2Thessalonians 2

[basilfo]

I was going to respond to the discussion on the subject under the Ezek's temple thread, but I think Paul's correction to the confused Thess's is so instructive on eschatology, that I split it out here. It is a very key passage IMO.

Here's my 2 cents (maybe 5 cents):

In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, he corrects the believers there who were confused as to whether they had missed ‘the coming of our Lord and the gathering together to Him’.

For ref:


(NKJV) 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
2:2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for [that Day will not come] unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2:5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
2:6And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
2:7 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.

Paul's correction to the Church of Thessalonica is pretty indicative of whether he taught a pre-trib rapture to them or not - IMO.

Let's say you had led someone to the Lord, or at least witnessed extensively to them in such a way that they had no doubt that you were a true believer (certainly they knew Paul was). And you taught them that we would be raptured, instantly transported off the earth in the blink of an eye. Then you heard that they thought the rapture had occurred already, so you gave them a call. You know how you would correct them?? You would say, "Hey guys, you're wrong, I'M HERE!!" That's all you would have to say. And that’s all Paul would have said – after all, he was a pretty sharp guy.

But instead, Paul repeats the signs that Jesus prophesied to the disciples when they asked 'when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) The signs Paul told them would have to occur before 'the day of Christ' were (2Thes2:3):
*the falling away
*the man of sin is revealed (who sits as God, in the temple of God) (ch2:4)

Let’s keep it simple. For now, we don’t have to define ‘the falling away’ or ID the man of sin. All we have to do is look at where the man of sin sits as God.

The Thessalonians, of course, knew that the temple of God was in Jerusalem, so when Paul said in his letter, 'the temple of God', with no clarification that he was speaking of anything other than THE temple in Jerusalem, IMO, it’s clear that’s what he’s talking about. Remember, 2 Thess 2 is Paul’s letter to his very confused/worried friends trying to comfort them and re-educate them about things he had already told them. Would he include a hidden/symbolic/unexplained reference to ‘the temple of God’ – as in the body of believers being the temple in the NC? Wouldn’t that create another confusion among them? 'He means Herod’s temple!!' 'No, he means our bodies!!' 'Somebody get word to Paul for 3 Thessalonians to straighten THIS out!!!' I think that is highly improbable.

That presents us with 2 options.

1. That sign took place in Herod's temple before it was destroyed in 70AD. And there is no doubt that some horrific 'abominations', and wicked scenes and false worship occurred in the temple before it was finally destroyed. (That’s another study in itself.)

-OR-

2. Rapture view: The sign DID NOT take place in the temple before 70AD, and since there has not been a temple of God as Paul knew it since 70AD, that sign is out in the future sometime. And I can’t think of a way for that sign to happen, now that there is no temple of God to sit in. Maybe in some rebuilt temple in Jerusalem?? That couldn't occur in a decade even if they started it tomorrow, so why the 'rapture-any-minute-now' atmosphere amongst pre-tribbers?

A bigger problem with option 2 is that in the New Covenant, God has no use for a future, physical 'temple of God'. That entire system was destroyed at the cross capped off with the complete annihilation of the physical buildings that were the center of the Jewish system of worship. Something everyone in the Roman empire could see. (You might even say that every eye could see that the followers of Jesus had replaced the Jewish leaders as God's people. Hmmmmm.)

God's house is not in Jerusalem as it was under the Old Covenant. WE are His temple built upon the chief cornerstone, Christ:

(NKJV) Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
2:21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
2:22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Does that sound like God has a future physical temple in mind under the New Covenant, complete with High priests offering sacrifices that are not pleasing to Him?? So any future temple built there would not be sanctioned by God, not legitimate. But Paul said 'the temple of God'. Would he say that about a bogus temple?

So maybe this sign is figurative – somehow ‘an abomination’ that will manifest itself amongst the body of believers today? How in the world can that explanation have any meaning at all to Paul and the Thessalonians? It can’t.

Now option 2 requires that God inspired Paul to instruct a church (remember this was a real letter to real people in Thessolonica who really read this letter) with information that He knew was bogus - that they had no choice but to misinterpret. To my knowledge, this would be the only place in Scripture where God did that. That borders on God being a deceiver, which cannot be.

Some additional points:

1. Paul starts by saying, 'Let no one deceive you by any means….' If he preached a literal, physical, pre-trib, bodily translation of believers up, up, and away, how could anyone convince them (deceive them) that it had happened?? It doesn’t sound like something you can fake. Surely, they thought that at least some of them were true believers. 'Hey, go see if Popodopolis is still around! He really got what Paul was telling us. If he’s gone, we’re in trouble!' Whew, Popodopolis was still there.
2. v. 7: '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.' 'Already at work?' If this sign doesn’t happen for over 2000 years, that’s a heck of a long shift for the man of sin. Surely this indicates that this sign, and ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ and ‘the gathering’ are happening sooner rather than later.

Enough for now. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Peace to you all,
Dave

[basilfo]

I probably bit off too much to start. I'll try to focus on one aspect at a time or we'll be all over the map.

Youngs Literal Translation:

2Th 2:1 And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him,
2:2 that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived (Strongs #1764, Greek: enistemi {en-is'-tay-mee}

Some argue that the Thess's didn't think they had MISSED the gathering, only that it was near/close/at hand. The literal translation indicates (without other translational bias) that they thought it 'had arrived'.

