70 A.D. passage...or future?

[Guest]

In reading through 2 Thessalonians 1 again today, I am once again amazed at how I could have been a pre-trib dispensationalist. Anyhow...I was just wondering what people think about this passage. It seems to me to be speaking of a soon coming judgement upon those who rejected Christ and were persecuting His saints, "since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us".

70 A.D. passage or not?

If not, why the use of personal pronouns and retribution on those persecuting them?

8) Mike

[Guest]

In reading through 2 Thessalonians 1 again today, I am once again amazed at how I could have been a pre-trib dispensationalist. Anyhow...I was just wondering what people think about this passage. It seems to me to be speaking of a soon coming judgement upon those who rejected Christ and were persecuting His saints, "since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us".

70 A.D. passage or not?

If not, why the use of personal pronouns and retribution on those persecuting them?

8) Mike

Personally, I think he's just distinguishing between the believers and the unbelievers.

Jesus speaks the same way (using the personal pronoun "you") in Matthew 24, yet it appears he's speaking to only 4 people. Are those the only ones who would whitness these things? Again, I think "you" is meant to be distinct from "they" and "them".

[Guest]

In reading through 2 Thessalonians 1 again today, I am once again amazed at how I could have been a pre-trib dispensationalist. Anyhow...I was just wondering what people think about this passage. It seems to me to be speaking of a soon coming judgement upon those who rejected Christ and were persecuting His saints, "since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us".

70 A.D. passage or not?

If not, why the use of personal pronouns and retribution on those persecuting them?

8) Mike

Personally, I think he's just distinguishing between the believers and the unbelievers.

Jesus speaks the same way (using the personal pronoun "you") in Matthew 24, yet it appears he's speaking to only 4 people. Are those the only ones who would whitness these things? Again, I think "you" is meant to be distinct from "they" and "them".

Question still stands...2 Thessalonians 1

70 A.D. or still future?

[Guest]

Thats a good point sean. Its probable that the trib. events would also happen to the other apostles, and maybe even other believers in the first century, that is written in matthews gospel.

But you would also agree (as a partial pret.) that those events happened the the hearers contemporaries. So we can assume that the others would have known about these things, expecially since the latter passages in matt. 24 is talking about them not having to flee on the sabbath, etc. Events that were going to happen to them.

So just because Jesus said "you" guys, doesnt mean that others would NOT have seen or witnessed those things, or been involved in those events as you have stated.

If you , steve, paidon, and psycho mike and me were on the basketball court at the park, with many others around, but i only speak to you guys..............."Hey, you all will see my awesome turnaround jump shot", and then i do it (and it is awesome).....That no way entails that the other people at the park will NOT see my jumper.

Matt 24: 15....."let the READER understand", the reader in that first century, since the events happened to them, would have also included more than the 4 originally told, so it seems that this passage is special in the sense that matthew adds that paranthese part to take something that might be construed to be to only a few (ala the 4) to expand it upon many more people (ala the "reader").

Lub jim.

P.S. Since i have to read the bible a whole lot more with all these postings, i was reading ch. 2 of 2Thess. IS the Day OF The LORD equivalent to the Parousia in Chap. 2 of 2thess??

My understanding SEAN, from the other posts in the other thread, was that there is many Parousia's, but only One DAY of the LORD, which is the coming of 70 AD...................IS THis Right?????

[Guest]

True, there is only one DAY OF THE LORD. Of course, by "DAY", a period of time is meant, not a 24h period, just as when we speak of "the day in which we live", we do not mean only a 24h period.

However, the DAY OF THE LORD did not begin in 70 A.D. It has not begun yet! I will not let anyone deceive me to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him,

There is no doubt in my mind that Paul is referring here to the coming of Christ in the air (the so-called "rapture chapter" of I Thess 4), which is, in reality a description of the resurrection:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. I Thess 4:16,17

But the secnd coming and our resurrection will not occur until the man of lawlessness, the Antichrist, appears, who exalts himself above every object of worship, proclaiming himself to be God. That didn't happen in 70 A.D.

we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only that which now restrains it will do so until it is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.

