Thessalonian Comfort or Future Coming? 2 Thess. 1

You may fancy any motivation you like. But to make the observation that since aster "converted" himself to preterism it seems to be his whole focus and aim to convert others, is justified.

But I have made my point of this, now twice, and it seems I am not the only one who makes this observation.

My exhortation to you men is to return to your singular devotion of Christ Jesus and Him crucified.

 

What kind of statement is that? You are assuming you are correct and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. There is no open-mindedness here.

If a new convert came to me with a question about verse 6, I would explain that you cannot pull this single verse out of context and consider it alone, it must be understood within the complete context of the passage.

 

OK I gave you my response before you posted yours.

While we might have a difficulty with this passge and others as I said, all positions have difficulties.

I guess it distills down to which difficulty (or difficulties) one can live with?

You know if I ever left my present view as futurist disensationalist (well not quite but close) it would probably be as a partial preterist.

Then I would answer that the Sack of Jerusalem was phase 1 of His coming "appearing" with phase two his visible return coming "parousia" as some time later (going on 2000 years now).

Or something like that (maybe I got them reversed).

HankD

 

Hi Logos1,

OK I'll include much of the context:

Acts 1

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.​

Notice that I underline "this same Jesus" in this quote and the previous one.

It is my conviction that "this same Jesus" means just that, not another person such as Titus in an allegorical answer.

Also notice that they were on the Mount of Olives.

I believe Zechariah adresses His return in the following prophetic passage:

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.​

There was no such deliverance in AD70.​

HankD​

 

In Matthew 22, Jesus tells the parable of the wedding. He invited and called those he bid to the wedding and they would not come. He sent yet more servants to call them, and they made excuse. So what did the King do?

Matt 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Notice that the king nor his son destroyed and burned the city, no, the king sent forth his armies to destroy it. It says nothing about the son leading this army. Notice it is very specific to show this a local event.

I believe this is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. I agree it was a judgment agaist the Jews for rejecting Christ. But it is not the second coming, that is still future. The second coming is a complete worldwide event like Noah's flood was, not a local event.

You cannot read Matthew 24 and not see this is speaking of a global worldwide event.

Matt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Matt 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I don't know how anybody can read Matthew 24 and not see that it is speaking of a worldwide event, not a local event.

 

So, let me get this straight, Tom. Jesus has already come, yet you are experiencing exasperation. I'm surprised that God's people will experience such a thing when the perfect kingdom comes. And also, Jesus has come and yet his saints are still arguing theology. I thought when Jesus came we would be delivered from these earthly bodies and we would "know as we are known", that is, perfectly. Frankly, if you were right in your view, I find Christ's kingdom to be so dissapointing that I would cease being a Christian and I cannot imagine that a non-Christian, upon hearing your view would ever be converted to Christ.

 

Not just to the Thessalonians

Ding! Ding! Correct

Correct again!

Partial credit. Yes the Jews were persecuting, however you limit the promise to only those in Thessolinca, I extend it to all believers. By my account, this would be all that stand against Christ.

Do they not have eternal life?

Jews can not persecurte Christians today? Didn't know that.

Not strange at all.

Not at all

In fact you take away the promise by appying it in such a way. We are promised many things. Two of which are persecution in this life and relief when Christ returns. You may disagree with what I say, and that is fine. But to say that a futurist can not defend there beliefs without resorting to "tricks" and misinformation is incorrect. I prefer to read and learn, but couldn't resit the bait you set. If you have questions about what I beleive I will answer, but don't expect a long debate with me, just don't have time for it right now.

 

The same you and I will get. We face persecution in this life, Jesus promised that. We are promised relief in the next. This relief that is promised far exceeds anything would would get in this world. Think spiritual, not just physical.

 

The attitude of preterists is enough for me to reject the doctrine. :type:

 

When you are standing on weak ground then a little attitude is needed to make the case.

 

I can agree with you on this part.

 

This is true, but you have not presented a flawless position, there are many flaws in it that have repeatedly been pointed out to you.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I see the scipture as plainly teaching one form of releif, you see it as another.