Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[Spiritual Israelite]

When I say Matthew 24:4-34, you can go ahead and assume that includes the parallel accounts.

Did you not read what I actually said? I'm saying that you need to include Matthew 24:35-25:46 and ALL of the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts into your framework. Not just the parts of Mark 13 and Luke 21 that parallel Matthew 24:4-34, but all of what is written in them.

My original argument did - 2 Peter’s parousia expectancy changed from 1 Peter, and also contradicts Matthew 24:4-34.

Are you just not willing to address my questions or are you somehow missing them? I said "You seem to not accept 2 Peter as legitimate at least partly because we don't know for sure if Peter was the author. Is that not the case? If not, then why even bring that up in a discussion about whether it is legitimate scripture or not?". Can you please answer my question? Is the question of whether or not Peter is the author of 2 Peter a factor in you not seeing it as legitimate scripture at all or not?

You created multiple sub arguments, which can often create confusion as to what’s being addressed and what’s not, or why I’m addressing certain things and not others.

What sub arguments are you talking about?

My argument - 2 peter was historically disputed. Modern scholarly consensus agrees it was likely not written by Peter and was written 80-120AD. 2 Peter changed his expectancy compared to 1 Peter, from “at hand” to “delayed”. 2 Peter, if written 80-120ad, contradicts 1 Peter’s at hand expectancy AND contradicts the expectancy that it would occur soon after the temple desolation, within Jesus’ generation.

What I'm asking (pay attention to what I'm saying here) is simply whether or not you think the authorship of 2 Peter has any bearing on you believing that 2 Peter is not legitimate scripture or not? Yes or no?

Hebrews, having an unknown author doesn’t address my points. 2 Peter 3 having similarities to Matthew 24, doesn’t address my points.

Why do you always want to dictate what can or can't be included in these discussions? I don't play that game. If you want to determine if 2 Peter 3 is legitimate or not, why should Matthew 24:35-39 not be taken into consideration?

Sure, all the references refer to that.

To be clear then, what you're saying is that all the references to the coming of the Son of Man refer to the same coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30? Is that correct? If so, then why do you cut things off at verse 34 in you framework? Do you believe that Matthew 24:35-25:46 is about what happened in 70 AD or about the future second coming of Christ? Based on you saying that the references to the coming of the Son of Man in those verses are the same as in verse 30, I would think you would conclude that those verses relate to 70 AD as well. So, please clarify your understanding of Matthew 24:35-Matthew 25:46 in terms of the timing of it.

And I think it’s a poor approach to cherry pick definitions from lexicons and concordances,

LOL. That's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at all of scripture and trying to reconcile all of it together. You are the one doing the cherry picking, as evidenced by the fact that your framework only includes Matthew 24:4-34 and not Matthew 24:35-25:46.

to insert multi thousand year gaps where there are none, grammatically or contextually, and to apply modern understandings over ANE understandings, all in order to prop up a framework.

LOL. You are hilarious. My framework aims to not allow any contradictions in scripture and include all of scripture. Yours does not.

i disagree, because as already stated, I think it’s valuable to learn what the early church thought, even if a letter was pseudonymous.

How do you know that 2 Peter accurately reflects what the early church thought or not? You don't think it's author was inspired by God, so whoever it was could have not only been wrong about 2 Peter 3, as you believe, but, in that case, he could have been wrong about everything he wrote in 2 Peter 1 and 2 as well.

 

[claninja]

So, what is your understanding of "the inhabited world" then?

Depends on what word (ge or oikoumene) is being used and in what context it’s being used in.

Oikoumenē usually refers to the inhabited or civilized world as a human sphere of reference, especially the Greco-Roman world, while gē is more flexible and can mean land, region, or earth depending on context.

In the context of Luke 21:35, neither bdag nor thayer’s lexicon list lexically under “whole earth as opposed to sky”. It’s simply listed as “inhabited earth”. Since the OD, in Luke, is about the “when” the destruction would occur and “what” would be the signs it had occurred, then I would argue it likely refers to Judea and surrounding areas within the Roman Empire.

Can you try to be more specific? What does this mean in relation to what we're talking about?

