Wormwood
Chaps
ATP,But doesn't the book of Ezekiel describe this future third temple? Are you saying that Ezekiel is wrong? Also, in 2 Thess 2:4, don't you need a body in order to (sit down)?
Ezekiel was written prior to the building of the second Temple. Why should we skip that temple and assume he is writing about a third? I am not saying Ezekiel is wrong. I am saying he is being prophetic. Many of the prophecies in the OT were predictions of Jesus. Jesus said ALL of the law and prophets point to him. I reject the idea that only a portion of it pointed to him, and the rest points to future promises for physical Israel and the reinstitution of and earthly temple and animal sacrifices.
Isn't God described as being seated on his throne by Isaiah? Does that mean God has a physical body?
StanJ,
Again, you are making assumptions that because the man of lawlessness has yet to be revealed, that he is not currently active. Why wouldn't Paul describe his actions as future tense as well as the NIV indicates rather than using present participles? In any event, I understand the idea of an Antichrist is a possibility. I just don't think it is the only possibility. In fact, I don't think the concept fits at all with the context of this section as I have pointed out before.No he is not and wasn't then either. As I said, the tense of those words is not the indicative, the tense Paul uses is shown in the words; "that day will not arrive until", which is IN the future.
That's unfortunate. I think the 84 is a better version. The newer NIV is too consumed with egalitarian language and is not a very good translation to get the sense of how the Greek itself reads.First, I don't use the NIV1984 anymore since the NIV2011 came out.
I think you are missing my original point. The point is that the NIV has implanted an idea to communicate what they thought Paul meant. I am not arguing whether or not they captured Paul's idea or not. I am simply saying that they are trying to express ideas, rather than exact translations of the words. Most often, this is no big deal. However, in 2 Thess. 2, I think they have overstepped a bit and have prohibited the reader from seeing the full scope of the text.Second, flesh and sinful nature are the same to me so I won't strive about the word
Huh? No, actually I think they are communicating the opposite. The point of translating "sinful nature" rather than "flesh" is to guard against Dualism, or the concept that flesh = evil and spirit = good as many Greeks believed in this day. The point is that its not "flesh" that is bad, but the sinful tendencies of our flesh is what Paul is warning about. Regardless, the point is that they are taking some interpretive license. All translators do to a degree, but I find the changing of verb tenses to be a bit much. It is not necessary, as the ESV and other translations show.Third, the Greek word connotes flesh, body, the soft tissue of a creature, often in contrast to bone, ligament, or sinew; by extension human, humankind, with a focus on the fallen human nature, which is frail and corrupt in contrast to immaterial (spiritual) things, thus the NIV (1984) translation sinful nature.
This is simply not true. Sure, we can allow context to determine if something in the present tense is actually a future event. However, there is no reason to change the verb tenses. The rules for Greek tense are NOT dependent upon subject matter. Subject matter has NOTHING to do with verb tense in either Greek or English. It doesn't matter is the subject is Joe, Bob, Harry, or Jesus. What matters is the verb tenses and the overall context. Again, it is possible that these present participles could be seen as future actions based on the context. However, this is not essential. There is NO REASON to change the verb tenses. The subject matter does not mandate a change in tense. Can you quote a Greek or English rule from a grammar book that claims that subject matter determines verb tense? The subject has nothing to do with tense. In Greek, subject matters only determine number, gender, and case (nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative). Tense has nothing to do with the subject.Again the rules for Greek tense are dependent on the subject matter which in this case is already depicted as the future. Just because Paul puts himself in the future when describing this event does not mean he is describing it in the current tense of his day. The rule applies the same in Greek or English.
That's odd, because the verbs in verse 4 are the ones that are present participles. Just because you don't want to see it that way does not mean it is not grammatically possible. There are a number of Greek scholars that would agree with my interpretation. Trust me, its not because it isn't grammatically possible. It's fine if you don't agree, just don't paint it as an impossibility. Grammatically, it is quite possible, and I think more likely due to the overall context.The ONLY verse in the present is v7, because it is, and Paul makes that clear.
Huh? I am making a grammatical point. Take a look for yourself:Eph 2:2 is NOT the same despite your attempt to cloud the issue. Most people know the difference between A man and mankind.
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας
τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας
The first phrase is taken out of 2 Thess 2: "The son of destruction" The second is Eph 2:2, "the sons of disobedience." As you can see, the phrases are almost identical, except that one is plural and the differing word apoleias and apeitheias. (destruction/disobedience) My point is that the emphasis is on "destruction/disobedience" and not "son" or the idea that these are males only. The word huios acts as an indefinite pronoun. I think the same is true of anthropos. The focus is not on "man" but on "lawlessness" with anthropos acting more as an indefinite pronoun as we see elsewhere in this context and throughout Paul's writings. I am not clouding anything. I am showing grammatical parallels that substantiate my view. I understand if you do not agree, but lets not act like I am trying to convolute the discussion. I don't know where you are getting "mankind."
ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίαςFirst of all we are dealing with "MAN of lawlessness", I see nothing about "mystery" here.
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας
μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας
ὁ ἄνομος
These are the four descriptions of this person. The first is the "man of lawlessness/sin", the second is "the son of destruction," the third is "mystery of lawlessness/sin" and the fourth is "the lawless (one)." The point is all these phrases are used to describe the same figure. "Mystery" is one of the descriptive phrases of this figure. As you can see, in the Greek, the phrases are very similar. So, just cause you don't see "mystery" as descriptive of this person, does not mean its not so. The exact same word ἀνομίας is used in both.
V4 depicts who he is and if you don't think that is the antichrist then show us who is in Revelation or any other NT scripture.
Im still waiting for you to show me this wealth of texts that teach about this Antichrist, that makes it so evident that we should insert this concept into the text. You are the one that said the overall teaching of the Bible supported the idea. The burden of proof is on you to show this to be the case. I think this would be much easier than me spending hours going through my understanding of Revelation.