Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
The only thing that I can think of that we could still discuss relating to this is the scope of the day of the Lord, which would have to include a discussion of 2 Peter 3:10-12. Do you want to go there?
Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?
- Thread starter CTK
- Start date
-
- Tags
- daniel paul revelation
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes, actually. It's a little troubling to me that he included Matthew 24:29-34 specifically in what @claninja said ~ "I hold that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled in the first century" ~ sure. But there was an immediate fulfillment (A.D. 70) of what Jesus said there. So what he said was at least a little ambiguous. If he is... I would just ask him two things, 1) if every eye will see Him in His return (Revelation 1:7), why are there so many who I guess didn't, and 2) where Jesus is now, because I would like to meet Him. <smile>
But even if so, why should that bother you as much as it does, and why is it necessary for you to… well, “pour your wrath out” on him? Yeah, I mean, discussion is good, and even some debate, but both can be done in... well, the fruit of the Spirit ~ love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control ~ and frankly, much of your "work" here is... not that... <smile>.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You question if someone who sees Matthew 24:1-34 as all being fulfilled is a preterist or not? Really? How do you define a preterist then? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about full preterism here. He's a partial preterist. So, what I'm really asking is how would you define a partial preterist?
I'd be curious to see how he answers those questions as well. Since you did tag him here, I would assume he will see them.
I think you are a very sensitive person, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but, because of that, I think you exaggerate the level of my supposed "wrath". Most people here do not get offended when things get a bit feisty, but I know you're not one of those people. You may notice that despite my...intensity (passion)...at times, he continues to talk to me, so my question then to you is why does it bother you how I talk to him when it apparently doesn't bother him?
So you say, but I don't think you have any understanding of the concept of rebuking fellow believers. There's nothing wrong with rebuke when someone should know better about something. I wonder how Matthew 23 comes across to you? Was Jesus lacking in the fruit of the Spirit when talking to the scribes and Pharisees? How about how He talked to the people of the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3? Telling them that He will vomit them out of His mouth if they don't repent and telling them that they were "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked"? Was He lacking in the fruit of the Spirit while saying that?
For some reason, you are bothered by my passion for the word of God and the truth. Meanwhile, you have a "whatever" attitude about most of the topics discussed here. Which is your right, but I don't think you should expect that everyone here is going to place the same level of importance (or the lack thereof) on each given topic that you do. I think preterism is a terrible doctrinal system because it can take the focus off of Jesus Christ and the future hope of the resurrection of the dead and the changing of all believers to put on bodily immortality in the eternal new heavens and new earth and takes the focus off "the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). I don't know about you, but those things are what keep me going every day despite some difficult personal circumstance that I have to deal with and I'm sure many other Christians feel the same way. Anything taking away from our future hope is something that I will passionately refute.
Last edited:
I wouldn't hold your breath. I'm certainly not.
You did notice the scare quotes around the "pour your wrath out on him" comment, didn't you? Surely you're more perceptive than this; It was more for your sake than anybody else...
<chuckles> When you start doing it with, well, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control ~ you know, instead of the opposite, really ~ then I'll be standing right with you. <smile>
No, I'm... "bothered" (notice the scare quotes here) <chuckles> ...by how you express it. And you're not the only one here...
Absolutely not. I have a "whatever attitude" (there are those scare quotes again) about endless, fruitless, arguments, which we are exhorted in the Bible not to engage in or perpetuate.
Hmmmm... interesting comment. Who or what can take away from our future hope, Spiritual Israelite? Is it not true that if God is for us, then no one can possibly be against us (Romans 8)? Is it not true that absolutely nothing and nobody ~ even ourselves, with which you disagree, but you're very wrong about that ~ can possibly "separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8)?
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I'm not, but you never know.
Scare quotes? What does that mean? Why play games like this? Just be clear about what you're saying.
Whatever. I know you like that word.
I'm not bothered that you're bothered, just to be clear.
Whatever.