You asked me what I think those events mean sun/moon going dark, etc…. I believe Jesus was employing similar language of the OT prophets in regards to national judgement. I agree, with the following biblical commentators

Ellicot:
Shall the sun be darkened.—The words reproduce the imagery in which Isaiah had described the day of the Lord’s judgment upon Babylon (Isaiah 13:10), and may naturally receive the same symbolic interpretation. Our Lord speaks here in language as essentially apocalyptic

Benson:
and that must be the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, and the abolition of the Jewish polity, civil and religious. It is true, his figures are very strong, but not stronger than those used by the ancient prophets upon similar occasions. The Prophet Isaiah speaks in the same manner of the destruction of Babylon, Isaiah 13:10, The stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. The Prophet Ezekiel describes in similar terms the destruction coming on Egypt, Ezekiel 32:7-8. When I shall put thee out I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. The Prophet Daniel also uses similar language, when speaking of the slaughter of the Jews by the little horn, meaning probably Antiochus Epiphanes: And it waxed great even unto the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. And lastly, God, by Joel, foretelling this very same destruction of Jerusalem, Joel 2:30-31, says, I will show wonders in heaven and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood. So that great commotions and revolutions upon earth are often represented by commotions and changes in the heavens.

Barnes:
Shall the sun be darkened ... - The images used here are not to be taken literally. They are often employed by the sacred writers to denote "any great calamities." As the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars, would be an inexpressible calamity, so any great catastrophe - any overturning of kingdoms or cities, or dethroning of kings and princes is represented by the darkening of the sun and moon, and by some terrible convulsion in the elements. Thus the destruction of Babylon is foretold in similar terms Isaiah 13:10, and of Tyre Isaiah 24:23. The slaughter in Bozrah and Idumea is predicted in the same language, Isaiah 34:4. See also Isaiah 50:3; Isaiah 60:19-20; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 3:15.

Cambridge:
shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light] Such figurative language is frequent with the Hebrew prophets; it implies (1) the perplexity and confusion of a sudden revolution, a great change; the very sources of light become darkness. Cp. Isaiah 13:10, “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine;” and (2) the darkness of distress as Ezekiel 32:7-8, “All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God.”

Is "lexically" your favorite word?

Easier to type than definitionally.

There's no historical documents saying otherwise, either, so this is an argument from silence. It shouldn't be surprising that we might not have documentation of everything that happened way back then.

The book of Acts suggests that Antioch provided assistance to Judea during the famine (Acts 11:29–30). Additionally, Helena of Adiabene, a royal figure from a client kingdom outside direct Roman provincial administration, is recorded by Josephus as having sent grain and aid to Judea during the same famine period. This evidence supports the conclusion that the famine was not uniformly experienced across all regions and does not require a reading in which every area, within or without, was equally affected.

Think about what you're doing here. Remember what we've been talking about here. You are apparently trying to convince me that the following verse is only referring to isolated parts of the Roman empire.

Luke 21:35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.

I'm not buying what you're selling. Do you believe the above verse is fulfilled or not? If so, how and when was it fulfilled? If not, what do you think it's referring to exactly and how do you think it will be fulfilled.

I would read this in light of Jesus’ words that “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur,” which anchors the discourse within the first-century fulfillment. On that reading, the “snare” most plausibly refers to the judgment on Jerusalem and the temple. Although centered in Judea, such an event would naturally have wider regional repercussions across the surrounding land.

however, let’s say Jesus was talking literally about a world wide event affecting all those who dwell on the earth. Is it your opinion that this must be a clear and universally recognizable historical event in order to prove it was fulfilled?

It really doesn't matter what you would expect because your expectations are based on doctrinal bias. It's not unreasonable that he would want to illustrate that the idea was so absurd that making such a claim that the day had already come even before the things that he said would happen before that day makes it even more absurd.

this counter doesn’t any make sense if the Thessalonians understood the day of the Lord and world ending/cosmic event.

 

[claninja]

Did you not read what I actually said? I'm saying that you need to include Matthew 24:35-25:46 and ALL of the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts into your framework. Not just the parts of Mark 13 and Luke 21 that parallel Matthew 24:4-34, but all of what is written in them.

I did. Did you not read what I said. My eschatological framework is built on Matthew 24:4-34 (and its parallel accounts) containing no lexical, grammatical, nor contextual evidence for a delay in the parousia beyond Jesus’ generation. I also said I read any other eschatological passages through that lens.

So to spell that out, that would mean I read 24:35-25:45 through the lens of Mathew 24:4-34 (and its parallel accounts).

you just not willing to address my questions or are you somehow missing them? I said "You seem to not accept 2 Peter as legitimate at least partly because we don't know for sure if Peter was the author. Is that not the case? If not, then why even bring that up in a discussion about whether it is legitimate scripture or not?". Can you please answer my question? Is the question of whether or not Peter is the author of 2 Peter a factor in you not seeing it as legitimate scripture at all or not?

