Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Studying up on 2 Thessalonians 2...

Studying up on 2 Thessalonians 2...

June 21, 2011 at 12:00pm

Studying up on 2 Thessalonians 2, another controversial passage! One of the Biggest problems modern day Christians have in their hermeneutics is reading themselves into the text or pronouns (we, you...) instead of finding out the antecedent; they think The Bible is the morning newspaper written TO them. How EGOtistic!June 13 at 9:50am · Privacy: · Like ·

  • Kari Birks likes this.

    • Eva A Mackey isn't the Bible applicable to all of us, in our lives, currently? I always thought so...I need God's help as much as I need His love, etc.
      June 13 at 10:59am · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong

      Yes, the truths/principles are applicable.
      But when Scripture says in Joshua, "you are to walk around Jericho 7x," is this passage speaking to you?
      Well, if it is, you better book a flight! When Paul says "I will send Timothy to you shortly," will Timothy be coming over to your home any time now?
      When Jesus says "go into town and you'll see a man carry a jar of water, follow him," is the you you?
      hahahaha! I hope this helps!June 13 at 11:20am · Like

    • Eva A Mackey you are being very silly because by reading these, we learn to be persistant, we learn by their example. come on Tu, you know better than that.
      June 13 at 3:48pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong Eva, I think you're missing my point. There's a difference between the passage being direct TO you (it's meaning to the initial audience) instead of FOR you (application).
      June 13 at 6:01pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong Try reading Matthew 24 and then ask yourself who is the "you" in that passage. Is it you, Eva in 2011 or is it the disciples to whom Jesus is answering their 3 questions. Btw, how many times have you read through the bible?
      June 13 at 6:10pm · Like

    • Barbara J Lewis the 'you' is Matthew 24 applies initially to the first question: temple destruction etc and the "you' re: the coming of the Lord applies to all of us, including "us"....most commentators acknowledge the dual questions of this passage: the end of the age (happened 2000 years ago) and the coming of the Kingdom (hasn't happened yet).
      June 13 at 8:27pm · Like

    • Barbara J Lewis
      Tuese: I am sincerely worried brother about your tone and things you are teaching lately. I do hope you are in a bible believing church being teachable. Same for myself. But I am going to 'unfriend' us tomorrow because I do not wish to promote your posts any longer. I wish you well and pray the Lord's best for you Tu...I've always admired your passion, warmth and friendliness and deep desire to share the gospel...and you have a lovely smile...but: I think we are in very different theological spheres! And I am opposed to what you are teaching (preterism). God bless you ....love always, in Christ, Barb
      June 13 at 8:32pm · Like

    • Susan Abbott
      Hi Barbara, we haven't met, I'm sorry you have this reaction to preterism. I am a Christian who happens to be a preterist and have found the scriptures so fulfilling and rich since this change in my theology. It is a pretty big shift so Ican understand the initial "shock" other Christians feel when they learn about it. I am reading the "Parousia" right now by J. Stuart Russell and it is very, very foundational. I think the "tone" you are perceiving is Tuese's boldness but he doesn't mean to offend. To speak specifically to your post, I just re-read Matt. 24 and I cannot locate the transition you speak of: from you (the disciples) to "you" future Christians living over 2000 years later. There are many commentators (R.C. Sproul) who agree that Jesus is speaking to the disciples specifically throughout this whole chapter. I just felt to add this point of view as a comment. God Bless, Susan
      June 13 at 10:50pm · Like

    • Glenn Ferrell
      The third question to Jesus, regarding “the end of the world,” was answered after v. 36. Of course, the answer is directed to the disciples; but includes all between that day and the actual end of the world. The word used is the same as is found in Matt. 28:20, where Jesus promises to be present to “the end of the world.” That Matt. 28 passage is addressed specifically to the disciples who were standing there. But, by the full preterist interpretation, not to the church in subsequent ages. Thus, may we assume that Jesus’ authority in heaven and on earth is not longer relevant, or that WE are not commissioned to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Triune name, teaching them to observe all he commanded, with full assurance he is with us. To say this passage is only to the disciples leaves us without direction or assurance of Christ’s presence and power. Like Dispensationalism, it robs Christians of a large part of the canon.