I'm not saying that about myself. Preterism has no influence on me personally. I'm talking about how they can influence immature Christians to focus on the wrong things. Do you care about other Christians being influenced by bad doctrine?
My argument is not based on that they couldn’t be deceived by the nature of it. It’s based on the fact that Paul never corrects a misunderstanding The problem is if they misunderstood the nature, then Paul’s argument of how to prevent deception doesn’t follow logically
In otherwords, let’s say scientists announced that a massive meteor was going to strike and completely destroy the entire earth. Now suppose some people misunderstood that warning and thought it referred only to the destruction of a single city. In that case, they could plausibly be deceived into thinking it had already happened once they heard rumors a the city was destroyed.
But if the warning had actually been understood as a literal global catastrophe, the deception would collapse almost immediately because everyone could simply look around and see the world was still intact. That’s where we agree.
BUT the problem is, it would make little sense to correct a fundamentally mistaken understanding of the event merely by listing prerequisites beforehand.
Imagine responding:
“The earth-destroying meteor has not yet destroyed the earth because first there must be unusual seismic activity and atmospheric disturbances.”
That would miss the real problem entirely. If the people fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the event, the obvious correction would be:
“No, you misunderstand — the event is supposed to destroy the entire planet, not merely one city.”
In the same way, if the Thessalonians had radically misunderstood the nature of the Day of the Lord, Paul’s most natural response would have been to correct their understanding of the event itself. Instead, he argues from prerequisite signs, which assumes a shared understanding of the event and disputes only whether it had arrived yet.
That’s not the point of my argument at all the point, If the day of the Lord is cosmic and global, Paul’s response for on how to correct deception is logically absurd, regardless if they understood or misunderstood the nature of the day of the Lord.
No games. Look it up. It's a very simple Google... "Scare quotes ~ also called shudder quotes or sneer quotes ~ are quotation marks used around a word or phrase to signal that the writer is using it in a non-standard, ironic, or skeptical way..."
Yeah so we can drop this, right?
Oh yeah, you're clear on this all right... <grin> I mean, good, but I don't care, really, in the sense that whatever the case, that's your deal, and I'm not really "bothered," as indicated by the scare quotes.
Saying... what... about yourself? Meh. Never mind...
This comment seems very contradictory to something you yourself previously said... It obviously does. And in saying this, I realize this will rile you up a bit, which, you know, if you let it, could also cause you to do a little personal reflection...
I know. <smile> But I think, just judging by the comments you have made about it and how you... "attack" (scare quotes) ...others than hold to preterism at least seems to say a lot outwardly about you personally and some things that are going on inside you... and again could cause you to do a little personal reflection...
Sure. You included. <chuckles> But you know what? It's okay. Not in the sense of just letting it go, by any means. But still, it's okay.
Let me ask you this, Spiritual Israelite. And there are some real parallels to what we're talking about:
Let's say you share the Gospel with an unbeliever. Are you concerned with how persuasive you're being? If so, that's not a bad thing, humanly speaking. Yes, we want to come across well, for sure. But you can go overboard with that, even to the point that a) you're focusing too much on yourself, really, or b) even thinking on some level that it's you who saves, or both, and both of which are... yeah, bad. <smile>
Maybe the better way to ask that is, in evangelism, in sharing the Gospel with this person, do you think it is up to you to say just the right thing to make that person a Christian? To actually save that person? Now based on a past conversation or two that we've had, you may say 'yes' to this, but that's not riiiiiiiiiight... <smile>
No, your part in that ~ and mine... and it's a great privilege given to us by God to participate in His saving work ~ is to share. And in doing that, no matter how "good" we are or persuasive or anything like that, God may or may not use that to do His thing <smile> ...as it is His will that is done, not yours or mine... the thing that only He can do. And no matter what we say or how weak or strong our powers of persuasion, God can use that to accomplish His purposes, which cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2). His Word never returns to Him empty; it always accomplishes that for which it was sent (Isaiah 55:10-11). Faith comes by hearing, as Paul says in Romans 10. And, even when that person is dead in his or her trespasses, He makes him or her alive together with Christ ~ by grace they are then saved through faith, which, by definition, is His assurance given to them and conviction by the Holy Spirit, and this is not his or her own doing; it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2).