This is a partial misrepresentation of my argument. I don’t think 2 peters eschatological viewpoint is legitimate because 1.) modern scholarly consensus argues it wasn’t written by Peter AND 2.) its delayed parousia expectancy contradicts 1 Peter and Matthew 24:30,34.

What sub arguments are you talking about?

Your counter argument about Hebrews and the similarities between 2 Peter and Matthew 24.

These don’t address “expectancy” differences.

What I'm asking (pay attention to what I'm saying here) is simply whether or not you think the authorship of 2 Peter has any bearing on you believing that 2 Peter is not legitimate scripture or not? Yes or no?

Yes, partial bearing. But not full bearing as to why I reject its eschatological views.

Why do you always want to dictate what can or can't be included in these discussions? I don't play that game. If you want to determine if 2 Peter 3 is legitimate or not, why should Matthew 24:35-39 not be taken into consideration?

Conversations that split into a hundred different things are annoying and time consuming. If my only reason for rejecting 2 peters eschatology was unknown author, then you’d have a point, but that’s not the sole reason, so the point about Hebrews irrelevant.

Additionally, i never rejected the similarities between 2 Peter and Matthew 24, so I don’t know why we need to go down that road.

To be clear then, what you're saying is that all the references to the coming of the Son of Man refer to the same coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30? Is that correct? If so, then why do you cut things off at verse 34 in you framework? Do you believe that Matthew 24:35-25:46 is about what happened in 70 AD or about the future second coming of Christ? Based on you saying that the references to the coming of the Son of Man in those verses are the same as in verse 30, I would think you would conclude that those verses relate to 70 AD as well. So, please clarify your understanding of Matthew 24:35-Matthew 25:46 in terms of the timing of it.

It’s capped because the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 34 refers to previous events - gathering, coming of son of man, desolation of temple.

LOL. That's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at all of scripture and trying to reconcile all of it together. You are the one doing the cherry picking, as evidenced by the fact that your framework only includes Matthew 24:4-34 and not Matthew 24:35-25:46.

What New Testament text provides a clearer or more temporally explicit framework for eschatological events than the Olivet Discourse, especially in terms of time indicators and audience relevance?

In otherwords, is there a better NT passage that I should build eschatological framework on?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Depends on what word (ge or oikoumene) is being used and in what context it’s being used in.

Oikoumenē usually refers to the inhabited or civilized world as a human sphere of reference, especially the Greco-Roman world, while gē is more flexible and can mean land, region, or earth depending on context.

In the context of Luke 21:35, neither bdag nor thayer’s lexicon list lexically under “whole earth as opposed to sky”. It’s simply listed as “inhabited earth”. Since the OD, in Luke, is about the “when” the destruction would occur and “what” would be the signs it had occurred, then I would argue it likely refers to Judea and surrounding areas within the Roman Empire.

That's an odd way of thinking of the WHOLE earth. Even if the earth there referred to the known world of the Roman empire, you are arguing that the verse is referring to just parts of the earth rather than the WHOLE earth. It's not a strong argument.

You asked me what I think those events mean sun/moon going dark, etc…. I believe Jesus was employing similar language of the OT prophets in regards to national judgement. I agree, with the following biblical commentators

No, I was particularly wanting to know what your understanding was of "the earth" and "the whole earth" referenced in Luke 21 verses 25 and 35. I was focused on discussing the scope of what Jesus was saying and not whether the references to effects related to the sun and moon were described in a literal way or not.

The book of Acts suggests that Antioch provided assistance to Judea during the famine (Acts 11:29–30). Additionally, Helena of Adiabene, a royal figure from a client kingdom outside direct Roman provincial administration, is recorded by Josephus as having sent grain and aid to Judea during the same famine period. This evidence supports the conclusion that the famine was not uniformly experienced across all regions and does not require a reading in which every area, within or without, was equally affected.

There isn't anything which says that all regions would be affected by the famine conditions at exactly the same time.

I would read this in light of Jesus’ words that “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur,” which anchors the discourse within the first-century fulfillment. On that reading, the “snare” most plausibly refers to the judgment on Jerusalem and the temple. Although centered in Judea, such an event would naturally have wider regional repercussions across the surrounding land.

Your understanding of "the whole earth" is very strange to me and not convincing at all. In your view it's not referring to the WHOLE earth in any sense.

however, let’s say Jesus was talking literally about a world wide event affecting all those who dwell on the earth. Is it your opinion that this must be a clear and universally recognizable historical event in order to prove it was fulfilled?

