That's your opinion, but if you're honest, you'd admit there's no way to prove that. If they could be deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord had already come, then why couldn't they be deceived into thinking the day of the Lord entailed something different than what Paul taught? He had already told them that certain things had to happen first before the day of the Lord, so if they could be convinced that he was wrong about that, why couldn't they be convinced that he was wrong about everything he said that related to the day of the Lord?
I agree it’s my opinion - based on the fact that Paul corrects a deception that it might already have occurred.
If he had corrected the nature of it, then I would have a different opinion.
That's what you think, but that is absolutely not necessarily the case. As I've pointed out, and as you are not addressing, he could have been pointing out how absurd it is to think that the day of the Lord already occurred when the things that were to happen before the day of the Lord had not even occurred yet. You have decided what Paul supposedly should have said, but that's you. I'm not convinced by your argument at all.
My argument is not that Paul should have said something different simply because I would have preferred it. My argument concerns the logic and method of Paul’s correction itself.
If someone told you the sun exploded yesterday, would you really need a checklist of prerequisite events in order to avoid being deceived into believing that such a cosmic event had already occurred?
Of course not. The continued ordinary state of reality would already make the claim self-evidently false. That is precisely why Paul’s appeal to preceding signs makes much more sense if the “day of the Lord” was not being understood as an instantly unmistakable, universe-shattering end-of-history event.
Another opinion of yours that I don't find to be convincing. Could they be mistaken about the destruction of Jerusalem? Maybe for a short time, but it wouldn't be too hard for them to confirm whether it actually happened or not. I highly doubt that Paul was intending to tell them to not be deceived by anyone claiming that Jerusalem had been destroyed, as if they could be deceived by that for long. And, as I pointed out to you already before, why would they be shaken in mind and troubled by hearing about that when it was prophesied to happen? They wouldn't have been.
It makes far more logical sense to list prerequisite events as evidence if the “day of the Lord” was not understood as an overwhelmingly obvious, awe-inspiring, world-ending event.
If the event itself would be unmistakable in its shock and visibility, then appealing to prior signs becomes largely unnecessary, because the continued normal state of the world would already prove it had not occurred.
My point is, Paul’s argument is absurd, if he’s correcting a potential deception of a cosmic global event having already occurring.
So what? Those particular Jews who were persecuting the Thessalonian believers would not have been killed or taken captive like the ones in Jerusalem were, so what would keep them from continuing to oppose Christianity? I'm sure they most likely did.
Jews from all over the Roman world pilgrimaged to Jerusalem for the required feasts every year - see acts 2. To argue that the Jews, who persecuted the Thessalonians, would not have gone up Jerusalem for the feasts during the war and prior to the siege is untenable. I suggest checking out Joseph’s work on that.
need to be willing to address what event was Paul talking about in passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 in terms of his references to Christ's coming and His own being gathered to Him "in the air"? Do you really think it's even possible that Christ's second coming with the resurrected dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain being caught up to meet Him in the air has already occurred? If so, why and how? If not, then why would you think that Paul was talking about things related to 70 AD in 2 Thessalonians 2?
Why couldn’t Paul have simply been using language similar to the OT?
This is where you go astray. No, "all these things" do not refer to literally all of the things that Jesus had previously mentioned. That would include His second coming and the gathering of the elect. That's complete nonsense. The gathering of the elect refers to the gatheringthose who are in church to meet Jesus in the air. That clearly has not yet occurred. All these things don't even includes the wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes and pestilences that Jesus mentioned. Those were only the beginning of birth pains or sorrow and not things that would indicate that His second coming was near.
There is no clear distinct shift, contextually, grammatically, or lexically to indicate “all these things” only refer to some and not all the events.
Your only argument is external framework to claim otherwise. In otherwords, it didn’t Happen according to your framework, therefore, you insert a gap into the OD as best as you can despite there being no, grammatical, contextual, or lexical reason to do so.
Jesus mentioned a gathering of the elect by angels. So, it's ONLY a gathering of the elect and no one else. Yet, that's not what we see in the parable of the wedding invitation.
Matthew 22:11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Jesus refers here to an example of someone who was part of the gathering for the wedding, yet the man didn't have the proper wedding garment on. He was not elect. So, the parable does not refer to the gathering of the elect by the angels that will occur when Jesus comes again. That gathering will be only of the elect and we will be gathered and caught up to meet Christ in the air when He comes.
The point is, It’s a gathering,
post destruction of the city, into the wedding feast.
In Matthew, There are 2 gathering mentioned post the destruction of Jerusalem- Matthew 24 and Matthew 22. Matthew 24 makes no mention of “into the air” so those details are less important to me.
Also, Matthew 24 doesn’t mention a gathering of the wicked, does this mean the resurrection of the wicked is unrelated to Matthew 24, according to your framework?
you please make up your mind whether or not you believe that the gathering Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the same gathering to meet Christ in the air that he wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? You said earlier that most likely is the case, so how in the world does Matthew 22:1-13 describe people being gathered to meet Jesus in the air at His second coming? Where does the parable refer to the dead in Christ being resurrected and then gathered to Christ? Nowhere. You are trying to relate unrelated passages.
Like I’ve said, I think it makes sense and is likely that Paul is talking about the same thing in both his letters to the Thessalonians.
Does Matthew 24 mention a resurrection of the dead and gathering “into the air”?
