from... Oh wait, yeah, you hijacked my reply to @covenantee ... no idea why you did that... Yes, it was @covenantee who was talking with Davy...

Anyway, yes, by all means, keep ripping at people; that is your M.O., and seems to be what you love to do, after all.

Grace and peace to you. Especially grace...

 

[claninja]

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.

Different Greek word, different context, and different use.

Jesus presents a temporal and eschatological framework in which the “beginning of birth pains” signals that the end has not yet arrived. The imagery is tied to identifiable precursory events that function as the opening stage of the end itself and point forward in a structured sequence toward the messianic consummation. In otherwords, he’s demonstrating sequence.

By contrast, Paul in Romans 8:22 is not required by the context to be using “birth pains” in that technical, sequence-oriented sense. His language functions as a more general metaphor for the present condition of creation, its widespread suffering, groaning, and longing for redemption, without establishing a defined prophetic timeline or ordered set of eschatological signs. In otherowords, he’s comparing like pain.

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

Already posted the quotes previously.

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.

I could not find any quotations or commentaries where these scholars believed mark 13:27 means those gathered from on earth and those from in heaven.

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.

The problem with that distinction is that neither Matthew 22 nor Matthew 25 actually states a different time structure for the “gathering.” Your importing that onto the text via your framework

 

[PinSeeker]

Hey, @claninja (and nobody else, please... <smile>), in just a few short words, what even is the argument here? How would you summarize it?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[claninja]

That they could potentially have been deceived that the day of the Lord already happened or already arrived is clearly implied in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, so that isn't something to "admit". That's obvious.

In the case of your claim that the day of the Lord related to the destruction of Jerusalem, it matters how long they would have believed it before receiving Paul's letter (2nd Thessalonians) because you have to consider whether they could have been deceived that Jerusalem had been destroyed from the time that they were falsely told that the day of the Lord had already come to the time that they received Paul's letter (2nd Thessalonians) which would have informed them that they had been deceived. I find that to be highly unlikely.

Beyond that, as I've already told you, it makes no sense that they would have been shaken in mind and troubled by the destruction of Jerusalem when they would have known that was prophesied to happen. They would only be shaken in mind and troubled if they weren't aware that it was going to happen. But, even then, how shaken and troubled would they have been by that? It wouldn't have affected them directly. It seems that the context is in relation to them being shaken in mind and troubled by their own circumstances, not with what was going on elsewhere, including something that would have been happening far away in Jerusalem.

No, I meant you admitted they could be deceived that the temple was already destroyed in your previous post, but you added, just not for very long.

And you seem to agree that they could not have been deceived that the entire globe already was destroyed.

This has been my entire point. They could have been deceived the temple was already destroyed, they could not have been deceived the literal globe had already been destroyed.

Of course they couldn't. That's not what we're debating. No one would argue that.

That’s my entire point. This is what I am debating. Which is why I think @PinSeeker said we are talking past each other.

There was no coming of Christ, no resurrection of the dead, and no gathering of Christians to meet the Lord in the air in 70 AD, so that is absolutely false

Only according to your framework.

grammatically, contextually, and lexically — the gathering and coming on the clouds was to occur immediately after the desolation of the temple and tribulation of Jerusalem — and this generation would not pass away until those ALL those things occurred.

 

[claninja]

Hey, @claninja (and nobody else, please... <smile>), in just a few short words, what even is the argument here? How would you summarize it?

Grace and peace to you.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul remarks on the potential deception that the day of the Lord had already occurred. In order to prevent this deception, Paul lists 2 prerequisites (man of sin/apsotasy) that must first occur.

If the day of the Lord was understood by the Thessalonians as an unmistakable and obvious world ending event, then

1.) how could they be deceived or shaken in mind that it already happened?
2.) how does listing 2 prerequisites prevent the deception that a global cosmic event already occurred?

 

[PinSeeker]

grammatically, contextually, and lexically — the gathering and coming on the clouds was to occur immediately after the desolation of the temple and tribulation of Jerusalem — and this generation would not pass away until those ALL those things occurred.