What a silly question. You know what I believe by now, right? It's not as if people will be able to sit around discussing whether the event will happen after it happens. You know I believe that the world wide event involves world wide destruction, right? With that being the case, what kind of question is that to ask me? Not a valid one.

this counter doesn’t any make sense if the Thessalonians understood the day of the Lord and world ending/cosmic event.

Of course it doesn't. That's one of the things we're debating. Did they fully understand and believe what Paul taught about what would happen on the actual day of the Lord when it arrived or not? Could some of them have been deceived into thinking it had a different scope than what Paul told them (global)? Of course they could have. Can you at least acknowledge that much as a possibility? I know the text doesn't state it explicitly and that's what you always require, but just tell me if you think it was possible for them to be deceived into thinking that what Paul had previously told them about global destruction occurring on the day of the Lord was not accurate.

 

[claninja]

Yes, I understand, but why do you not think it possible that some had just told them it had already happened and they were just confused and/or distressed?

Paul says “don’t let anyone deceive you” it’s more than just confusion or distress.

Okay. I understand. <smile> I think, claninja, you're over-thinking all of this. As I said above, the chief concern of the Thessalonians, as revealed in Paul’s letters, was their faith and steadfastness in the face of persecution and uncertainty. And this is how we can hear what they heard... how we can know Paul's exhortation and reassurance is meant just as much for us today ~ just as prescient and relevant to us today ~ as it was to them then. And part of that was that He would ~ and to us that He will ~ return, and we will not "miss it," and we will then be with Him in person forever. But... okay. <smile>

No idea what you mean here. The chief concern being addressed in 2 Thessalonians 2 was not persecution.

 

[PinSeeker]

Paul says “don’t let anyone deceive you” it’s more than just confusion or distress.

In your opinion. Yes, I get that. I think you're... overthinking things, claninja. And maybe missing what Paul is saying to us, by extension.

No idea what you mean here.

Okay, well, maybe you should look into it.

The chief concern being addressed in 2 Thessalonians 2 was not persecution.

In the bigger picture... <smile> ...the Christians in Thessalonica were enduring much persecution of different kinds. And likewise, in the bigger picture, this is what Paul was addressing. It's really no different, in that respect, than any of his other letters. And like I say, by extension, his encouragements and exhortations to them are just as relevant and prescient to us today.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did. Did you not read what I said. My eschatological framework is built on Matthew 24:4-34 (and its parallel accounts) containing no lexical, grammatical, nor contextual evidence for a delay in the parousia beyond Jesus’ generation. I also said I read any other eschatological passages through that lens.

So to spell that out, that would mean I read 24:35-25:45 through the lens of Mathew 24:4-34 (and its parallel accounts).

I think this discussion needs to end soon because we just are not able to understand each other. Which has pretty much always been the case, so this is nothing new. The problem I see with your view is that your framework should not prioritize Matthew 24:4-34 over Matthew 24:35-25:56. But, it does or else you would not say that you "read 24:35-25:45 through the lens of Mathew 24:4-34 (and its parallel accounts).". Every verse in the Olivet Discourse should be given equal weight, but you don't do that. This leads to you thinking that the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30 occurred in 70 AD, but the coming of the Son of Man in the rest of the Olivet Discourse refers to His future second coming. At least, that's what I think is the case. Can you please clarify that for me? Do you see Matthew 24:35-25:46 as referring to the future second coming of Christ or do you see everything in the Olivet Discourse as relating to what happened in 70 AD?

This is a partial misrepresentation of my argument. I don’t think 2 peters eschatological viewpoint is legitimate because 1.) modern scholarly consensus argues it wasn’t written by Peter AND 2.) its delayed parousia expectancy contradicts 1 Peter and Matthew 24:30,34.

Can you just answer the question? Why is getting you to answer questions like pulling teeth sometimes? I'm asking you if the question about the authorship of 2 Peter plays any part in your concluding that 2 Peter 3 is not legitimate scripture and contradicts legitimate scripture? Yes or no?

Your counter argument about Hebrews and the similarities between 2 Peter and Matthew 24.

These don’t address “expectancy” differences.

It addresses whether 2 Peter 3 is legitimate scripture or not, which is an important consideration in this discussion.

Yes, partial bearing. But not full bearing as to why I reject its eschatological views.

Why couldn't you have just said this when I asked the same question the other times? We could have better discussions if you just answered my questions the first time instead of waiting until the 5th time or whatever that I ask them.

So, this does not make sense at all. The fact that we don't know the author of Hebrews has no bearing at all on whether you think the book of Hebrews is legitimate scripture or not, so not knowing the author 2 Peter, in and of itself, should have no bearing on whether you think it is legitimate scripture or not, either.

