Search results

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

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...

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...

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...

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 abomination of desolation and tribulation occur “immediately” prior to...

It’s not a valid argument if it’s a different Greek word, with different context and different use. Commentaries provided by blueletter Bible, to start. Sure then just provide a serious theologian or scholar that argues it means gathering from heaven. You made the claim, why would I need to...

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...

Different Greek word, different context, and different use. I cant find any scholarly work that agrees with you that it means from on earth and in heaven. All I can find it was an expression to mean from ends of the earth or horizon to horizon. So This seems to be your own personal...