Okay, so... <smile> ...do you or do you not believe this to have already occurred (in 70 A.D., I guess) in its final, consummated form? What I think is, this is really all you've said, and you haven't really ever said anything, at least to this point, that would indicate which way you would go with that question. I'm gathering, though, from reading some of the back and forth, that your answer is 'no,' that you don't, but you can speak for yourself. And I'm not going to argue either way, I just wanted to hear it from you.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul remarks on the potential deception that the day of the Lord had already occurred. In order to prevent this deception, Paul lists 2 prerequisites (man of sin/apsotasy) that must first occur.

If the day of the Lord was understood by the Thessalonians as an unmistakable and obvious world ending event, then

1.) how could they be deceived or shaken in mind that it already happened?
2.) how does listing 2 prerequisites prevent the deception that a global cosmic event already occurred?

Okay, so... <chuckles> ...I think your answer to the question immediately above is 'no,' correct? If so, that would make you... not a preterist... which seems to be what.. somebody here <smile> ...has been obsessing over all this time... and thus it seems is a misunderstanding of... well, pretty epic proportion... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hey, @claninja (and nobody else, please... <smile>), in just a few short words, what even is the argument here? How would you summarize it?

LOL! This is classic. You don't even know what claninja and I are arguing about, yet you feel that you can describe our argument as "inane". That's rich, buddy. I love you how you think you can describe something as "inane" when you don't even know what the discussion is actually about. That is truly hilarious. If you are not a comedian for a living, then you have missed your calling as far as your career goes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Okay, so... <smile> ...do you or do you not believe this to have already occurred (in 70 A.D., I guess) in its final, consummated form? What I think is, this is really all you've said, and you haven't really ever said anything, at least to this point, that would indicate which way you would go with that question. I'm gathering, though, from reading some of the back and forth, that your answer is 'no,' that you don't, but you can speak for yourself. And I'm not going to argue either way, I just wanted to hear it from you.


Okay, so... <chuckles> ...I think your answer to the question immediately above is 'no,' correct? If so, that would make you... not a preterist... which seems to be what.. somebody here <smile> ...has been obsessing over all this time... and thus it seems is a misunderstanding of... well, pretty epic proportion... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

LOL! Do you just enjoy making a fool out of yourself or what? How can you not know that @claninja is a preterist? Goodness gracious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I meant you admitted they could be deceived that the temple was already destroyed in your previous post, but you added, just not for very long.

That isn't something to "admit". Obviously, they were not located in Jerusalem, so if someone told them it was destroyed they wouldn't be able to confirm whether that was true or not immediately.

And you seem to agree that they could not have been deceived that the entire globe already was destroyed.

LOL. How can anyone not agree with that?

This has been my entire point. They could have been deceived the temple was already destroyed, they could not have been deceived the literal globe had already been destroyed.

My point about what would be the case if they were told that Jerusalem was destroyed is that they would very unlikely have been deceived by that from the time they were first told that to the time that they received Paul's letter debunking that possibility. They would likely have been able to confirm one way or another if that had happened even before receiving Paul's letter (2 Thessalonians).

But, another point I have made multiple times is that it doesn't make sense that they would have been shaken in mind and troubled about hearing about something that they knew was going to happen and that did not affect them directly (the destruction of Jerusalem). I believe Paul was implying that they would be shaken in mind and troubled because of something directly affecting them and happening to them, not something that happened in Jerusalem. With that in mind, the false reports they were hearing could have been telling them that the day of the Lord had come, but did not involve global destruction as Paul taught and it already having come would mean that Jesus/God had not delivered them from their tribulations and brought vengeance as Paul taught would be the case in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. So, that would certainly have been disturbing to them if they were deceived into thinking that was the case.

That’s my entire point. This is what I am debating. Which is why I think @PinSeeker said we are talking past each other.

Are you kidding me here? Why would we be debating whether they could be deceived into thinking that the heavens and the earth had been destroyed? Obviously, no one could be deceived into thinking that, so why would anyone argue for that? That's not what I'm doing and I've made that clear that I'm not doing that. Are you reading comprehension skills really that poor that you think I'm arguing that they could be somehow deceived into thinking that the heavens and earth was destroyed despite the fact that they were still around? No one would argue that. I'm saying that they could have been deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord would not result in the destruction of the heavens and the earth as Paul taught and that it would entail something else besides that. We don't know exactly everything that was being said in those false reports that were going around that were claiming to be from Paul other than that they were claiming that the day of the Lord had already come, so we can only speculate about that.