So. Back to preterism... <chuckles> You know even if the guy is a preterist... <smile> I mean come on. Come on. <smile> There does come a point when you say... okay. And leave it at that. God will do with it what He will do with it. Preterists are Christians, too... <smile> ...they're just wrong about, um, some... you know... some things. <smile> It's okay. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You just won't let this go. Nothing you said here is anything that you haven't already said multiple times and there is nothing here that we haven't already discussed. You may want to continue to repeat yourself, but I'm not interested in doing that. The only thing I'd be willing to do is discuss what scripture says about the day of the Lord and establish that first and then take another look at 2 Thessalonians 2 to determine what Paul was talking about there. If we don't first determine what the day of the Lord actually entails, then the discussion becomes fairly pointless. So, this would involve taking a look at passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. If you'd like to discuss those, I'm open to that. Otherwise, I'm done with this discussion.
We can, but you’re not going to like my answer. The early church fathers mention it as being disputed, it’s absent from the muratorian fragment, and modern scholarship universally views it as pseudonymity
Eusebius:
“One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. 1 And this the ancient elders 2 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. 3 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; 4 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 5”
Jerome
“Peter wrote two epistles which are called Catholic; the second of which is denied by many to be his, because of the difference of style from the first”
Origen
“Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, has left one epistle acknowledged; and perhaps also a second, for it is disputed.”
Modern scholarship, quote from Bible.org
“The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.1 The term pseudonymity refers to an author assuming the name of another, writing supposedly on his or her behalf—or in his or her name. The prefix pseudo means “false.” “Scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, although it must be admitted of the few who do that they defend their case with an impressive combination of learning and ingenuity.”
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Of course we can. And you can drop it at any time without my permission.
Great.
Whatever.
It's absolutely not. Of course, you are probably not understanding what I meant. I'm saying that preterism does not influence my personal beliefs in any way. Which is a fact.
Okay, Dr. Pinseeker. LOL. You crack me up. If that's your goal, you're doing a great job.
It can be okay, but it depends on the doctrine and the circumstances. But....whatever.
Oh boy. Here we go. I sense another free will vs. Calvinist debate brewing here. You must really enjoy those. You must miss that. Anyway, to answer your question, when we share the gospel, it should be through the power of the Holy Spirit speaking through us, so what I would be concerned about is whether I'm submitting to the Holy Spirit or not and not whether I myself am being persuasive enough. I wouldn't be concerned at all if I felt like I was submitting to Him and letting Him speak through me since I would have no reason to believe He would not be as persuasive as possible.
The mention of persuasion reminds me of something I wonder about with those who have beliefs like yourself in relation to salvation (trying to avoid calling you a Calvinist here, since you don't like that label). I wonder how the concept of persuasion in relation to the preaching of the gospel can be reconciled with your doctrine. Especially when you read a passage like Acts 17:1-5 where Paul talks about reasoning from the scriptures and persuading the Jew for three Sabbaths. Why would that much persuasion be necessary if faith is given to man by God rather than man having to decide whether to believe or not? Can't God just give someone faith without it taking a bunch of time for them to be persuaded to believe? I don't see how persuasion would have anything to do with being given faith. Persuasion in relation to the preaching of the gospel implies that someone hearing the gospel can use their God given ability to reason to consider what is being said while deciding whether to believe it or not while they are trying to be persuaded or convinced that it is true.
Nope. You really should not pretend that you know me. You really don't. Not at all. And you're talking about preaching the gospel here, not talking to other believers about doctrine. Those are two different things. I take a different approach when sharing the gospel. I'm less intense when doing that even though I am passionate about it. I don't feel like the people I'm sharing the gospel with should know better than to believe what they're believing the way I do with other believers.
No.
