What did 2 Thessalonians mean to the Thessalonians?

[parousia70]

You said:

But in Christ's Generation, Thousands of Jews accepted and repented.
And Millions of Gentiles Rejected it.

How does that fact square with your theory?

No Gentile was offered the Gospel during the life of Jesus, therefore no Gentile could have rejected it. :yes

Notice I never said during Jesus' LIFE?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by parousia70
No doubt, you are one of the nicest guys I've met in any online eschatology discussion Osgil

I hope you were being sarcastic, or I’d take that as an insult .

Not sarcastic at all.
Compared to the levels of Vitriol I have been subject to in the past half dozen or so years on various eschatology boards, you are a peach!

. Of course; not ALL prophecies are conditional.

Wheew!

The prophecies I was referring to are within the very subject I was addressing; the sign of Jonah. You’re missing the enormous significance of this, which is why I spent so much time listing all of those verses - read them.

Fair enough.. I will re examine and respond.

Tell me though, What of Acts 17:30-31?
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

Tell me Osgil, when paul spoke of this "appointed day", was he speaking of the postponed day or the original 1st century day you mentioned?

Oh yeah... and I'm also curious if you believe the glorified Christ remains ignorant of the timing of His return or does his current oneness with the Father make him now privy to that particular information?

I was hoping you would address both those questions.

 

[parousia70]

Ok Osgil.... here's my thoughts

Acts 28:28 “Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and that they will hear itâ€Â

The Gospel was preached to both Jews and Gentiles; though during this period, Jews were still given first dibs of hearing the message (Acts 13:5, 14, 42-43; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 7, 19, 26; 19:9)

Agreed.

[/i]. When they rejected it, the Gospel was then offered to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:25-28).

Also Agreed.

Because the Gentiles repented God could not bring the world into judgment.

Scripture refrence for this claim?

You're localizing an event that in truth will be global, including ALL mankind.

I'll need scripture refrences for this claim to before I can respond accurately.

When this happens, God’s ultimate plan and purpose will be achieved, which is the prevention of sin from occurring again among His children

Yep, this claim too requires scriptural backing before I can respond.
Are you an annhilationist?

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by parousia70
Are you an annhilationist?

Ugh. Religious terminology. Am I an annhilationist?

*If you mean: Do I believe that the Second Death means what it says; which is "DEATH" (Gr. thanatos)? Then I guess I am.

*If you mean: Do I believe a person cannot writhe in hell throughout eternity without first receiving eternal life (a wicked person has to receive eternal life so that he can be tortured for eternity, does he not?), and the Bible teaches the wicked will not receive eternal life, but will perish (Gr. apollumi)? Then I guess I am.

*If you mean: Do I believe people will not burn in hell for eternity is because God’s own law, the Golden Rule, does not permit God to punish wicked people beyond the point of achieving restitution, and God abides by His own laws? Then I guess I am.

*If you mean: Do I believe God is righteous, fair and just. He is truly a God of love. There is no selfishness, meanness nor arrogance in God, and I do not believe God would create beings only to torture them for eternity because they fell short? Then I guess I am.

*If you mean: I would not be a Christian in the first place, nor would I worship a God who would do this (eternal punishment), regardless of the consequences? Then I guess I am. :D

Now please don't twist this into Universalism. Did I say I believe everyone will make it? No I did not.

 

[Matthew24:34]

Hi everyone! I have a great idea! Could we discuss the question "What did 2 Thessalonians mean to the Thesssalonians. totopic

 

[Osgiliath]

Oh yeah, forgot about that . Just answering questions - don't want to be rude and blow people off.

 

[parousia70]

.... Just answering questions -

Well, sort of...

 

[parousia70]

Sorry Matt, I'll try to stay on topic better.

In 2 Thess, St. Paul foretells the takeover of the second temple by a messianic leader whose revolt is underway at the time of his writing:

"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day of Christ] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as god. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed" (2 Thess 2:3-8).

