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!
You keep harping on the same thing over and over again while offering no explanation for how Christ's coming when we are gathered to Him in the air could have possibly already occurred. You need to establish the context of what Paul was talking about in 2 Thess 2 by understanding what event he is referring to in verse 1 first before trying to figure out what verse 2 means.
What do you mean by that exactly? What language in the OT is similar to the description of Jesus coming from heaven, the dead then being resurrected and then they, along with those who are alive and remain being caught up to meet Christ in the air? What indication is there that any of that shouldn't be taken literally?
It's sad to me that you can't believe anything unless it is explicitly spelled out to you. Do you really think that nothing in scripture can be implied?
So what? Is there something wrong with having a framework that is based on all of scripture that you stick to in an effort to not cause any contradictions in scripture? Of course not.
No, it isn't. It's a gathering of the elect from both heaven and earth (Mark 13:27) that happens at the time Jesus comes and not over the course of time after 70 AD. Who are the elect that are gathered from heaven for the wedding feast? The parable in Matthew 22:1-13 has to do with people on earth being invited to the wedding and has nothing to do with the gathering of anyone from heaven.
Why would you have no interest in reconciling all scripture which speaks of the second coming of Christ? There is no third coming of Christ, so it's impossible that Matthew 24 is speaking of some other coming of Christ than passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 is referring to.
Do you not understand that Matthew 25 is also part of the Olivet Discourse? The gathering of the wicked is mentioned there. And Jesus makes it clear that both the righteous and the wicked will be gathered at the same time, not over the course of time starting in 70 AD.
Okay, so that means it should be worth your time to try to determine what event he is talking about when He talks about Jesus coming, the dead in Christ being resurrected and His people being gathered to Him in the air. How is it possible that event has already occurred? I see no possibility that it could have already occurred. The onus is on you to prove otherwise if you want to prove that 2 Thessalonians 2 relates to what happened in 70 AD.
No. So what? Does every passage that refers to the second coming of Christ need to contain every detail related to that event? Of course not.
This is silly. There's no reason resort to acting as if you believe what Jesus said and those who disagree with you do not believe what Jesus said. We all believe what Jesus said, as we understand it.
Yes, so take the time and make the effort to figure out what that is referring to exactly before determining what the rest of the chapter is about. That's something you don't seem willing to do for some reason.
I'm not interested in seeing you explain the same argument over and over again, as if I don't understand your argument (I do). I'm trying to get you to understand that you should not try to figure out what 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is about until you first determine what the day of the Lord entails. Based on passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 the day of the Lord entails a gathering of the resurrected dead in Christ along with those who are alive and remain to meet Jesus in the air after He has descended from heaven. And it also entails sudden mass destruction involving the heavens, the elements and the earth from which unbelievers "shall not escape". So, has that occurred yet? I'd say definitely not. So, what say you? This is what you need to determine first before you can understand what the rest of 2 Thessalonians 2 is about.
John never referred to an individual antichrist. John described the term antichrist as referring to anyone who denied that Jesus is the Christ and that He had come in the flesh. And he said there were already many antichrists at that time he wrote that.
John did not describe the term antichrist as being someone who was "the instead of, or in place of Christ". A false Christ is not defined the same as an antichrist. A false Christ is anyone besides Jesus who tries to claim to be the Christ. John defined an antichrist as being anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ and has come in the flesh (1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7). So, there are many antichrists who are not false Christs.
But, you are influenced by their teachings whether you realize it or not. And you are most certainly a futurist since you interpret passages like Daniel 9:26-27, all of the Olivet Discourse and almost all of the book of Revelation in a futurist sense. If that doesn't describe a futurist then I don't know what does. You don't have to be a dispensationalist in order to be a futurist.
If your framework requires grammatical, contextual, or lexical alterations, then yes.
If Jesus’ own words in Matthew 24:34 don’t determine its fulfillment, who has authority to declare its fulfillment?
You believe what Jesus said according to your external framework, as evidenced by “so what”.
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?
Yes, but you need to determine what that entails exactly before tackling what verse 2 means.
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.
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).
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.
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.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about you proving that an event involving the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the catching up of the resurrected dead in Christ with those who are alive and remain to meet the Lord in the air has occurred in the past. Because, that is the event that Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:1.
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.
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?
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.
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 you. I'm not baffled at all. I agree that he could have just said "we're still here, so the day of the Lord couldn't have occurred", but I think pointing out that the things that were supposed to occur even before the day of the Lord had not yet occurred shows even more how absurd any such claim that it had already come would be.
I think @Davy is holds to the historicist view of Revelation, @covenantee. Which is wrong, too, but I don't think he's would be properly categorized as a futurist.
Okay, fine, but a futurist is one who thinks none of what is in Revelation has happened or been fulfilled at all. And I could be wrong, for sure, but I don't think he's that. 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.