Nope. Try to figure out why you're so wrong about me and what that says about yourself. It's just downright ludicrous to make assumptions about how I approach evangelism based on how I approach debating other believers about doctrine.
Of course it is. You seem to have the false impression that I know nothing about evangelism and that you need to teach me about how it should be done. Not so. You come across to me as though you have a holier than thou attitude and you think you are here to set everyone else straight while you are perfect and are the One whose example the rest of us should follow. I am not saying that is your intention. I'm saying that is how you come across to me.
Of course. I'm amazed, but not shocked, that you would think that I wouldn't already understand these things.
Yes, faith comes by hearing. I don't think people with your particular beliefs understand what that means. People can't believe the word of Christ, the gospel, without hearing it first (Romans 10:14). People have the free will to choose whether to accept or reject what they hear while God stretches out His hands to them all day long in His desire for them to accept what they hear (Romans 10:21).
There it is. My senses were correct. This confirms that you want another free will vs. doctrines of grace debate or whatever you want to call it. Has it been too long since the last one? Doesn't seem that long ago. Saving faith is not given to people. Salvation and eternal life (Romans 6:23) is the gift of God that is received through one willingly putting their faith in Christ as his or her personal Lord and Savior (Romans 10:9-12) . Salvation is not of ourselves in the sense of being of our own works, or else we could boast of saving ourselves. Being required to humble ourselves and acknowledge that we can't save ourselves and that only Jesus can save us is hardly a case for someone to be able to boast about saving themselves (Luke 18:9-14).
Yeah...I know what you really would rather talk about... <guffaws>
Yeah, "if" he is. Its so hard to tell if he is or not. <wink>
Yes, they are. Never said otherwise.
That's fine if that's how you look at it. But, why do you care if I look at it that way or not? I could say the same thing to you about some discussions we've had and some discussions I've seen you have with others before that went on for quite some time. Why didn't you just let it go much sooner while saying: "it's okay"? Maybe you need to take your own advice and focus on yourself before trying to correct me.
I really don't need any lecture from you. Pray for me if you think I'm in the wrong. Do you believe that the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much (James 5:16) or do you think your own words avails much more than prayer does?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Well, that was a given. Which is why I questioned whether you really want to go there.
Only one of those three (Eusebius) didn't allow for the possibility that it was written by Peter and/or that it was legitimate scripture. After saying what you quoted him as saying there, Jerome later included it in the Latin Vulgate and treated it as canonical. There were plenty of other early church fathers who disagreed with the idea that it wasn't written by Peter and/or was not legitimate scripture, so this doesn't mean anything to me. As for Origen, though, he not only allowed for the possibility that it was written by Peter, but he quoted from 2 Peter as legitimate scripture, so he believed it was legitimate scripture regardless of whether Peter wrote it or not. Obviously, the majority ended up believing it was legitimate, which is why it was included in the canon. It seems that the doubts about it were much more about who wrote it rather than about whether it was legitimate scripture or not.
Another thing to consider is that if 2 Peter was forgery, then why didn't the person try harder to make it stylistically more like 1 Peter if they really wanted to convince people that Peter wrote it? There is nothing at all that demands that someone write in the exact same style every time they write something. I am fully convinced that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, but there are some stylistic differences from his confirmed letters. However, those letters were addressed to mixed Jew and Gentile audiences while Hebrews is obviously addressed to Jews. So, it makes sense that Paul would address a Jews only audience a bit differently than a mixed Jew and Gentile audience. So, Peter could easily have had reasons for writing in a different style in 2 Peter compared to 1 Peter.
One explanation for the difference in styles between 1 Peter and 2 Peter that has been offered is because in 1 Peter 5:12, Peter wrote: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly". Many understand this to mean that Silas/Silvanus helped compose or polish the Greek. If so, then Peter may have provided the teaching/content while Silvanus rendered it into polished literary Greek. That could explain why 1 Peter sounds smoother. And in 2 Peter, Peter may have not have had the same person (or maybe not anyone) help him with polishing his Greek. Another possibility for the stylistic differences is that the content of each letter is quite different with 2 Peter dealing with a bit more serious and intense topics than 1 Peter like dealing with false teachers and coming global wrath and such.