It is clear from the passage itself that St. Paul is referencing an event taking place in his day. The following points demonstrate that this passage was fulfilled by the temple takeover in Jerusalem during the Great Revolt of AD 66-70:

(1) St. Paul states that this false messianic person was already at work and that the Thessalonians knew firsthand what was keeping him from his eventual takeover of the temple of God. This necessarily places the passage's context and fulfillment in the first century.

(2) The passage is a reference to Matthew 24:15-16: "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains." It is important to recognize that St. Luke and the greatest Christian commentators down the centuries assign Matthew 24:15-16 to AD 66-70 (Cf. Luke 21:20-23 to Matt 24:15-20). Therefore, 2 Thess 2:3-8 also speaks of that messianic takeover of the Jerusalem Temple, which occurred during the Great Revolt of AD 66-70, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

(3) The "falling away" of 2 Thess 2:3, the other key sign to be reckoned in tandem with this temple takeover, undoubtedly took place within one decade of St. Paul's writing. See: Book of Jude (all); 1 Jn 2:18-19/4:1-3; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Tim 1:15, 4:16; Heb 6:4-6/10:38-39. Scripture lists certain prominent apostates by name: Phygelus (2 Tim 1:15); Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15); Demas (2 Tim 4:10); Alexander (2 Tim 4:14-16); Hymenaeus (2 Tim 2:17-18); Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18); Diotrephes (3 Jn 1:9-11).

(4) St. Paul calls this temple the "Temple of God". The Second Temple was indeed the temple of God, as Jesus and the apostles all demonstrate by their example and teaching. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus calls this same event an abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place. It is crucial to note that, after the destruction of the Temple at AD 70, no earthly stone temple can be considered the Temple of God. The proposition that there will be a future rebuilt "Temple of God" in Jerusalem is nowhere stated in the New Testament or anywhere else in scripture. In fact, such a future stone "Temple of God" with animal sacrifices and a pretender priesthood is made impossible by the entire teaching of the New Testament. New Covenant doctrine fully prohibits such a regression in redemptive history back to the Old Testament types and shadows. The destruction of Jersusalem at AD 70 caused the entire Temple economy of the Mosaic Covenant to become extinct from history.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by parousia
Well, sort of...

Tearing your doctrine apart limb by limb would be a more appropriate description I think. Using God's Word, I’ve sunk fully armed, hyper-preterist warships in my day; you guys are nothing but a couple of unarmed, derelict freighters. Your ships are going down already; and I haven’t even brought out the big guns yet; the subject of the resurrection. I'd head for land now if I were you :D.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by parousia
Well, sort of...

Tearing your doctrine apart limb by limb would be a more appropriate description I think. Using God's Word, I’ve sunk fully armed, hyper-preterist warships in my day; you guys are nothing but a couple of unarmed, derelict freighters. Your ships are going down already; and I haven’t even brought out the big guns yet; the subject of the resurrection. I'd head for land now if I were you :D.

If only that were true.

Shall I list the challenges you have FAILED to provide scriptural refutation for?

It's not on topic, but I'll restate one or two in hopes you won't continue to stonewall.......

Acts 17:30-31
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

Tell me Osgil, when paul spoke of this "appointed day", was he speaking of the postponed day or the original 1st century day you mentioned? And where does paul say the timing of that day is conditional upon the actions of his audience?

You need to provide sound biblical reason why you, Osgil, interpret the OT phrases "God rides a swift could...and was seen by the eyes of all nations" in polar opposite fashion to the NT phrase "HE is coming on the clouds and every eye shall see"

Did Every eye see God's holy arm in Isaiah as the prophet said in Is 52:10?
IF so, where is the historical proof?

"OSGIL: It seems logical to expect ONE historian (apart from Josephus) to record seeing Jesus with such a prediction. You have offered none. I am wondering why you cannot see the reprehensible lack of proof for your assumption?

I am going by concrete scriptural precedent for the nature of God's previous comings in great glory and judgment. You argue against that set precedent without Biblical instruction to do so.


That'll do for now... I'm going for coffee because I'm not holding my breath that you will offer a scriptural refutation.... but you are fun to watch!

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by parousia70
Tell me Osgil, when paul spoke of this "appointed day", was he speaking of the postponed day or the original 1st century day you mentioned? And where does paul say the timing of that day is conditional upon the actions of his audience?