Conversations that split into a hundred different things are annoying and time consuming.

This topic requires extensive and thorough investigation of all relevant scriptures. That should not be annoying to you. Now, not having the time to go into that amount of detail is understandable. We all have other things to do than this and sometimes we have time to go into more detail and sometimes we don't. But, going into great detail to discover the truth of this matter should not be annoying to you.

If my only reason for rejecting 2 peters eschatology was unknown author, then you’d have a point, but that’s not the sole reason, so the point about Hebrews irrelevant.

This shows that you didn't understand the point. That should not be a reason for rejecting 2 Peter's eschatology at all. Not knowing the author of Hebrews does not affect your view of that book at all, so the same should be the case for 2 Peter. That you see contradictions in 2 Peter's eschatology compared to other scripture should be your only reason for rejecting it. That you partly reject it because of not knowing the author means you're bringing bias into the book before you even study it. If you already have doubts about it before you study it, then it's not possible for you to study it objectively.

Additionally, i never rejected the similarities between 2 Peter and Matthew 24, so I don’t know why we need to go down that road.

Because we're trying to determine if 2 Peter 3 is legitimate or not and the fact that it lines up with what is written in Matthew 24:35-39 should be taken into consideration when determining that. But, instead, your focus is only on Matthew 24:4-34.

It’s capped because the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 34 refers to previous events - gathering, coming of son of man, desolation of temple.

There are details given in Matthew 24:35-25:46 that help understand the context of Matthew 24:4-34, so I disagree with your approach.

What New Testament text provides a clearer or more temporally explicit framework for eschatological events than the Olivet Discourse, especially in terms of time indicators and audience relevance?

In otherwords, is there a better NT passage that I should build eschatological framework on?

No. That's not my argument at all. You just, for whatever reason miss half of the points I make. I guess we just think too differently to have a good discussion. My point is that you should not separate Matthew 24:4-34 and, as you said yourself, interpret Matthew 24:35-25:46 in light of your isolated interpretation of that passage and its parallels in Mark and Luke. Instead, you should include all of the Olivet Discourse from all 3 accounts into your framework with all verses in the discourse being weighted equally instead of giving special weight to Matthew 24:4-34.

 

[claninja]

That's an odd way of thinking of the WHOLE earth. Even if the earth there referred to the known world of the Roman empire, you are arguing that the verse is referring to just parts of the earth rather than the WHOLE earth. It's not a strong argument.


No, I was particularly wanting to know what your understanding was of "the earth" and "the whole earth" referenced in Luke 21 verses 25 and 35. I was focused on discussing the scope of what Jesus was saying and not whether the references to effects related to the sun and moon were described in a literal way or not.


There isn't anything which says that all regions would be affected by the famine conditions at exactly the same time.


Your understanding of "the whole earth" is very strange to me and not convincing at all. In your view it's not referring to the WHOLE earth in any sense.


What a silly question. You know what I believe by now, right? It's not as if people will be able to sit around discussing whether the event will happen after it happens. You know I believe that the world wide event involves world wide destruction, right? With that being the case, what kind of question is that to ask me? Not a valid one.

I’ll try to make this simpler. The Greek word γῆ (gē) does NOT automatically mean the entire globe in every context. It can refer to soil, land, a country, a territory, a region, or the earth more broadly, often in contrast to heaven or the sky.

In Luke 21:35, Jesus says the event will come upon all those dwelling on the face of the γῆ. The key question is which sense of γῆ best fits the immediate context: the whole world, or a specific land or region.

Up to verse 35, Jesus has been speaking extensively about the destruction of Jerusalem, describing it as “days of vengeance” and warning of coming judgment. He instructs those in Judea to flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, describing a concrete, local escape scenario.

Then in the very next verse (v. 36), He exhorts them to pray for strength or to be counted worthy “to escape all these things” and to stand before the Son of Man.

Nothing in the immediate context requires γῆ in verse 35 to refer to the entire globe. On the contrary, the most natural reading of “all these things” in verse 36 is that it refers back to the same sequence of events already described, especially the ESCAPE from Judea in verses 20–21.

As such, I would argue γῆ means region or territory - Judea and surrounding lands, when considering the surrounding context.

Of course it doesn't. That's one of the things we're debating. Did they fully understand and believe what Paul taught about what would happen on the actual day of the Lord when it arrived or not? Could some of them have been deceived into thinking it had a different scope than what Paul told them (global)? Of course they could have. Can you at least acknowledge that much as a possibility? I know the text doesn't state it explicitly and that's what you always require, but just tell me if you think it was possible for them to be deceived into thinking that what Paul had previously told them about global destruction occurring on the day of the Lord was not accurate.