Regardless, I don't see this as being a convincing argument at all.
As for those who doubted that Peter wrote 2 Peter and also doubted it should be included in the canon, did they say the same thing about 1 Thessalonians? I doubt it. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 Paul said that the day of the Lord would bring "sudden destruction" from which unbelievers "shall not escape". That lines up very well with 2 Peter 3:10-12. What unbeliever could escape fire coming down upon the entire earth? No one. So, this argument that 2 Peter is not legitimate scripture is not even a tiny bit convincing to me.
The real question we need to answer here is whether 2 Peter is legitimate scripture or not rather than questioning who wrote it. So, is it your view that it is not legitimate scripture?
What about 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3? Have any interest in discussing that?
That’s never been any part of this discussion… a total non sequitur.
<eye roll>
You know what I meant… ‘okay’ in the sense that beating somebody up about it or over it is ridiculous, for many reasons.
What would be the sense in or purpose of a false debate? And, I sense you missing or avoiding the point… again…
Ah yes, because you’re more powerful than He is…. But again, you’re missing or avoiding the point…
I don’t mind it at all; I’m glad to say I’m a true five-point Calvinist. There’s nothing wrong with the “labels” themselves; sometimes they’re very useful. The problem is that they’re often used ~ misused, in your case, regarding the ‘Calvinist’ label ~ for, oh, ill purposes. So it’s not a label problem, it’s a people problem, and in this case a you problem. <smile>
Yes, because you make “my doctrine” into something very different than it is. You… and all Arminians… falsely create that reconciliation quandary. Just as Arminius (and Pelagius a thousand years before him) did.
God works in people in mysterious ways.
<chuckles>
Yep, totally missing or avoiding the point… not even sure what launched you into this…
Did no such thing…
Ugh. Just totally missing the point of what I said. But I’m not surprised.
That’s a you thing.
Of course not; I avoid false debates like the plague… <chuckles>
Well, not to all people. God gives this assurance… this substance of things hoped for… only to His elect, those on whom He has mercy, those who He foreknew and loved in the way He loved Jacob, as opposed to Esau… And this is according to His will, not ours, as… well, as we are His creation… newly created by Him, and called according to His purpose, so that we then walk in this newness of heart, which is why our (very free) will is then to do His will.
If born again of the Spirit, yes. We then have this new spirit, this newness of heart, which always drives the will.
Right, but in making us out to be the maker of our own faith, unintended as it may be, you (and all Arminians) do that very thing.
I’m… pretty sure… it’s you who “hates these labels”… <smile>
I’m just… ohhh, appealing to your better self, really. <smile>
Not doing either. Again, just a total miss of the point.
Yes. Yes I do. Yes. <smile>
God works in mysterious ways. But if you’re asking if I credit myself in any way, no, which… <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter. I was just clarifying what I was saying, which you misunderstood, as you so often do.
It's such a waste of time talking to you. All you ever do is say that I'm missing or avoiding the point. There's an easy solution to this. I'm not going to waste my time trying to make any points to you anymore.
Yeah, that's what I was saying. Sure, buddy. What a joke. This is futile (as always).
Last edited:
Nah, it was a (very poor) defense mechanism. But very well; fair enough.
Okay. <smile> I mean, I would say the same right back to you, but for a very different reason.
Right, because you obviously do… and are.
Suits me…
Now I certainly agree with you there… <chuckles> But again, I think for very different reasons…
Go well. Grace and peace to you.
Your counter doesn’t address the logic of Paul’s argument. that’s the problem you are. It addressing and why I’ve repeated it.
If we assume the day of the Lord = global cosmic event, then Paul’s logic doesn’t make any sense. 1.) you wouldn’t correct a deception that a global cosmic event already happened by providing prerequisites to prove it didn’t happen yet. 2.) You wouldn’t correct the nature of a cosmic global event by providing prerequisites to prove it didn’t happen yet.