If you do a NT search on #1764, it appears 7 times. Here's a quick link if you want to save the time:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...64&Version=kjv

So, they thought it 'had arrived' or was present, which means if Paul taught that the sudden rapture/removal of all believers was the first thing that happened marking the day of Christ, they couldn't have thought it 'had arrived'. If they were mistaken, Paul sure didn't tell them that in 2 Thes 2.
There is no separation between the gathering to Him and the Parousia. Pre-tribbers have a doctrine that is contrary to 2 THES 2 IMO.

Peace to you all,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was going to respond to the discussion on the subject under the Ezek's temple thread, but I think Paul's correction to the confused Thess's is so instructive on eschatology, that I split it out here. It is a very key passage IMO.

Here's my 2 cents (maybe 5 cents):

Or maybe 5 dollars worth! Well done ...

In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, he corrects the believers there who were confused as to whether they had missed ‘the coming of our Lord and the gathering together to Him’.

Paul's correction to the Church of Thessalonica is pretty indicative of whether he taught a pre-trib rapture to them or not - IMO.

Let's say you had led someone to the Lord, or at least witnessed extensively to them in such a way that they had no doubt that you were a true believer (certainly they knew Paul was). And you taught them that we would be raptured, instantly transported off the earth in the blink of an eye. Then you heard that they thought the rapture had occurred already, so you gave them a call. You know how you would correct them?? You would say, "Hey guys, you're wrong, I'M HERE!!" That's all you would have to say. And that’s all Paul would have said – after all, he was a pretty sharp guy.

I think that is the essential insight. He did something like that when he wanted to prove that God had not cast away all Jews because of their corporate rejection of Christ. His first argument was - "That can't be right! Look at me, I'm a Jew and I'm saved in Jesus!" (Romans 11.1) If the rapture was true and he wanted to assure the Thessalonicans that they had not missed it, he almost certainly would have said so! But as it is, he says nothing about an supposed "rapture" in 2 Thess 2. Indeed, the two passages of 1 Thess 4 and 2 Thess 2 have only two points in common: 1) The coming of the Lord, and 2) The Thessalonican audience. Otherwise they are entirely distinct and could be talking about separate comings as we see elsewhere.

But instead, Paul repeats the signs that Jesus prophesied to the disciples when they asked 'when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) The signs Paul told them would have to occur before 'the day of Christ' were (2Thes2:3):
*the falling away
*the man of sin is revealed (who sits as God, in the temple of God) (ch2:4)

Let’s keep it simple. For now, we don’t have to define ‘the falling away’ or ID the man of sin. All we have to do is look at where the man of sin sits as God.

That's interesting. I hadn't considered a possible parallel with the Olivet Discourse. Another common point is the warning against deception and the false prophets/ pseudo christs:

Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

And here are two other points in common:

Matthew 24:24-25 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-10 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? ... 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And of course they both speak of the coming of the Lord, so that's five very obvious points in common between the OD and 2 Thess 2.

The Thessalonians, of course, knew that the temple of God was in Jerusalem, so when Paul said in his letter, “the temple of God”, with no clarification that he was speaking of anything other than THE temple in Jerusalem, IMO, it’s clear that’s what he’s talking about. Remember, 2 Thess 2 is Paul’s letter to his very confused/worried friends trying to comfort them and re-educate them about things he had already told them. Would he include a hidden/symbolic/unexplained reference to ‘the temple of God’ – as in the body of believers being the temple in the NC? Wouldn’t that create another confusion among them? “He means Herod’s temple!!” “No, he means our bodies!!” “Somebody get word to Paul for 3 Thessalonians to straighten THIS out!!!” I think that is highly improbable.

That presents us with 2 options.

1. That sign took place in Herod's temple before it was destroyed in 70AD. And there is no doubt that some horrific 'abominations', and wicked scenes and false worship occurred in the temple before it was finally destroyed. (That’s another study in itself.)

-OR-

2. Rapture view: The sign DID NOT take place in the temple before 70AD, and since there has not been a temple of God as Paul knew it since 70AD, that sign is out in the future sometime. And I can’t think of a way for that sign to happen, now that there is no temple of God to sit in. Maybe in some rebuilt temple in Jerusalem?? That couldn't occur in a decade even if they started it tomorrow, so why the 'rapture-any-minute-now' atmosphere amongst pre-tribbers?

I think that might actually be the death knell for the futurist view. The problem is that the Gospel vigorously and unambiguously declares that God is finished with bloody animal sacrifices in Temples made of sticks and stones, so it is an absolute impossibility that there will ever be another literal physical holy-in-the-sight-of-God Temple in Jerusalem because God would never sanctify such a Christ-denying abomination. Therefore, it is impossible to refulfill the prophecies that God fulfilled in the first century, and futurism is once again proven false and unbiblical.

A bigger problem with option 2 is that in the New Covenant, God has no use for a future, physical 'temple of God'. That entire system was destroyed at the cross capped off with the complete annihilation of the physical buildings that were the center of the Jewish system of worship. Something everyone in the Roman empire could see. (You might even say that every eye could see that the followers of Jesus had replaced the Jewish leaders as God's people. Hmmmmm.)

Ooops! I'm answering as I'm reading, so I didn't know you were going to say exactly the same thing that I just said above. It sure is nice to know we are tracking on this!

God's house is not in Jerusalem as it was under the Old Covenant. WE are His temple built upon the chief cornerstone, Christ:

(NKJV) Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
2:21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
2:22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Does that sound like God has a future physical temple in mind under the New Covenant, complete with High priests offering sacrifices that are not pleasing to Him?? So any future temple built there would not be sanctioned by God, not legitimate. But Paul said 'the temple of God'. Would he say that about a bogus temple?