Acknowledge it? My entire premise is that the Thessalonians likely didn’t think that the nature of the day of the Lord was cosmic/global on scale, and thus they could be deceived it already happened.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’ll try to make this simpler. The Greek word γῆ (gē) does NOT automatically mean the entire globe in every context. It can refer to soil, land, a country, a territory, a region, or the earth more broadly, often in contrast to heaven or the sky.

In Luke 21:35, Jesus says the event will come upon all those dwelling on the face of the γῆ. The key question is which sense of γῆ best fits the immediate context: the whole world, or a specific land or region.

Up to verse 35, Jesus has been speaking extensively about the destruction of Jerusalem, describing it as “days of vengeance” and warning of coming judgment. He instructs those in Judea to flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, describing a concrete, local escape scenario.

Then in the very next verse (v. 36), He exhorts them to pray for strength or to be counted worthy “to escape all these things” and to stand before the Son of Man.

Nothing in the immediate context requires γῆ in verse 35 to refer to the entire globe. On the contrary, the most natural reading of “all these things” in verse 36 is that it refers back to the same sequence of events already described, especially the ESCAPE from Judea in verses 20–21.

As such, I would argue γῆ means region or territory - Judea and surrounding lands, when considering the surrounding context.

I don't buy any of that, but I appreciate your effort to explain to me how you see it.

But, there's still something you haven't addressed about what I've been trying to tell you because of your seeming unwillingness to allow Matthew 24:35-25:46 to help understand the context of Matthew 24:4-34. Compare these passages...

Matthew 24:32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 21:29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. 34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

So, your framework is based primarily on Matthew 24:4-34 and the parallel passages from Mark 13 and Luke 21, right? What you are apparently telling me is that you see Luke 21:33-36 as relating to what occurred in 70 AD because that is what you seem to be saying about Luke 21:35. Is that correct? If so, then that would require you to believe the same about Matthew 24:35-39 since what Jesus said there parallels what is written in Luke 21:33-36. Both passages have Him saying heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will not pass away and then describe the coming of the Son of Man in a large scope by comparing the day of His second coming to the flood in Noah's day and saying that it will affect "all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth". So, is it your view that Matthew 24:35-39 relates to what happened in 70 AD ? If so, is there any part of the Olivet Discourse that you think does not relate to events that occurred in 70 AD?

Acknowledge it? My entire premise is that the Thessalonians likely didn’t think that the nature of the day of the Lord was cosmic/global on scale, and thus they could be deceived it already happened.

I know what your premise is, but I'm just seeing if you can be honest enough to acknowledge that what I'm saying is at least possible, which is that Paul taught them that the day of the Lord was cosmic/global in scale, but they were deceived into thinking otherwise. It was clearly a false report, so there's no telling for sure if anything in the report was true or not.

 

[claninja]

I think this discussion needs to end soon because we just are not able to understand each other. Which has pretty much always been the case, so this is nothing new. The problem I see with your view is that your framework should not prioritize Matthew 24:4-34 over Matthew 24:35-25:56. But, it does or else you would not say that you "read 24:35-25:45 through the lens of Mathew 24:4-34 (and its parallel accounts).". Every verse in the Olivet Discourse should be given equal weight, but you don't do that. This leads to you thinking that the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30 occurred in 70 AD, but the coming of the Son of Man in the rest of the Olivet Discourse refers to His future second coming. At least, that's what I think is the case. Can you please clarify that for me? Do you see Matthew 24:35-25:46 as referring to the future second coming of Christ or do you see everything in the Olivet Discourse as relating to what happened in 70 AD?


Can you just answer the question? Why is getting you to answer questions like pulling teeth sometimes? I'm asking you if the question about the authorship of 2 Peter plays any part in your concluding that 2 Peter 3 is not legitimate scripture and contradicts legitimate scripture? Yes or no?


It addresses whether 2 Peter 3 is legitimate scripture or not, which is an important consideration in this discussion.


Why couldn't you have just said this when I asked the same question the other times? We could have better discussions if you just answered my questions the first time instead of waiting until the 5th time or whatever that I ask them.

So, this does not make sense at all. The fact that we don't know the author of Hebrews has no bearing at all on whether you think the book of Hebrews is legitimate scripture or not, so not knowing the author 2 Peter, in and of itself, should have no bearing on whether you think it is legitimate scripture or not, either.