Paul doesn’t have to, Christ did. Christ promised the Jews that no sign would be given them except the sign of the prophet Jonah:

“This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation†(Luke 11: 29-30).

What was the sign unto the Ninevites? Jonah, after emerging from the belly of the fish entered into Ninveh and cried:

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown†(Jonah 3: 4).

This was warning of an imminent judgment upon the people of Nineveh. The city responded, and the people believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth (Jonah 3: 5). They repented, and when the Lord saw their repentance, judgment was deferred. “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not†(Jonah 3: 10). Because of the repentance of the people, mercy overruled judgment.

If you do not understand why the sign of the prophet Jonah was THE ONLY sign that would be given and the significance thereof, then I can not help you further :D.

I am going by concrete scriptural precedent for the nature of God's previous comings in great glory and judgment. You argue against that set precedent without Biblical instruction to do so.

Of course you’re not! Your entire foundation is based on what you supposed happened in 70 AD! That event rests “outside†the Scriptures. How can you make the claim that you place the Scriptures above all when everything you claim rests on an assumption that can not be verified in the Scriptures? Nonsense.

but you are fun to watch!

Good. Theological debates don’t have to be dull, dreary, and politically correct. Put some fire into it! It’s a lot more enjoyable that way, and a lot less phony!



PS - Oops. Forgot about Matthew's request once again. It is his thread after all, and we should respect that .

 

[Sinthesis]

Originally posted by parousia70
Tell me Osgil, when paul spoke of this "appointed day", was he speaking of the postponed day or the original 1st century day you mentioned? And where does paul say the timing of that day is conditional upon the actions of his audience?

Paul doesn’t have to, Christ did. Christ promised the Jews that no sign would be given them except the sign of the prophet Jonah:

“This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation†(Luke 11: 29-30).

What was the sign unto the Ninevites? Jonah, after emerging from the belly of the fish entered into Ninveh and cried:

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown†(Jonah 3: 4).

This was warning of an imminent judgment upon the people of Nineveh. The city responded, and the people believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth (Jonah 3: 5). They repented, and when the Lord saw their repentance, judgment was deferred. “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not†(Jonah 3: 10). Because of the repentance of the people, mercy overruled judgment.

If you do not understand why the sign of the prophet Jonah was THE ONLY sign that would be given and the significance thereof, then I can not help you further :D.

Actually, by bringing up Jonah you are making the preterist case. :o Jonah was sent to the Ninevites, they repented, and their destruction was averted. Jesus was sent to that generation, they did not repent, and within the generation (40yrs) apostate Israel was destroyed.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Sinthesis
Actually, by bringing up Jonah you are making the preterist case. Jonah was sent to the Ninevites, they repented, and their destruction was averted. Jesus was sent to that generation, they did not repent, and within the generation (40yrs) apostate Israel was destroyed.

My reponse to parousia70 was only half of the post (to remind him of the subject). The "complete post" is a little further back in the thread Sinth. I didn't want to post the whole thing again (and again) :D.

 

[Sinthesis]

Originally posted by Sinthesis
Actually, by bringing up Jonah you are making the preterist case. Jonah was sent to the Ninevites, they repented, and their destruction was averted. Jesus was sent to that generation, they did not repent, and within the generation (40yrs) apostate Israel was destroyed.

My reponse to parousia70 was only half of the post (to remind him of the subject). The "complete post" is a little further back in the thread Sinth. I didn't want to post the whole thing again (and again) :D.

Well your complete post is just completely wrong. Nineveh's leadership (King) and people repented, delaying judgement. The Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, but many Jews converted while many more didn't. Likewise, many Gentiles converted but many more didn't, including the Roman leadership. There is no difference. Your interpretation of the second coming and resurrection could have never occurred in the 1st century because, according to your global vision, there is no way the Gospel would have reached all mankind in the then unknown world in time. God’s ultimate plan and purpose is NOT the prevention of sin from occurring again among His children on this Earth.

 

[Matthew24:34]

Sorry Matt, I'll try to stay on topic better.