So maybe this sign is figurative – somehow ‘an abomination’ that will manifest itself amongst the body of believers today? How in the world can that explanation have any meaning at all to Paul and the Thessalonians? It can’t.

Exactly correct. It's of supreme importance that we remember that God addressed His words to His first century people. They are eternal words, and of great importance to teach us the Gospel today, but they also had to have real meaning to the folks who received them. If we forget that, the next thing you know you'll be talking about Cobra helicopters that John struggled to describe as "locusts."

Now option 2 requires that God inspired Paul to instruct a church (remember this was a real letter to real people in Thessolonica who really read this letter) with information that He knew was bogus - that they had no choice but to misinterpret. To my knowledge, this would be the only place in Scripture where God did that. That borders on God being a deceiver, which cannot be.

Amen indeed! That is very well stated.

Some additional points:

1. Paul starts by saying, “Let no one deceive you by any means….” If he preached a literal, physical, pre-trib, bodily translation of believers up, up, and away, how could anyone convince them (deceive them) that it had happened?? It doesn’t sound like something you can fake. Surely, they thought that at least some of them were true believers. “Hey, go see if Popodopolis is still around! He really got what Paul was telling us. If he’s gone, we’re in trouble!” Whew, Popodopolis was still there.
2. v. 7: “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.” “Already at work?” If this sign doesn’t happen for over 2000 years, that’s a heck of a long shift for the man of sin. Surely this indicates that this sign, and ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ and ‘the gathering’ are happening sooner rather than later.

Enough for now. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Peace to you all,
Dave

You really nailed that one Dave!

Your post is a real asset.

Thanks!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I think Jack hit the nail right on the head. You did a fantastic job in showing how Paul was correcting the Thessalonian's of their error. However, I do believe that thought they missed the resurrection. When word began spreading that the resurrection had already taken place (it was past) they became fearful. Now why do you suppose they were fearful? My speculation is that they must have believed that they were left for destruction, perhaps even the Tribulation. But again, that is my personal theory. One thing for certain is the context alone shows that they were afraid of missing the resurrection.

Now the rapture idea can be debated until we're blue in the face. If we were to prove there was a rapture, it certainly was not a Pre-Tribulation rapture. For even Matthew 24 declares that the "gathering of His elect" occurs AFTER the Tribulation:

Matthew 24
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

So we see the idea of a Pre-Trib rapture does not fit the timing, for Jesus states that the "Gathering" which I believe is the resurrection, occurs after the Tribulation of the Jews, and after the city is destroyed. And historically speaking, the Tribulation of the Jews occurs before the temple is destroyed, and continued AFTER the temple was destroyed. It's after all of this is complete that the gathering takes place.

Now on another thread, I posted a writing of Josephus, who spoke of the great multitude seen flying in the heavens, and a voice so loud that it sounded like thunder, which said, "Let us Leave this place!" However, I can now see that the problem with using that account is Josephus describes that event as happened BEFORE Jerusalem was destroyed. So perhaps that wasn't the same thing as what Jesus discussed.

I admit that there are problems to overcome, especially when trying to use a resurrection to prove, or disprove, our theories. But one fact remains! We DO NOT want to get caught up in saying that there is no resurrection of the body. Jesus was raised, and Paul used His resurrection as an image for us. If we deny the resurrection of our body, then we are just as guilty as the Gnostics who believed in a spirit-only resurrection. Trust me, I've read their writings and they used the EXACT same arguments I used to use, regarding the resurrection.

Read the writings of 1 Clement, Polycarp, and a few of Ignatius, and you will see that they debated over this matter quite extensively. And because nobody throughout Asia Minor witnessed the resurrection of Matthew 27, or the "possible" resurrection which occurred in Jerusalem, many believers a few decades later were forced to defend their belief of the resurrection by writing the letters called "Apologetics". The letters of Apology was to explain their mistake that Christ had not yet come (because they didn't understand) and that it would be in the future.

"Let us consider, beloved, how the Master is continually proving to us that there will be a future resurrection, of which he has made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstling, by raising him from the dead. Let us look, beloved, at the resurrection which is taking place seasonally. Day and night make known the resurrection to us. The night sleeps, the day arises. Consider the plants that grow. How and in what manner does the sowing take place? The sower went forth and cast each of the seeds onto the ground; and they fall to the ground, parched and bare, where they decay. Then from their decay the greatness of the master’s providence raises them up, and from the one grain more grow and bring forth fruit" (Letter to the Corinthians 24:1–6 [A.D. 80]).

In Clements letter, he scorns the Gnostics in their idea against the bodily resurrection of the Saints. The Gnostics believed that anything containing mass could not be raised because of its sinful characteristics. But Clement shows in the very same letter that the sinful flesh is only so because of its abuse of the flesh and bad habits. Jesus came into this world to change this, but teaching us to overcome its passions and desires.

"Let none of you say that this flesh is not judged and does not rise again. Just think: In what state were you saved, and in what state did you recover your [spiritual] sight, if not in the flesh? In the same manner, as you were called in the flesh, so you shall come in the flesh. If Christ, the Lord who saved us, though he was originally spirit, became flesh and in this state called us, so also shall we receive our reward in the flesh. Let us, therefore, love one another, so that we may all come into the kingdom of God" (Second Clement 9:1–6 [A.D. 150]).

Therefore, the early Church believed in the resurrection of the body, and I also agree with the resurrection of the body. I REFUSE to bow down and worship under the false doctrine of the Gnostics and be joined, or else compared, to the heresy of their belief. I did this before, and I've repented of it.