Only according to your framework.

You love to say that, but of course it's according to my framework. You don't need to keep saying that. Everyone, including you, has a framework of how they see all of scripture. Well, except for those who just cherry pick certain scriptures and ignore the rest, I guess.

grammatically, contextually, and lexically — the gathering and coming on the clouds was to occur immediately after the desolation of the temple and tribulation of Jerusalem — and this generation would not pass away until those ALL those things occurred.

No, that is not the case. It's not as evidence in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts, but in Luke 21:20-24 there is a time period between what happened in 70 AD and the second coming of Christ called "the times of the Gentiles". So, Jesus could not have come immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem or while it was being destroyed (however you look at it), He will come in the future when the times of the Gentiles pass away.

 

[claninja]

Okay, so... <smile> ...do you or do you not believe this to have already occurred (in 70 A.D., I guess) in its final, consummated form? What I think is, this is really all you've said, and you haven't really ever said anything, at least to this point, that would indicate which way you would go with that question. I'm gathering, though, from reading some of the back and forth, that your answer is 'no,' that you don't, but you can speak for yourself. And I'm not going to argue either way, I just wanted to hear it from you.

I hold that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled in the first century.

Okay, so... <chuckles> ...I think your answer to the question immediately above is 'no,' correct? If so, that would make you... not a preterist... which seems to be what.. somebody here <smile> ...has been obsessing over all this time... and thus it seems is a misunderstanding of... well, pretty epic proportion... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

That’s the debate.

1.) is the day of the Lord a universal, global, and cosmic event, such as a meteorite destroying earth or the sun exploding?

2.) can one be deceived that a universal, global, and cosmic event had already occurred? In other words can you be deceived the sun exploded a week ago or that a meteorite destroyed the whole earth a month ago?

3.) How would you logically prevent someone from believing a universal, global, and cosmic event had not already happened. In other words, what logical argument would you make to demonstrate the sun has not yet exploded or a meteorite has not already destroyed the entire earth?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I hold that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled in the first century.

@PinSeeker Do you still question whether or not he's a preterist now?

That’s the debate.

1.) is the day of the Lord a universal, global, and cosmic event, such as a meteorite destroying earth or the sun exploding?

2 Peter 3:10-12 answers that question very clearly. The answer is a resounding yes. So, this has to be taken into account when interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2.

2.) can one be deceived that a universal, global, and cosmic event had already occurred? In other words can you be deceived the sun exploded a week ago or that a meteorite destroyed the whole earth a month ago?

This is not something that anyone is debating because someone would have to be a complete idiot to answer yes to that question.

3.) How would you logically prevent someone from believing a universal, global, and cosmic event had not already happened. In other words, what logical argument would you make to demonstrate the sun has not yet exploded or a meteorite has not already destroyed the entire earth?

This is also not a question that is being debated since someone would have to be a complete idiot to think that was possible.

The other question that I would like to debate, but that you won't acknowledge as being valid for some reason, is whether they could have been deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord did not involve a global and cosmic event as Paul taught them in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 (compare to 2 Peter 3:10-12)? I don't see any reason why not. And, if so, that would explain how they could be deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord had already come. What no one, including me, is doing, that you don't seem to understand, is trying to claim that they could have been deceived into thinking that the earth had been destroyed, despite them still being alive on the earth. No one in their right mind would make that claim.

 

[claninja]

Obviously, they were not located in Jerusalem, so if someone told them it was destroyed they wouldn't be able to confirm whether that was true or not immediately.

I agree.

How can anyone not agree with that?

I agree.

My point about what would be the case if they were told that Jerusalem was destroyed is that they would very unlikely have been deceived by that from the time they were first told that to the time that they received Paul's letter debunking that possibility. They would likely have been able to confirm one way or another if that had happened even before receiving Paul's letter (2 Thessalonians).