What is now restraining the man of lawlessness from appearing? Second century Christians thought it was the Roman government. But this Antichrist has not yet appeared, it would seem to be government in general. Those second-century Christians believed that the "world" government of the day, would be divided into ten kingdoms. ("Babylon would fall.") Three kingdoms would rebel and fight against the other seven. Those three would be defeated, and an eighth would arise --- headed by Antichrist.

Perhaps the next thing to occur in the sequence of predicted events is a world government ("Babylon") whose success will be short-lived, and will divide into 10 kingdoms, etc.

Yes, Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But that's the only part of Matthew 24 that I see as having already occurred.

[Guest]

Boy...You guys sure are easily distracted. Once again...Is 2 Thessalonians 1 speaking of a first century event or one that is still future to us?

If it wasn't to include them and it is still future then why did Paul use personal pronouns?

and

What would be the point of Paul reassuring them with relief from their persecutions if it is still future to us?

8) Mike

[Guest]

Boy...You guys sure are easily distracted. Once again...Is 2 Thessalonians 1 speaking of a first century event or one that is still future to us?

If it wasn't to include them and it is still future then why did Paul use personal pronouns?

and

What would be the point of Paul reassuring them with relief from their persecutions if it is still future to us?

8) Mike

So Mike, let me be clear. Would you agree with thes following two staments. If not, how would you qualify them:

- Every time personal pronouns are used in Scripture, the events in question must happen in the lifetime of the writer or the immediate audience.

- Every time the Scriptures hold out a future hope/expectation, then that future hope/expectation must materialise in the lifetime of the writer and immediate audience.

[Guest]

2Th 1:6 For after all it is {only} just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
2Th 1:7 and {to give} relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
2Th 1:8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
2Th 1:10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed.

Full Preterist friends, when was that day? Looking at church history, I see just the opposite.

Is it as Jim from Covina says? We're all like those on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:13-21. For the last 2000 years we've had nothing but presupposition about the events spoken of by the Word of God.

The only difference is, Jesus hasn't appeared to anyone to clear it up. He left the church in limbo waiting for some glorious return.

Sad because, we're also left wondering what anything means in scripture. Revelation 21:4. What else could mourning, crying and pain mean? Death could be spiritual death but...

Any thoughts on this? Jim could be correct. If he is... I'm completely lost.

[Guest]

Boy...You guys sure are easily distracted. Once again...Is 2 Thessalonians 1 speaking of a first century event or one that is still future to us?

If it wasn't to include them and it is still future then why did Paul use personal pronouns?

and

What would be the point of Paul reassuring them with relief from their persecutions if it is still future to us?

8) Mike

So Mike, let me be clear. Would you agree with thes following two staments. If not, how would you qualify them:

- Every time personal pronouns are used in Scripture, the events in question must happen in the lifetime of the writer or the immediate audience.

- Every time the Scriptures hold out a future hope/expectation, then that future hope/expectation must materialise in the lifetime of the writer and immediate audience.

When a personal pronoun is used it can include up to all people of all time, but must include at a minimum, THE DIRECT AUDIENCE to be relevent and inspired.

8) Mike

[Guest]

In reading through 2 Thessalonians 1 again today, I am once again amazed at how I could have been a pre-trib dispensationalist. Anyhow...I was just wondering what people think about this passage. It seems to me to be speaking of a soon coming judgement upon those who rejected Christ and were persecuting His saints, "since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us".

70 A.D. passage or not?

If not, why the use of personal pronouns and retribution on those persecuting them?

8) Mike

Personally, I think he's just distinguishing between the believers and the unbelievers.

Jesus speaks the same way (using the personal pronoun "you") in Matthew 24, yet it appears he's speaking to only 4 people. Are those the only ones who would whitness these things? Again, I think "you" is meant to be distinct from "they" and "them".

Hi Sean...thanks for answering.
you said

Personally, I think he's just distinguishing between the believers and the unbelievers.

So then would it be fair to say that you believe that the events of 2 Thessalonians 1 are still wating to be fulfilled?