Even Polycarp argued with these false believers of trash!

"[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the firstborn of Satan. Let us, therefore, leave the foolishness and the false-teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word which was delivered to us in the beginning" (Letter to the Philippians 7:1–2 [A.D. 135]).

Which he states in his arguments against the Gnostics!

And what about Justin Martyr?

Justin Martyr

"The prophets have proclaimed his [Christ’s] two comings. One, indeed, which has already taken place, was that of a dishonored and suffering man. The second will take place when, in accord with prophecy, he shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality, but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire along with the evil demons" (First Apology 52 [A.D. 151]).

"Indeed, God calls even the body to resurrection and promises it everlasting life. When he promises to save the man, he thereby makes his promise to the flesh. What is man but a rational living being composed of soul and body? Is the soul by itself a man? No, it is but the soul of a man. Can the body be called a man? No, it can but be called the body of a man. If, then, neither of these is by itself a man, but that which is composed of the two together is called a man, and if God has called man to life and resurrection, he has called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the body" (The Resurrection 8 [A.D. 153]).

And countless former fathers who taught of our resurrection, which time would fail me if I attempted to list these all. BUT for your reading pleasure, here are more:

Theophilus of Antioch


"God will raise up your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the immortal, if you will believe in him now; and then you will realize that you have spoken against him unjustly. But you do not believe that the dead will be raised. When it happens, then you will believe, whether you want to or not; but unless you believe now, your faith then will be reckoned as unbelief" (To Autolycus 1:7–8 [A.D. 181]).



Irenaeus


"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in . . . the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess him, and that he may make just judgment of them all" (Against Heresies 1:10:1–4 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian


"After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers. . . . All who have died since the beginning of time will be raised up again and shaped again and remanded to whichever destiny they deserve" (Apology 18:3 [A.D. 197]).

"Therefore, the flesh shall rise again: certainly of every man, certainly the same flesh, and certainly in its entirety. Wherever it is, in the safekeeping with God through that most faithful agent between God and man, Jesus Christ, who shall reconcile both God to man and man to God, [and] the spirit to the flesh and the flesh to the spirit" (The Resurrection of the Dead 63:1 [A.D. 210]).

"In regard to that which is called the resurrection of the dead, it is necessary to defend the proper meaning of the terms ‘of the dead’ and ‘resurrection.’ The word ‘dead’ signifies merely that something has lost the soul, by the faculty of which it formerly lived. The term ‘dead’ then applies to a body. Moreover, if resurrection is of the dead, and ‘dead’ applies only to a body, the resurrection will be of a body. . . . ‘To rise’ may be said of that which never in any way fell, but which was always lying down. But ‘to rise again’ can only be said of that which has fallen; for by ‘rising again’ that which fell is said to ‘re-surrect.’ The syllable ‘re-’ always implies iteration [happening again]. We say, therefore, that a body falls to the ground in death . . . and that which falls, rises again" (Against Marcion 5:9:3–4 [A.D. 210]).



Minucius Felix


"See, too, how for our consolation all nature suggests the future resurrection. The sun sinks down, but is reborn. The stars go out, but return again. Flowers die, but come to life again. After their decay shrubs put forth leaves again; not unless seeds decay does their strength return. A body in the grave is like the trees in winter: They hide their sap under a deceptive dryness. Why are you in haste for it to revive and return, while yet the winter is raw? We must await even the spring of the body. I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment" (Octavius 34:11–12 [A.D. 226]).



Aphraahat the Persian Sage


"Therefore be instructed by this, you fool, that each and every one of the seeds is clothed in its own body. Never do you sow wheat and reap barley, and never did you plant a vine and have it produce figs. But everything grows in accord with its own nature. So also the body which has been laid in the ground is the same which will rise again" (Treatises 8:3 [A.D. 340]).



Cyril of Jerusalem


"This body shall be raised, not remaining weak as it is now, but this same body shall be raised. By putting on incorruption, it shall be altered, as iron blending with fire becomes fire—or rather, in a manner the Lord who raises us knows. However it will be, this body shall be raised, but it shall not remain such as it is. Rather, it shall abide as an eternal body. It shall no longer require for its life such nourishment as now, nor shall it require a ladder for its ascent; for it shall be made a spiritual body, a marvelous thing, such as we have not the ability to describe" (Catechetical Lectures 18:18 [A.D. 350]).



Epiphanius of Salamis


"As for those who profess to be Christians . . . and who confess the resurrection of the dead, of our body and of the body of the Lord . . . but who at the same time say that the same flesh does not rise, but other flesh is given in its place by God, are we not to say that this opinion exceeds all others in impiety" (The Man Well-Anchored 87 [A.D. 374]).



The Nicene Creed


"We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; we look for a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).



The Athanasian Creed


"[Jesus Christ] sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there he shall come to judge the living and the dead; at his coming all men have to rise again with their bodies and will render an account of their own deeds; and those who have done good will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire [Rom. 2:6–11]. This is the Catholic faith, unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).



Augustine


"Perish the thought that the omnipotence of the Creator is unable, for the raising of our bodies and for the restoring of them to life, to recall all [their] parts, which were consumed by beasts or by fire, or which disintegrated into dust or ashes, or were melted away into a fluid, or were evaporated away in vapors" (The City of God 22:20:1 [A.D. 419]).