This topic requires extensive and thorough investigation of all relevant scriptures. That should not be annoying to you. Now, not having the time to go into that amount of detail is understandable. We all have other things to do than this and sometimes we have time to go into more detail and sometimes we don't. But, going into great detail to discover the truth of this matter should not be annoying to you.


This shows that you didn't understand the point. That should not be a reason for rejecting 2 Peter's eschatology at all. Not knowing the author of Hebrews does not affect your view of that book at all, so the same should be the case for 2 Peter. That you see contradictions in 2 Peter's eschatology compared to other scripture should be your only reason for rejecting it. That you partly reject it because of not knowing the author means you're bringing bias into the book before you even study it. If you already have doubts about it before you study it, then it's not possible for you to study it objectively.


Because we're trying to determine if 2 Peter 3 is legitimate or not and the fact that it lines up with what is written in Matthew 24:35-39 should be taken into consideration when determining that. But, instead, your focus is only on Matthew 24:4-34.


There are details given in Matthew 24:35-25:46 that help understand the context of Matthew 24:4-34, so I disagree with your approach.


No. That's not my argument at all. You just, for whatever reason miss half of the points I make. I guess we just think too differently to have a good discussion. My point is that you should not separate Matthew 24:4-34 and, as you said yourself, interpret Matthew 24:35-25:46 in light of your isolated interpretation of that passage and its parallels in Mark and Luke. Instead, you should include all of the Olivet Discourse from all 3 accounts into your framework with all verses in the discourse being weighted equally instead of giving special weight to Matthew 24:4-34.

It's annoying when attempted counter arguments are irrelevant.

1. Again, you are misrepresenting my argument. Hebrews is NOT pseudepigraphy, while 2 Peter IS considered pseudepigraphy by the majority of scholarly consensus. I don't reject 2 Peter's eschatology solely because the author is unknown. I reject 2 Peter's eschatology because the unknown author is claiming apostolic authority as Peter, post 70 ad, WHILE ALSO contradicting the EXPECTANCY of the parousia as compared to Matthew 24:4-34. Does the book of Hebrews claim to be written by Paul, but scholarly consensus thinks it's actually written by an unknown author? NO. So Hebrews is NOT pseudepigraphy, and your comparison argument about the "uknown author" is irrelevant.
2. I never disagreed that there are similarities between Matthew 24 and 2 Peter, however Just because two texts are similar doesn’t mean they’re saying the same thing or proving each other. I don't doubt that the author of 2 Peter wrote down his understanding of the OD with a post 70AD and delayed parousia mindset. Do you want to go down the road of all the similarities you reject, such as the Paul's "ends of the ages", or revelation's "responsible for all righteous blood shed"? I don't because they are irrlevant.

As to Matthew 25:35-25:46. Those are mostly parables, with one comparison.

1. The Day of the Lord being unexpected like the flood sweeping away those who were oblivious - comparison
2. The master returning at an unknown hour - parable
3. The bridegroom coming at an unknown hour-parable
4. The parable of the talents - parable
5. Parable of sheep and goats - parable

Matthew 24:4–34 should be given special interpretive weight because it contains the clearest statements about the subject and timing of the discourse, including the disciples’ question and Jesus’ statement that “this generation” would not pass away until all these things take place. Those explicit markers should guide how the later parables are understood. From Matthew 24:35–25:46, Jesus shifts his mode of instruction into comparisons and parables. In other words, he answers the disciples’ question in 24:4–34, then uses parables in 24:35–25:46 to emphasize readiness and the unexpected nature of what he has already described in Matthew 24:4-34.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's annoying when attempted counter arguments are irrelevant.

Tell me about it. Couldn't agree more.

1. Again, you are misrepresenting my argument.

That's all you ever say no matter what I do. I'm not going to waste my time much longer talking to someone who just claims that I misrepresent all of his arguments while he either ignores or misrepresents most of mine. What are we doing? We just think too differently to be able to have a productive discussion.

As to Matthew 25:35-25:46. Those are mostly parables, with one comparison.

1. The Day of the Lord being unexpected like the flood sweeping away those who were oblivious - comparison
2. The master returning at an unknown hour - parable
3. The bridegroom coming at an unknown hour-parable
4. The parable of the talents - parable
5. Parable of sheep and goats - parable

You can't be serious here. As if parables can't be used for doctrine? Nonsense.