The point was simply to demonstrate that the early church mentions there was a dispute on the authenticity of 2 peter.
Historically, I would have argued that 2 Peter 3 employs hyperbolic and symbolic language, with the “elements” that burn away referring to the temple-centered covenant system. However, after spending time learning how to properly use BDAG and Thayer’s lexicons, I changed my view. The term “elements” (stoicheia) in 2 Peter 3 is classified under the literal elements that make up physical reality. While the lexicons also include philosophical or elementary principles as possible meanings, 2 Peter 3 is not listed under those categories. To remain consistent in my methodology, I think it is more likely that 2 Peter 3 is referring to the physical heavens and earth passing away. I do not want to selectively choose definitions simply because they better fit my theological framework.
That said, I would also agree with the broad scholarly consensus that 2 Peter was probably not dictated or authored by Peter himself. Likewise, I find the common post-70 AD dating persuasive.
A post-70 authorship makes sense to me when compared with 1 Peter. In 1 Peter, which is commonly dated shortly before the destruction of the temple, the author states that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7). It would seem somewhat strange for the same author to write another letter shortly afterward—but still before the temple’s destruction—responding to concerns about a delayed Parousia after having just emphasized its nearness.
By contrast, it makes more sense if 2 Peter was written after 70 AD, and after the destruction of the temple, by an author writing in Peter’s name. In that setting, the discussion of scoffers asking, “Where is the promise of his coming?” and the resulting defense of an apparent delay becomes much easier to understand.
It was ultimately accepted into the canon, so regardless of the questions surrounding its authorship, it has been recognized as Scripture by the historic Church. If the letter is legitimate, then I would likely understand 2 Peter 3 as referring to the final Second Coming rather than the destruction of Jerusalem itself due to the likelihood of its post 70 AD. The destruction of Jerusalem would function as a type or foreshadowing of the greater judgment to come, with the final coming of Christ being the antitype.
Sure, what specific points would you like to discuss?
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
And the dispute was obviously settled since 2 Peter remained in the canon.
But, you do seem to have selectively chosen the option that 2 Peter is not legitimate scripture in order to fit your theological framework.
That question is not nearly as important to answer as the question of whether it should be considered legitimate scripture or not. It appears that you have decided that it should not be considered as legitimate scripture. Yet, it contains nothing within it that contradicts any other scripture. For example, 2 Peter 3:10-12 lines up very well with what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3. You would expect that if the earth was burned up with fire upon the unexpected arrival of the day of the Lord, then it could be described as "sudden destruction" from which unbelievers "shall not escape".
Hmmm. I don't find this to be convincing. Jude also writes about the scoffers in the last time (Jude 18) and I believe that letter was likely written before 70 AD. Also, if 2 Peter was written after 70 AD, then why did Paul write something in around 50 AD (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3) that lines up with 2 Peter 3:10-12?
So, do you accept it as legitimate scripture or not? It seems not because, otherwise, you would not try to argue that 2 Thessalonians 2 is referring to events related to 70 AD because you would understand from a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 that the day of the Lord has not yet come.
Okay. So, I think it's worth your while to try to come to a conclusion about that then if you want to understand what 2 Thessalonians 2 is about.
Anything related to what is written in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3, but the first point I would like to discuss is whether Paul was talking about a one time event that Paul called "the day of the Lord" involving the resurrection of the dead in Christ, the literal catching up of the resurrected dead in Christ together with those who are alive and remain to meet Jesus in the air after He descends from heaven, and the physical destruction of living unbelievers. So, what are your thoughts about that?