"God, the wonderful and inexpressible Artisan, will, with a wonderful and inexpressible speed, restore our flesh from the whole of the material of which it was constituted, and it will make no difference to its reconstruction whether hairs go back to hairs and nails go back to nails, or whatever of these had perished be changed to flesh and be assigned to other parts of the body, while the providence of the Artisan will take care that nothing unseemly result" (Handbook of Faith, Hope, and Charity 23:89 [A.D. 421]).

There you have it brothers. Centuries of belief regarding the resurrection of our bodies. And since I believe in the raising of our bodies, whether bone or dust, I MUST believe that Jesus kept His word, that he did in fact come back for His faithful martyrs who delivered the gospels to the entire world, and suffered great and terrible tortures none of us today can fathom! We owe this not only to them, but for the centuries of Martyrs who believe as we do, that Jesus kept His promise to the first century Saints, and that He came back for them! And because I believe He came back for them, I believe He will one day return for us. If not, then our belief in the resurrection is in vain! And I refuse any longer to believe that our bodies amount to nothing! This does not mean I take confidence in the flesh! Quite far from it! Rather I believe we will be transformed, into the image and glory of God.

Let us not imitate the evil of the Gnostic believers, who's heads were seared with a hot iron, and who's love was in the passion of their flesh! And lastly, but most importantly, LET US NOT BE CONFORMED to the doctrine of their anti-body belief. God created the body for godly reasons, but many of us [to include me] have spend years abusing our bodies and become slaves to our own passions and desires. Therefore, what we sow shall also be what we reap.

It's your choice.

God's peace, grace, mercy, and love to you all.

Joe

[MHz]

Hi Dave,

I was going to respond to the discussion on the subject under the Ezek's temple thread, but I think Paul's correction to the confused Thess's is so instructive on eschatology, that I split it out here. It is a very key passage IMO.

I'm not sure Scripture paints them as being confused, they did seem to receive more information about what tribulation is and they had been told that they would suffer tribulation,
2Th:1:3: We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
2Th:1:4: So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

They seemed to be doing quite well in 1 Thess as well,
1Th:3:4: For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know.
1Th:3:5: For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain.
1Th:3:6: But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you:

They were also privy to the return of Christ,
1Th:3:13: To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, he corrects the believers there who were confused as to whether they had missed ‘the coming of our Lord and the gathering together to Him’.

I'm still not sure that they could have thought they missed that day when they knew that the dead would arise before the living were gathered. For them to think that they must have heard that the dead were arising 'somewhere' but their friends who had gone to sleep were still sleeping.

1Th:4:13: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th:4:14: For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

For ref:
(NKJV) 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
2:2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for [that Day will not come] unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2:5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
2:6And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
2:7 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.

Paul's correction to the Church of Thessalonica is pretty indicative of whether he taught a pre-trib rapture to them or not - IMO.

I don't think they rely on 2 Thess as proof as much as they used to. Another 'sign' they had been given was that they would suffer tribulation, and that is mentioned in ch:1, if some were being killed (troubled) that would give them pause to think that day would be coming fairly soon but not quite at hand in that nobody from the grave had been made alive again.

2Th:1:5: Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
2Th:1:6: Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th:1:7: And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th:1:8: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th:1:9: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th:1:10: When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Another possibility is that the wording of 2Thess:2:2 means that there would be some communication that seemed to be coming the writers of the NT that said the day of the Lord was close at hand, but don't get excited (opposite of fearful) because a few things had to happen first.

Let's say you had led someone to the Lord, or at least witnessed extensively to them in such a way that they had no doubt that you were a true believer (certainly they knew Paul was). And you taught them that we would be raptured, instantly transported off the earth in the blink of an eye. Then you heard that they thought the rapture had occurred already, so you gave them a call. You know how you would correct them?? You would say, "Hey guys, you're wrong, I'M HERE!!" That's all you would have to say. And that’s all Paul would have said – after all, he was a pretty sharp guy.

I doubt they forgot about the dead being raised before that twinkling of an eye.

But instead, Paul repeats the signs that Jesus prophesied to the disciples when they asked 'when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) The signs Paul told them would have to occur before 'the day of Christ' were (2Thes2:3):
*the falling away
*the man of sin is revealed (who sits as God, in the temple of God) (ch2:4)

We aren't told that they had that knowledge, we are told that in the 1st book that they were not given info about the time and seasons.

Let’s keep it simple. For now, we don’t have to define ‘the falling away’ or ID the man of sin. All we have to do is look at where the man of sin sits as God.

The Thessalonians, of course, knew that the temple of God was in Jerusalem, so when Paul said in his letter, 'the temple of God', with no clarification that he was speaking of anything other than THE temple in Jerusalem, IMO, it’s clear that’s what he’s talking about. Remember, 2 Thess 2 is Paul’s letter to his very confused/worried friends trying to comfort them and re-educate them about things he had already told them. Would he include a hidden/symbolic/unexplained reference to ‘the temple of God’ – as in the body of believers being the temple in the NC? Wouldn’t that create another confusion among them? 'He means Herod’s temple!!' 'No, he means our bodies!!' 'Somebody get word to Paul for 3 Thessalonians to straighten THIS out!!!' I think that is highly improbable.

The falling away is falling away from the truth about Scripture as taught by the writers of the NT, the man of sin is only id'd at Christ's arrival.

I still don't find anything that points to them being confused/worried. The only re-education they got was a reminder to remember what was said to them before, the rest of the letter was new information that built upon what they had already been given.

That presents us with 2 options.

