Search results

You seem to be importing a modern day geographical understanding to the word. I agree with other theologians and scholars, the language in these passages is similar to the language in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc..in regards to the fall kingdoms and nations. I’m not trying to “get around” the...

I’m sticking with events that are concretely listed as antecedents to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34. That doesn’t mean I believe other mentions post vs 34 are or are not related to vs 34. Again my eschatological framework is built on the grammatical, contextual, and lexical basis that...

Using BDAG and Thayer, γῆ in 2 Peter 3:10 is classified as “the earth as opposed to the heavens,” indicating a cosmic heaven–earth contrast. In Luke 21:35, however, BDAG classifies γῆ as “the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals,” which refers to the human inhabited realm rather than...

Because the antecedents to “all these things”, in Matthew 24:34, are found in vs 4-34. Because I was addressing Hebrews versus 2 Peter as it relates to the expectancy of the son of man coming on the clouds. Hebrews says “soon and without delay”, while 2 Peter alludes to a delayed parousia...

I understand your point that the Thessalonians were troubled because they had received reports that the Day of the Lord had already come. My point is that the nature of the event they believed had occurred is directly relevant to understanding why such reports would be persuasive in the first...

If Matthew’s eschatological framework places the coming of the Son of Man in close connection with the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:30), and within the lifetime of that generation (Matthew 24:34), then a later text like 2 Peter—generally dated 80–120 AD and explicitly addressing...

I disagree. The Thessalonians’ understanding of the Day of the Lord is directly relevant to interpreting Paul’s response. We can often infer a person’s assumptions from the way they react to a claim or correction. In this case, Paul is addressing the possibility that the Thessalonians had been...

It’s all a negotiation. We have a framework, and we do the best we can to fit all the pieces together.

And you are not understanding me - Hebrews’ doesn’t claim to be written by an apostle, it’s eschatology doesn’t go contradict Matthew 24, and scholarly consensus does not place its date beyond Jesus generation. That’s why I have no issue with the eschatology of Hebrews. Regardless of its...

I would disagree that it’s a non sequitur. The Thessalonians’ understanding of the nature of the Day of the Lord is directly relevant to understanding why Paul felt the need to address the deception that it had already occurred. If we’re trying to understand Paul’s argument, then asking why they...

Interesting, so you don’t think Paul was addressing a potential concern that the day of the Lord had already occurred?

I accept it as profitable for teaching, due to the counsel’s vote to include it. But I don’t build my eschatological foundation on it, due to its historical dispute, absence from muratorian fragment, modern scholarly consensus that it was written post 70ad and not by Peter, and its...

Scholarly consensus has Hebrews written pre 70ad, additionally, it’s eschatology doesn’t disagree with the fulfillment of Matthew 24:4-34.

The majority of scholarship, agrees it likely was written post 70 ad and not by Peter. Depends - 1.) was Paul talking about out the same event in Matthew 24? 2.) what is the nature of the resurrection.

2 peter has a long history of being considered “Antilegomena”. Even modern Christian scholars question Petrine authorship. I’ve read several articles by non- preterist, Christian theologians, who don’t think it was written by Peter. So while it may contain helpful teachings, I wouldn’t build an...

I think you might be conflating 2 passages? 1 Thessalonians 4 addresses the concern about the dead missing the parousia. 2 Thessalonians 2 addresses concern that the day of the Lord already happened.

We all negotiate with the text in order to try to reconcile a certain framework. I am just as guilty of that as you. Yea, I think so. I think the most natural reading, grammatically and lexically, is that the dead would first be resurrected and then both the resurrected dead and remaining...

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...

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...

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...