In 2 Thess, St. Paul foretells the takeover of the second temple by a messianic leader whose revolt is underway at the time of his writing:

"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day of Christ] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as god. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed" (2 Thess 2:3-8).

It is clear from the passage itself that St. Paul is referencing an event taking place in his day. The following points demonstrate that this passage was fulfilled by the temple takeover in Jerusalem during the Great Revolt of AD 66-70:

(1) St. Paul states that this false messianic person was already at work and that the Thessalonians knew firsthand what was keeping him from his eventual takeover of the temple of God. This necessarily places the passage's context and fulfillment in the first century.

(2) The passage is a reference to Matthew 24:15-16: "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains." It is important to recognize that St. Luke and the greatest Christian commentators down the centuries assign Matthew 24:15-16 to AD 66-70 (Cf. Luke 21:20-23 to Matt 24:15-20). Therefore, 2 Thess 2:3-8 also speaks of that messianic takeover of the Jerusalem Temple, which occurred during the Great Revolt of AD 66-70, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

(3) The "falling away" of 2 Thess 2:3, the other key sign to be reckoned in tandem with this temple takeover, undoubtedly took place within one decade of St. Paul's writing. See: Book of Jude (all); 1 Jn 2:18-19/4:1-3; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Tim 1:15, 4:16; Heb 6:4-6/10:38-39. Scripture lists certain prominent apostates by name: Phygelus (2 Tim 1:15); Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15); Demas (2 Tim 4:10); Alexander (2 Tim 4:14-16); Hymenaeus (2 Tim 2:17-18); Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18); Diotrephes (3 Jn 1:9-11).

(4) St. Paul calls this temple the "Temple of God". The Second Temple was indeed the temple of God, as Jesus and the apostles all demonstrate by their example and teaching. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus calls this same event an abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place. It is crucial to note that, after the destruction of the Temple at AD 70, no earthly stone temple can be considered the Temple of God. The proposition that there will be a future rebuilt "Temple of God" in Jerusalem is nowhere stated in the New Testament or anywhere else in scripture. In fact, such a future stone "Temple of God" with animal sacrifices and a pretender priesthood is made impossible by the entire teaching of the New Testament. New Covenant doctrine fully prohibits such a regression in redemptive history back to the Old Testament types and shadows. The destruction of Jersusalem at AD 70 caused the entire Temple economy of the Mosaic Covenant to become extinct from history.

Great input, Parousia70. Thanks!

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Sinthesis
Your interpretation of the second coming and resurrection could have never occurred in the 1st century because, according to your global vision, there is no way the Gospel would have reached all mankind in the then unknown world in time.

I think you missed the gist of the post, and have mistaken my view for another. Anyway, this topic has been moved to another thread. In all fairness, this is Matthew's thread concerning the Thessalonians, and I think we've been a bit rude in taking this thread off course. As much as I disagree with you Matthew, I genuinely apologize. Doctrinal arguments are one thing, but there is no excuse for re-routing someone else’s thread. Please accept.

 

[Matthew24:34]

Researcher--

Thanks for your BIBLICAL, well-thought out posts!

Matthew24:34

 

[Matthew24:34]

I would ask that any who wishing to join this topic would do so by using proper hermeneutical and exegetical principles. I am beginning to seriously question whether such skills are sadly lacking in the Church today! This is not about people's opinions. The point is to concentrate on the actual words of 2 Thessalonians. Some of you have done that and I thank you. Others have come here and have not dealt with the text itself but have sought to impose their concepts of other passages upon the discussion.

The question is: What did 2 Thessalonians mean to the Thessalonians? If some would like to discuss another issue, I would be glad to join them on their own thread! Thank you.

Matthew24:34

 

[NIGHTMARE]

THe whole 2ncd book???????? that will get kinda lenghty??????

 

[researcher]

Researcher--

Thanks for your BIBLICAL, well-thought out posts!

Matthew24:34

Lol. You're welcome M24. ;) :D

I'll try and get back in for the debates. Two jobs and running a sports league limits my time a bit. ;) :D

'Til then!
Jeff