      As for 2 Thess. 2, Paul is talking of events yet future, and not of necessity happening during the life times of the Thessalonian recipient of his letter. The Reformers and Puritans offered an adequate interpretation for this passage.
      And, Barbara J Lewis, perhaps you should not “unfriend” Tuese, but stay around to gently chide when he propounds his errors, and point them out for his other readers. The denial of a future bodily resurrection and return of Christ is a serious error; so, let’s continue to contend for the faith.June 14 at 9:56am · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong

      P. Glenn,
      I thought we were sticking to 2Pet3. I guess that's ok b/c it's included in Matt 24:29. Do you believe this happened or is it still future?
      Are you using a KJV? B/c the kjv does a bad job of translating the Greek word aeon as world. It is not cosmos. Aeon should be properly translated age as nasb esv and better translations do. So, yes, the end of the Jewish age makes a lot of sense in light of the destruction of the Temple context. ;-)
      The destruction of that heavens and earth or melting of its elements by fire is an apocalyptic why of God describing judgment on the Jews back then.
      Re:after v 36, this is not speaking of the end of the world. Now, you are eisegeting. How do you jump from the end of the jewish age to the end of the world??? Incredible gymnastics! I didn't know you were a gymnast? Don't think I didn't catch your cheap shot at me via Barb.
      I addressed this with you, P.Glenn, about a couple of months ago but you did not respond. I dealt with the word Parousia used in v 3, by the disciples in their questions and also in 27, 37, and 39. Go look up parousia.
      Do you believe the Parousia took place before that generation passed away v34???? Remember Jesus is answering their question about the Parousia from v3.
      R.C. Sproul's take my view about the end of the jewish age.
      This Generation
      So, do you believe there are 2 or more Parousia's of Christ?
      I got an appt., we'll sharpen more later.June 14 at 10:36am · Like

    • Glenn Ferrell
      There was no veiled “cheap shot” in my comment to Barbara. You are in error if you deny the future bodily resurrection and return of Christ. Such has been the understanding and confession of orthodox believers since the Ascension. If you deny this, it is a serious matter, and thus, should be pointed out.

      Tuese: One of the reasons I’ve offered to sit down with you face to face is the tendency to take on a belligerent tone and make snide comments in online venues, like Facebook. I’d like to sit opposite you and hear you explain your views in person, getting to know the person you are, and understanding more fully what you actually advocate. I don’t want to be guilty of saying you believe something you do not believe or teach. This is not an effort to get you into an intimidating situation, where I verbally attack or abuse you, but an effort to know you as a person. I have no desire for a charged exchange in a FB thread with someone I hardly know. For whatever reason, you have not accepted my offer of meeting; thus, I’m cautious in getting too involved in this discussion.
      There are three questions in Matt. 24:3. In the disciple’s minds, the end of the temple probably meant the coming of the Messiah and end of the age (world) also. Jesus separated those events in is answer.
      Just as important as the word for age or world, is the word for end. The disciples asked about the “sunteleia,” the consummation or end of all things. In Jesus’ answer, four times he refers to the “telos,” or an intermediate end (vv. 6, 13, 14, 31). Though he speaks of the appearing- phanesetai- of the sign of the son of man in heaven in verse 30, not until v. 37 does he begin to speak of his parousia. The reference to his parousia in verse 27 is not to say this happens as part of these first events; actually, it is to explain why they should not listen to false claims of his coming.
      Verses 4-34, Jesus answers their first question. It’s primary reference is to Jerusalem and was fulfilled in the years leading up to 70 AD and the destruction of that city and the temple. It may also serve as a type of God’s working with all the nations of the world into the future. From verse 36 on, Jesus deals with the second and third questions.
      One should always be suspicious of novel interpretations of scripture. Though orthodox Christians have differed in their eschatology- a, pre, and post mil- they have all agreed on the future physical resurrection and return of Christ. When I see a small sect thinking they’ve come up with some new understanding of scripture, contradicting what has been affirmed in all ages of the church, making that as important as the proclamation of the gospel, there is reason to be concerned.
      As I continue to say, a FB thread is not the place to do serious and detailed exegesis of scripture or to establish theological truth. I’d support some sort of formal debate on these matters in the Bay Area. I remain ready to meet with you to discuss that possibility and get to know you in a respectful face to face conversation. It can be a public place; I promise no insults or raised voices (at least on my part); I’m fairly flexible and will fit your schedule; you name the place; and I’ll pay. But, I’m not going to engage in an endless and pointless quoting of Bible verses on FB with claims scripture teaches what greater minds than ours have never found there.June 14 at 12:10pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong
      txing fr my fone. i understand ur concerns. i dont want someone to tell me wat my faith is. i know ive been blessed by our christian heritage but i am not 1 to blindly accept a doctrine blindly. the lord has granted me an extremely critical mind. i dont believe bc its been handed down to me in a mantra that i chant each week in an assembly. i want to test everything n i believe the church has not done an intensive study on eschatology. there r no church councils on this. just past on dogma. preterism is not novel bc many thru ch history have held the view. is it possible for the church in general to b wrong abot a doctrine? think reformation. nuf said for now. semper reformanda.
      June 14 at 6:35pm · Like

    • Glenn Ferrell Would you please name a few full preterists from before 1900?
      June 14 at 7:34pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong

      The disciples did not ask about "the end of all things" as you said about 6,13,14,31. This is a mishandling of God's Word.
      This language appears only in 1 Peter 4:7
      "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers."
      Thank you for pointing this great verse out b/c how could "the end of all things be at hand" as Peter said back in the 1st century unless he was referring to something like the heavens and earth of the 1st covenant.
      3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of THE END of the age?”
      *Did you notice THE END of the age is where Jesus is referring to in his answers below. Makes a lot more sense than your view.
      6And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but THE END is not yet.
      13 But the one who endures to THE END will be saved.
      14And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then THE END will com
      31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
      (you quote v31 but where does it mention the end of all things? no where. Did you mean to include this verse? Probably not.)
      Again, in this passage Jesus is answering his disciples' questions and is not speaking to us in 2011.
      v27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be."
      is used before v34 which says "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
      So, is v27 part of Jesus' answer from v4-34?
      Did v27, the parousia take place within that generation as Jesus said.
      Did you watch R.C. Sproul's video? He's reformed and I respect his partial preterist view. Why can't you? He's someone that is more learned than both of us. He said everything between v4-34 happened.
      You didn't answer my question 2 posts above: Do you believe that there will be 2 or more parousias????
      P.Glenn, I would consider some Christians as part of the old guard that's been trained in traditions, dogmas, confessions. These things filter their interpretation of Scripture. Preterism is spreading like wild fire among the youth b/c of better scholarship, technology, and The Power of The Holy Spirit working in minds that have NOT been indoctrinated, tainted and filtered into mantras and creeds that would keep them from seeing the purity of GOD'S HOLY WORD ALONE.
      Don't get me wrong, I respect the shoulders of the saints who have gone before us. When it comes to creeds we should hold them in suspect! They are not inerrant nor infallible nor The Authority. I don't ever remember a reformed church testing a creed against the Scripture.
      Here's a teaching I did when I was Partial Preterism. Most of it is still my view.
      Here's more full prets pre 1900
      Would you like to go to Tully's on Sloat? They make the best Expresso Shakes!!!! mornings to afternoons are best for me.June 15 at 10:16am · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong Here's Don K Preston:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LcLEAOOO4&feature=relatedJune 15 at 10:28am · Like

    • Glenn Ferrell Tuese: Tulley's on Sloat would be fine; or Pete's on West Portal; or Old Jerusalem (my favorite coffee shop in SF) on Irving. But, I'll meet you anywhere you want in the City. Mornings and early afternoons work well for me. I'll be more flexible after this week. You pick the date and time. Unless I'm already obligated that day, it will work for me.
      June 15 at 11:10am · Like

    • Glenn Ferrell This:

      is much to vague. Would you please name one orthodox theacher, pastor, theologian, pre 1900, and provide an authentic quote demonstrating he was a FULL Preterist?June 15 at 7:13pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong

      Orthodox??? Traditions again. Is it the west church, east church, protestant church, ethiopian? celtic?
      Vague to you.
      How many pre 16th Century Christians were preaching the doctrines of Grace?
      My point is the church has been WRONG about a lot things. Don't believe a doctrine b/c your traditions tells you, but believe a truth b/c you have done the hard work of studying the Scriptures Alone, untainted by a creedal grid.
      I feel like your just setting a trap with your one "ORTHODOX" theologian pre 1900. Here's your one bone: J. S. Russell (1816-1895) published a book in 1878 entitled, The Parousia.
      Why do you get to set the criteria?
      Ok, I have answered your questions but you're just AVOIDING mine.
      Please answer my questions
      (you quote v31 but where does it mention the end of all things? no where. Did you mean to include this verse? Probably not.)
      Did you watch R.C. Sproul's video? He's reformed and I respect his partial preterist view. Why can't you? He's someone that is more learned than both of us. He said everything between v4-34 happened.
      You didn't answer my question 2 posts above: Do you believe that there will be 2 or more parousias????June 15 at 10:04pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong
      Plus, who defines Orthodoxy? The same people who are in error on eschatology; who elevate the teachings of man over God's Word alone? lol. The most legalistic dogmatic narrow minded unpleasant people to be around are precisely orthodox fundamentalists. They love pointing their finger, and glorying in how right they are, ain't that right Barbara??? They threaten to unfriend someone unless one submits to their manipulation. They can never be wrong! They are always right and will keep hounding someone until one conforms to their controlling grip. -I'm so glad, we're not living back in the days when the orthodoxy would execute someone for being convinced by Scripture alone. "Here I stand..."

      Don't Tread On Me!
      This must be settle in a FORMAL DEBATE! So, you orthodox folks can have a response to your accusations, and us preterists can defend and respond to disagreeing with your man made mantras.June 15 at 10:46pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong first answer my questions and then listen to David Curtis on the preterist view http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp
      June 15 at 11:17pm · Like

    • Tuese Ahkiong Still waiting for some answers...

      Here's a site that may answer a lot of your questions on preterism.
      Would you like to meet Thursday 1pm?

No comments:

Post a Comment