1. That sign took place in Herod's temple before it was destroyed in 70AD. And there is no doubt that some horrific 'abominations', and wicked scenes and false worship occurred in the temple before it was finally destroyed. (That’s another study in itself.)

That He didn't return and raise the dead and then gather them when that temple did fall would pretty much exclude that being the temple as the one being referenced.

-OR-

2. Rapture view: The sign DID NOT take place in the temple before 70AD, and since there has not been a temple of God as Paul knew it since 70AD, that sign is out in the future sometime. And I can’t think of a way for that sign to happen, now that there is no temple of God to sit in. Maybe in some rebuilt temple in Jerusalem?? That couldn't occur in a decade even if they started it tomorrow, so why the 'rapture-any-minute-now' atmosphere amongst pre-tribbers?

So how fast could Satan build something, the Beast is said to have an image built (by men) that can speak and Daniel says to flee when they see an abomination standing where it ought not to be. Daniel also gave this verse,
Da:11:45: And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

By any standard tabernacle is a place of worship associated with God

As far as I can tell the pre-trib view is that the time before Christ's return is still part of the wrath of God, it isn't, it is the time of Satan's wrath. The wrath of God doesn't start until the 7th trump, 2 woes have passed in full by then. God's wrath is poured out on the wicked, the Church is not subject to that wrath. They 'wish' to be spared all wrath.

A bigger problem with option 2 is that in the New Covenant, God has no use for a future, physical 'temple of God'. That entire system was destroyed at the cross capped off with the complete annihilation of the physical buildings that were the center of the Jewish system of worship. Something everyone in the Roman empire could see. (You might even say that every eye could see that the followers of Jesus had replaced the Jewish leaders as God's people. Hmmmmm.)

That would indicate no use for a new Jerusalem (a building)either then, yet it will still be there. Why call our body a temple if temples have no importance? The temple that Christ will build is a place that (on your first visit) shows it is there because God put it there. When a King has a kingdom is there anything in that kingdom that would mark where the King rules from?

God's house is not in Jerusalem as it was under the Old Covenant. WE are His temple built upon the chief cornerstone, Christ:

(NKJV) Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
2:21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
2:22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

This is what our commandment is,
Joh:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Joh:15:10: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Loving one another is actually the 2nd commandment,
M't:22:37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
M't:22:38: This is the first and great commandment.

That had already been given by the time of His death on the cross when He said 'It is finished.' The covenant in Romans and Hebrews only comes into effect at the end of the 7th vial which is after the kingdoms of the earth belong to the kingdom of God, Christ being the ruler for a time before God himself is ruling with Christ, basically the time from when Satan cannot have any influence over man and his final destruction.

This is part of that covenant that will come to be in effect when 'It is done.' is said when the last vial is poured out, the end of life on earth for anyone considered to be wicked. It is the time the blindness imposed on Israel is lifted and it is the time of the end for the fullness of the Gentiles.

Does a covenant require a sanctuary? They had a temple in the OT (when they were doing things right), we have a spiritual temple and we have two commandments and a book that explains all this. Would there need to be something 'new' (a change in what a temple is) when a new covenant comes into effect?
Heb:9:1: Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Does that sound like God has a future physical temple in mind under the New Covenant, complete with High priests offering sacrifices that are not pleasing to Him?? So any future temple built there would not be sanctioned by God, not legitimate. But Paul said 'the temple of God'. Would he say that about a bogus temple?

I wouldn't subscribe to any live sacrifices but neither would I deny that coming to something called the 'feast of the tabernacles' would most likely to have a tabernacle, house of prayer is how the OT references it.
Does Ezekiel allow for a substitution to replace real sheep, rams and bullocks?

Eze:45:24: And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah.
Eze:46:6: And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish, and six lambs, and a ram: they shall be without blemish.
Eze:46:7: And he shall prepare a meat offering, an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and for the lambs according as his hand shall attain unto, and an hin of oil to an ephah.

Ephah, a word of Egyptian origin, meaning measure; a grain
measure containing "three seahs or ten omers," and equivalent to
the bath for liquids (Ex. 16:36; 1 Sam. 17:17; Zech. 5:6).

So maybe this sign is figurative – somehow ‘an abomination’ that will manifest itself amongst the body of believers today? How in the world can that explanation have any meaning at all to Paul and the Thessalonians? It can’t.

When the Beast from the Pit kills the two witnesses in Jerusalem is he just going to sit around for 3 1/2 days doing nothing or is he (and whoever supports him) going to do something that will try and convince the people there that this is the real deal?

Now option 2 requires that God inspired Paul to instruct a church (remember this was a real letter to real people in Thessolonica who really read this letter) with information that He knew was bogus - that they had no choice but to misinterpret. To my knowledge, this would be the only place in Scripture where God did that. That borders on God being a deceiver, which cannot be.

The info would not be bogus

Some additional points:

1. Paul starts by saying, 'Let no one deceive you by any means….' If he preached a literal, physical, pre-trib, bodily translation of believers up, up, and away, how could anyone convince them (deceive them) that it had happened?? It doesn’t sound like something you can fake. Surely, they thought that at least some of them were true believers. 'Hey, go see if Popodopolis is still around! He really got what Paul was telling us. If he’s gone, we’re in trouble!' Whew, Popodopolis was still there.

*** END OF SEARCH ***
Total occurrences for (Popodopolis) is [ 0 ]

2. v. 7: '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.' 'Already at work?' If this sign doesn’t happen for over 2000 years, that’s a heck of a long shift for the man of sin. Surely this indicates that this sign, and ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ and ‘the gathering’ are happening sooner rather than later.