This seems to be the problem, @claninja... Paul is not "correcting" anything, but rather alleviating fears, specifically regarding those among them who had died... and any of them who might die before Christ's return... would be excluded from Christ's return and the final salvation that He will bring. In other words, that they would "miss out" and remain dead forever. The Thessalonians lacked detailed knowledge about what happens to Christians who die, because Paul did not have the opportunity to complete his teaching there (1 Thessalonians 3:10) on account of being forced to leave (1 Thessalonians 2:15, 17; Acts 17:1-10). Consequently, as I said, the Thessalonians did not have the understanding to cope with the recent deaths of some community members, and so they responded with a sort of bewildered hopelessness. This was why Paul was saying what he was saying to them, to allay that hopelessness... and to reassure them that when Christ returns, all of us will have eternal life and be together with Him forever. Yeah, I'm not sure how you get the idea of Paul "correct(ing) a deception that a global cosmic event already happened..." I mean sure, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 he writes, "Let no one deceive you in any way," but there was no active deception but rather false teaching, in particular the false belief of annihilation, which many hold to still today.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Canonization is a decision about inclusion, not a proof that earlier disputes were incorrect or irrelevant.
You are partially correct.
In the Olivet Discourse, according to Matthew, Jesus’ statement that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” most naturally refers to his contemporaries, contextually, grammatically, and lexically. I treat this as a primary contextual anchor for interpreting New Testament eschatology. As a result, I read later epistolary references to the “coming of the Lord” in light of this framework and evaluate whether they are consistent with an imminent, first-century generation OR whether they reflect a development of delayed expectation in the early church. In other words, do the epistles push the goal posts backwards, and why?
My assessment of 2 Peter is anchored in the above framework.
Specifically, I ask whether its depiction of a delayed parousia and the dissolution of the fundamental elements of physical reality stands in conflict with Jesus’ statement in the Olivet Discourse in Gospel of Matthew that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
Is 2 peter 3 addressing a pre 70ad delay parousia or a post 70ad delayed parousia? That’s the question my framework is attempting to address.
Your comparison between 2 Peter 3 and 1 Thessalonians 5 does not directly engage my framework. The issue is not whether both passages affirm suddenness in the “day of the Lord,” but whether they are addressing the same eschatological expectancy - within their generation or delayed?
1 Thessalonians 5 describes the sudden and unexpected character of the day itself, without framing it as a delayed or deferred expectation relative to a generation-bound promise made in Matthew 24. By contrast, 2 Peter 3 explicitly responds to a perceived delay in the parousia and reorients expectation around that delay.
Lexical similarity isn’t resolving the my point. For example, revelation 18:24 is lexically similar to Matthew 23:35, but you have said in the past that don’t believe they are the same, right? 1 Corinthians 10:11 is lexically similar to Matthew 24:3, but you have said in the past they are not the same. So I don’t think this, selectively picking which similarities are the same or not, is the best argument.
My point on the dating of 2 peter:
If, in Gospel of Matthew, the coming of the Son of Man is placed “immediately after the tribulation of those days,” then on what basis does 2 Peter already frame the parousia in terms of delay, if the tribulation and associated events had not yet transpired within that sequence?
I see 2 Peter no different than Enoch, jubilee, shepherd of Hermes, etc…
I’ll start my basic premise, and see if we can find common ground first. Would you disagree with this premise:
Paul is not correcting a belief in an imminent OR delayed parousia, nor is he engaging in abstract speculation about the mechanics of resurrection, ie “how the dead are raised”. Instead He is addressing a concern: whether believers who have died will “miss” the parousia of Christ. His answer is that the dead in Christ will be raised first, and therefore will in fact precede the living in participation in the coming of the Lord.
I'll just say this, claninja. We know that God ~ the Holy Spirit ~ is the real Author of Scripture... or should, anyway (2 Timothy 3:16:17); He is. And I would say that His work did not end there but is still ongoing; He upholds, sustains, and protects the integrity of God's Word even today. Peter, writing about "the living and abiding word of God" and quotes Isaiah in 1 Peter 1:24-25, saying, '“All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass... (t)he grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.'" So, just regarding 2 Peter... and there may be other parts of Scripture you might think the same way about... I say, even regarding canonization, the Holy Spirit has been at work in this way throughout the generations and is still at work today, and always will be. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Similar threads