But, another point I have made multiple times is that it doesn't make sense that they would have been shaken in mind and troubled about hearing about something that they knew was going to happen and that did not affect them directly (the destruction of Jerusalem). I believe Paul was implying that they would be shaken in mind and troubled because of something directly affecting them and happening to them, not something that happened in Jerusalem. With that in mind, the false reports they were hearing could have been telling them that the day of the Lord had come, but did not involve global destruction as Paul taught and it already having come would mean that Jesus/God had not delivered them from their tribulations and brought vengeance as Paul taught would be the case in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. So, that would certainly have been disturbing to them if they were deceived into thinking that was the case.

They knew it was prophesied. whether confirming reports took weeks or months, doesn’t stop multiple sources from continuing to spread rumors.

Additionally, They would have known that the destruction of Jerusalem was considered the days of VENGEANCE to fulfill all that is written. Paul even told the Thessalonians they would receive relief from persecution when Christ came in vengeance on their persecutors.

Lastly, Paul doesn’t correct a misconception about the nature of the day of the Lord.

Are you kidding me here? Why would we be debating whether they could be deceived into thinking that the heavens and the earth had been destroyed? Obviously, no one could be deceived into thinking that, so why would anyone argue for that? That's not what I'm doing and I've made that clear that I'm not doing that. Are you reading comprehension skills really that poor that you think I'm arguing that they could be somehow deceived into thinking that the heavens and earth was destroyed despite the fact that they were still around? No one would argue that. I'm saying that they could have been deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord would not result in the destruction of the heavens and the earth as Paul taught and that it would entail something else besides that. We don't know exactly everything that was being said in those false reports that were going around that were claiming to be from Paul other than that they were claiming that the day of the Lord had already come, so we can only speculate about that.

Paul doesn’t correct a misunderstanding of the nature of Lord. Instead he provides 2 events that must come first in order to prevent deception it hasn’t already occurred. So any argument they misunderstood the nature deflects and doesn’t address the logic of Paul’s argument.

No, that is not the case. It's not as evidence in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts, but in Luke 21:20-24 there is a time period between what happened in 70 AD and the second coming of Christ called "the times of the Gentiles". So, Jesus could not have come immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem or while it was being destroyed (however you look at it), He will come in the future when the times of the Gentiles pass away.

Since the times of the gentiles isn’t defined, That point is moot. Matthew states “immediately after the tribulation of those days”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree.



I agree.



They knew it was prophesied. whether confirming reports took weeks or months, doesn’t stop multiple sources from continuing to spread rumors.

Additionally, They would have known that the destruction of Jerusalem was considered the days of VENGEANCE to fulfill all that is written. Paul even told the Thessalonians they would receive relief from persecution when Christ came in vengeance on their persecutors.

Lastly, Paul doesn’t correct a misconception about the nature of the day of the Lord.



Paul doesn’t correct a misunderstanding of the nature of Lord. Instead he provides 2 events that must come first in order to prevent deception it hasn’t already occurred. So any argument they misunderstood the nature deflects and doesn’t address the logic of Paul’s argument.



Since the times of the gentiles isn’t defined, That point is moot. Matthew states “immediately after the tribulation of those days”

Yep. Just dismiss my arguments without taking any time to address them. Since that's what you have decided to do, I'm now going to move on from this discussion. There's probably nothing we haven't covered at this point, anyway. I would highly recommend you spend more time studying 2 Peter 3:10-12 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3 if you truly want to have a better understanding of what the day of the Lord entails, which would then lead to a better understanding of what 2 Thessalonians 2 is about.

 

[claninja]

This is also not a question that is being debated since someone would have to be a complete idiot to think that was possible.

The other question that I would like to debate, but that you won't acknowledge as being valid for some reason, is whether they could have been deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord did not involve a global and cosmic event as Paul taught them in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 (compare to 2 Peter 3:10-12)? I don't see any reason why not. And, if so, that would explain how they could be deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord had already come. What no one, including me, is doing, that you don't seem to understand, is trying to claim that they could have been deceived into thinking that the earth had been destroyed, despite them still being alive on the earth. No one in their right mind would make that claim.

You do understand I’m not claiming anyone one could actually be deceived that earth was already destroyed, right?

The whole point is to demonstrate that IF the day of the Lord was understood by Paul and the Thessalonians as a cosmic global, world shattering, earth ending event, then Paul’s entire premise in 2 Thessalonians 2 is absurd.