Also, Matthew 25:31-46 is not a parable. Yes, it refers to believers and unbelievers as sheep and goats, but it refers specifically to Jesus coming with His angels and having all people appear before Him to be judged. None of that is made up. And the sheep/righteous inheriting eternal life in the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world with the goats/wicked being cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels is what is really going to happen. You can't just write that off as a parable. Jesus's parables were made up stories of made up people, places and things that figuratively represented things in reality. That is not the case in Matthew 25:31-46. Saying that Matthew 25:31-46 is a parable is like saying Romans 11:15-24 is a parable. Not all passages containing some figurative text are parables.

Matthew 24:4–34 should be given special interpretive weight because it contains the clearest statements about the subject and timing of the discourse,

Matthew 24:35-25:46 is mostly quite clear, also. To write off parables as if they shouldn't be given equal weight in determining what Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse the way you're doing is ridiculous. I guarantee that Jesus Himself would not agree with that.

including the disciples’ question and Jesus’ statement that “this generation” would not pass away until all these things take place. Those explicit markers should guide how the later parables are understood. From Matthew 24:35–25:46, Jesus shifts his mode of instruction into comparisons and parables. In other words, he answers the disciples’ question in 24:4–34, then uses parables in 24:35–25:46 to emphasize readiness and the unexpected nature of what he has already described in Matthew 24:4-34.

So, you are confirming that you believe the entire Olivet Discourse is related to what happened around 70 AD. What scripture do you believe refers to the future bodily second coming of Jesus Christ? You come across strongly as if you are very close to being a full preterist.

 

[claninja]

I don't buy any of that, but I appreciate your effort to explain to me how you see it.

Well, γῆ (earth) does have those different meanings, and context determines which lexical meaning is intended, whether soil, land, country, region, territory, or earth as opposed to sky. Are you saying you don't buy this? Or are you saying you understand this, but don't buy that γῆ means territory or region in context of Luke 21:35. If the latter is what you meant, what surrounding context, IN LUKE, indicates γῆ means entire globe?

So, your framework is based primarily on Matthew 24:4-34 and the parallel passages from Mark 13 and Luke 21, right? What you are apparently telling me is that you see Luke 21:33-36 as relating to what occurred in 70 AD because that is what you seem to be saying about Luke 21:35. Is that correct? If so, then that would require you to believe the same about Matthew 24:35-39 since what Jesus said there parallels what is written in Luke 21:33-36. Both passages have Him saying heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will not pass away and then describe the coming of the Son of Man in a large scope by comparing the day of His second coming to the flood in Noah's day and saying that it will affect "all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth". So, is it your view that Matthew 24:35-39 relates to what happened in 70 AD ? If so, is there any part of the Olivet Discourse that you think does not relate to events that occurred in 70 AD?

As to your questions:

• Yes, framework is based on those.
• Yes, to the events around 70ad, potentially a little earlier, maybe later, but definitely within Jesus' generation
• If Jesus was being literal about heaven/earth, not necessarily, as that's not included in "all these things" of vs 34. If Jesus was using heaven and earth like he did in Matthew 5:18, then he could have been using it idiomatically.
• Yes, 36-39 likely refers back to the events in and around 66-70ad.
• vs 4-14 are not likely about 66-70ad.

Now to address your improper use of the flood comparison: its not about geographical scope, its about peace and safety then sudden destruction.

Surrounding context determines the meaning of γῆ (earth). Matthew 24 is not the surrounding context of Luke 21:35, and therefore should not be used to determine the meaning of γῆ in Luke 21:35. What surrounding context in Luke 21, are you using to determine that γῆ means entire globe and not region or territory?

Additionally, Luke does contain the Noah comparison about the day of the Lord, but its found in Luke 17.

The comparison of Noah's flood to the day of the Lord as NOTHING to do with " geographical scope", but everything to do with suddenness and unexpectedness to those living normal lives. We know this because while Luke's account adds the comparison of the days of LOT being the like the days of the Son of man.

• Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
  28It was the same in the days of Lot: People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But on the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
  30It will be just like that on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31On that day, let no one on the housetop come down to retrieve his possessions. Likewise, let no one in the field return for anything he has left behind.

The day of the Lord is like the flood AND LOCAL DESTRUCTION OF SODOM because its suddenness and unexpectedness on those going about everyday lives, NOT because of geographical scope.

Is this exhortation about not going back for possessions more naturally describing global cosmological collapse or urgent local crisis?

I know what your premise is, but I'm just seeing if you can be honest enough to acknowledge that what I'm saying is at least possible, which is that Paul taught them that the day of the Lord was cosmic/global in scale, but they were deceived into thinking otherwise. It was clearly a false report, so there's no telling for sure if anything in the report was true or not.

Actually, you got me curious here, does Paul teach in any one of his letter's that the day of the Lord is global and cosmic in scope?