It only says mystery it doesn't say man. No doubt there was things being said even back then that would cast doubt on the validity of the teaching of the Gospel back then.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Dave,

I'm not sure Scripture paints them as being confused, they did seem to receive more information about what tribulation is and they had been told that they would suffer tribulation,

Whether the word "confused" is the best choice, I don't know, but Paul was writing to ensure that they "be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled" which pretty much fits the bill of what Dave was getting at.

And by the way, while researching this verse, I found a sixth parallel with the Olivet Discourse! The word "troubled" is throeo, and it appears elsewhere in the NT only in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

I'll comment more soon,

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

Whether the word "confused" is the best choice, I don't know, but Paul was writing to ensure that they "be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled" which pretty much fits the bill of what Dave was getting at.

And by the way, while researching this verse, I found a sixth parallel with the Olivet Discourse! The word "troubled" is throeo, and it appears elsewhere in the NT only in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

I'll comment more soon,

I can understand what 'shaken in mind' is, finding out something you believed is actually false and 'troubled' would be something like searching for an answer but never finding it. What does 'be not soon' mean when it is referencing a thought that you believe is true. If we were to argue this point over pages and pages with no change in our belief then we would both 'be not soon' shaken in what was believed. If somebody changed their belief after only a post or two then they 'were soon shaken'. So could it be considered 'plain language' and mean do not be easily shaken from what we have told you before by some communication that will come to you (in the future) that would seem to indicate the day is close in which your friends will come out of their graves, don't believe those words over what we have told you. Here are some things that must happen before your friends will be resurrected to life and you will be given bodies that will, literally, live forever.



Since we differ on the OD and how it ties in with events after it was given, past vs future, that verse you gave means something slightly different.

[INDENT]Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

I'm not convinced those things happened the the 40 years after the cross.

Rome was still a solid Empire in that time-frame. The verse below would also have to have been fulfilled in that 40 years, some are even given in the plural, ie more than 1 earthquake. That would just seem to be followed by more terrible things than the ones listed already.

M't:24:7: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
M't:24:8: All these are the beginning of sorrows.

There are 5 more verses that are about things that happen before.

M't: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.

It was just being written in those years, preached would seem to mean reading those words to many people after they were available and had time to be circulated. 1 Thess was said to be sent to everybody, could it make the rounds in the time it was written and when it was 'supposed to have been fulfilled'? Daniel would also have to been read to understand what the abomination was. If they had a clear understanding of what the 70 weeks were they would have known the existing temple would not last, came as no big surprise when it did fall. Check-mark beside that verse and onto the next event.

M't:24:15: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Wayne

[Trumpet]

HI Dave,

As a former pre-tribber, I can see where the pre-trib theology has been forced into these verses. There is a very large presupposition that Paul was thinking as a pre-tribber would. But let me advance what I believe was REALLY going on in Thessalonika.

Paul was the one who said in Acts 18:6, 'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.' He knew in his vision from God that the Jewish people that didn’t accept Jesus as Messiah were headed to apostasy. When he would go to a Gentile group to preach the Gospel, I’m sure this subject would come up and Paul would be asked for answers. All believers knew, especially the Jewish ones, that now that salvation was open to the Gentile as well as the Jew, and the fact that many in Judaism refused Jesus, what would become of this, and how would God solve this problem? They knew it would be coming to a head. This is what Paul referred to in 2 Thess. 2:5 when he said 'Remember ye not, that, when I was with you, I told you these things?' He had told them what was going to happen to the Jews, and how the full responsibility of the Kingdom of God was going to go to the Believers in Jesus, and that the old system of Judaism was going to pass. He knew that this problem of the non-Jesus believing Jews claiming to be God’s chosen and His authoritative voice, was going to be resolved by God. This same thing happened when David knew he was to be king of Israel, but David refused to force his way to rulership until God’s end for Saul came about.

Now in 2 Thess 2:2, I would like to quote out of my Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. 'For you not to be quickly shaken in mind, nor to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as if by us, as that IS PRESENT the day of the Christ. (My capitalization) Now, if we were speaking of the Thessalonians missing a rapture, Paul would never have said 'IS PRESENT'. He would have used past tense. And the phrase 'is present the day of the Christ' refers to the day when the anointing would be totally upon the Church. This anointing continues in the Body of Christ to this day. Remember that Paul got this from God, and it would be the same as any revelation given by God to anyone else. And in John’s viewing of Revelation, in Rev. 11:15 it says,'And the seventh angel sounded [his] trumpet; and great voices were in the heaven, saying, 'the kingdoms of the world are become our Lord’s and His Christ’s, and He shall reign to the ages of the ages.'

In both these sections of scripture, the definition of Christos (Christ) in Greek, is 'anointed'. This refers to the rulership coming through anointing. Paul knew that the kingdom rulership was going to pass from the old Jewish system to the new Church, but it would come in God’s timing, just as David’s rulership had to come in God’s time. The Thessalonians heard a rumor that this had already taken place, and the kingdoms had transferred, but Paul told them it hadn’t happened yet, and they would know that it HAD happened when they saw the things mentioned in the rest of these verses takes place. Paul knew that those Thessalonians would be alive to see them in their time, but Paul didn't know exactly when; he just knew the circumstances that would take place. All of these things DID happen around AD 70 and you can read more about this in the posts of Forgiven, (Joe), on this web site. He explains it very well.