IF it makes zero logical sense to provide 2 prerequisites events in order to prove to someone that the sun didn’t explode last week or a meteorite didn’t destroy the earth last month, THEN it makes zero logical sense for Paul to provide 2 prerequisite events to prove a cosmic, global, world ending event (day of the Lord) didn’t already happen.


As to your other point. Where in 2 Thessalonians 2 does Paul address that the Thessalonians misunderstood the “nature” of the day of the Lord? How would you like to me address this? Is it possible some didn’t know what the double the Lord entailed? Sure, anything’s possible. Does Paul’s response contain any mention or correction of this? No.

 

[claninja]

Yep. Just dismiss my arguments without taking any time to address them. Since that's what you have decided to do, I'm now going to move on from this discussion. There's probably nothing we haven't covered at this point, anyway. I would highly recommend you spend more time studying 2 Peter 3:10-12 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3 if you truly want to have a better understanding of what the day of the Lord entails, which would then lead to a better understanding of what 2 Thessalonians 2 is about.

That’s false. They were addressed. So I’ll repeat what I wrote #296. If you have no counters and/or wish to discontinue the convo, Absolutely fine.

1.) the Thessalonians would receive confirmation the temple wasn’t destroyed. That wouldn’t stop worrying about multiple rumors from spreading about its destruction, since they knew it would be destroyed within their generation.


2.) How would temple destruction impact Thessalonians? The destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled the days of VENGEANCE. It was the great wrath on “this people”. Paul said the Thessalonians would receive relief from their persecution when Christ came in VENGEANCE on the persecutors. Who is “this people” in Luke 21. Who were the persecutors of the Thessalonians according to the book of Acts?

3.) couldn’t the Thessalonians have misunderstood the nature of the day of the Lord? Paul doesn’t mention a correction or misunderstanding of the nature of the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2. Any such argument they did misunderstand is not based on anything Paul said. So sure, they could have misunderstood, but Paul mentions nothing of this.

4.) jesus couldn’t come immediately after the temple destruction because of Luke’s “times of the gentiles” time period? the nature of the times of the gentiles is not defined in Luke’s gospel, therefore how long it is or what it means is guesswork. Matthew, on the other hand, states “immediately after the tribulation of those days”.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You do understand I’m not claiming anyone one could actually be deceived that earth was already destroyed, right?

I'm not saying that you're claiming that, but your questions 2 and 3 that you said were being debated implied that you thought you were debating against that claim even though no one is making that claim.

The whole point is to demonstrate that IF the day of the Lord was understood by Paul and the Thessalonians as a cosmic global, world shattering, earth ending event, then Paul’s entire premise in 2 Thessalonians 2 is absurd.

Of course that would be true if they were not deceived into believing that it was not a cosmic global, world shattering, earth ending event. I'm saying that they could have been deceived into thinking it was something other than that. You disagree, but I don't care. I'm sure they could have been deceived into believing that the day of the Lord was something entirely different than what Paul taught and also they could have been deceived into thinking that there weren't any things that had to happen first before the day of the Lord arrived.

IF it makes zero logical sense to provide 2 prerequisites events in order to prove to someone that the sun didn’t explode last week or a meteorite didn’t destroy the earth last month, THEN it makes zero logical sense for Paul to provide 2 prerequisite events to prove a cosmic, global, world ending event (day of the Lord) didn’t already happen.

This is based on the assumption that they couldn't be deceived into thinking that it wasn't a global destruction event, but I see no reason to think they couldn't have been deceived in that way. As I've been saying over and over again. I don't know why I'm saying it again because you obviously either don't get my point or don't want to acknowledge it as being a reasonable point.

As to your other point. Where in 2 Thessalonians 2 does Paul address that the Thessalonians misunderstood the “nature” of the day of the Lord?

He doesn't specifically say that, but there is overwhelming evidence to show that the day of the Lord is a global event (2 Peter 3:10-12, 1 Thess 4:14-5:3), so I am looking at what Paul could have possibly meant from that perspective.

How would you like to me address this? Is it possible some didn’t know what the double the Lord entailed? Sure, anything’s possible. Does Paul’s response contain any mention or correction of this? No.

You at least admit it's possible. I'll take that. Let's just agree to disagree about this at this point instead of repeating ourselves even more.