Don

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I can understand what 'shaken in mind' is, finding out something you believed is actually false and 'troubled' would be something like searching for an answer but never finding it. What does 'be not soon' mean when it is referencing a thought that you believe is true. If we were to argue this point over pages and pages with no change in our belief then we would both 'be not soon' shaken in what was believed. If somebody changed their belief after only a post or two then they 'were soon shaken'. So could it be considered 'plain language' and mean do not be easily shaken from what we have told you before by some communication that will come to you (in the future) that would seem to indicate the day is close in which your friends will come out of their graves, don't believe those words over what we have told you. Here are some things that must happen before your friends will be resurrected to life and you will be given bodies that will, literally, live forever.

Hi Wayne,

I think your interpretation of "soon shaken" makes fine sense. But I have no reason to belive that Paul was preparing them for a "some communication that will come to you (in the future) that would seem to indicate the day is close" - there is nothing in the text to support that speculation.

Since we differ on the OD and how it ties in with events after it was given, past vs future, that verse you gave means something slightly different.

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

I'm not convinced those things happened the the 40 years after the cross.

Rome was still a solid Empire in that time-frame. The verse below would also have to have been fulfilled in that 40 years, some are even given in the plural, ie more than 1 earthquake. That would just seem to be followed by more terrible things than the ones listed already.

M't:24:7: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
M't:24:8: All these are the beginning of sorrows.

I'm not an expert on the historical fulfillment of those generalized prophecies, but we certainly do know that there were famines, and earthquakes and wars. And others have written books about how they were fulfilled. I think your attempt to deny a first century fulfillment on those grounds is extremely weak. You've gotta have a powerful alternative because the evidence for a first century fulfillment of the OD is overwhelming because everyone knows that the Temple was destroyed 70 AD exactly as Christ predicted.

Do you see that, my friend? Minor issues about the exact number of earthquakes or how many rumors were floating around won't cut it on this issue, because the fulfillment of the Temple destruction prophesied in the OD in is incontrovtible. And besides that, Christ also prophesied the Diaspora:

Luke 21:22-24 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The evidence for the first century fulfillment of the OD is total, overwhelming, and complete.

Do you agree? If not, then please challenge the essential facts that I present here.

There are 5 more verses that are about things that happen before.

M't: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.

Given the fact that you believe that the Bible says Jeremiah personally handed the cup of the Lord's wrath to every kingdom on the face of the planet, I do not see why you would have any trouble believing that the Gospel was preached in all the world in the first cerntry. I mean, if Jeremiah could do it by himself in the the 6th century BC, it would have been a snap for all those thousands of new Christians on the brand new roads provided by Alexander the Great, right?

It was just being written in those years, preached would seem to mean reading those words to many people after they were available and had time to be circulated.

Where do you get the idea that the Four Gospels is what is meant by "preaching the Gospel?" All the Apostles were busy preaching the Gospel before the Four were written down.

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

I'm not an expert on the historical fulfillment of those generalized prophecies, but we certainly do know that there were famines, and earthquakes and wars. And others have written books about how they were fulfilled. I think your attempt to deny a first century fulfillment on those grounds is extremely weak. You've gotta have a powerful alternative because the evidence for a first century fulfillment of the OD is overwhelming because everyone knows that the Temple was destroyed 70 AD exactly as Christ predicted.

Daniel also predicted it, only in Daniel it was made desolate until the consummation. Gentiles were the ones the Gospel was taken to, not just Romans, so the end of Rome would mean nothing

Do you see that, my friend? Minor issues about the exact number of earthquakes or how many rumors were floating around won't cut it on this issue, because the fulfillment of the Temple destruction prophesied in the OD in is incontrovtible.

Minor issue, Re covers several earthquakes. 5 of them, the last one mentioned is describes as this, "there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great". Did anybody bother to write anything about this, in any histoty book since that time? 5 earthquakes in Jerusalem in the time before the temple fell, and it took the Romans to damage the temple.
I take Re to cover 3 separate quakes in those 5 verses, the great one has 3 verses and the other two have 1 each.

And besides that, Christ also prophesied the Diaspora:

Luke 21:22-24 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The evidence for the first century fulfillment of the OD is total, overwhelming, and complete.

I have to admit getting them to cover the comment about the stones being thrown down doesn't seem to fit precisely the way I understand it. Nor does it fit Re as tightly as I would like. One of the issues was Matthew uses the word coming. So I turned back 1 page and read a passage about Jesus being inside that 'building tearing a strip' off 'the officials'.
Bear with me for a moment, you saw Jesus say the things he said, starting with Vs:1 (I didn't look further than that), ending with,
M't:23:39: For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

That would seem to cover the leaving and coming, and for myself, if I saw Jesus do that and then comment about some stones being cast aside my first question would be about what just happened inside. Does it change the questions at all? Could the question be about the 'priests' and not the temple. That generation did see destruction
M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The next time they see Him is this, blindness lifted,
M't:23:39: For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Luke doesn't seem to cover that incident inside the temple.

Do you agree? If not, then please challenge the essential facts that I present here.

Given the fact that you believe that the Bible says Jeremiah personally handed the cup of the Lord's wrath to every kingdom on the face of the planet, I do not see why you would have any trouble believing that the Gospel was preached in all the world in the first cerntry. I mean, if Jeremiah could do it by himself in the the 6th century BC, it would have been a snap for all those thousands of new Christians on the brand new roads provided by Alexander the Great, right?

The Apostles would have talked to everyone they met, Jeremiah might have 'borrowed' Ezekiel's 'wheels'.
What method of travel did this person employ?
2Co:12:2: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Wasn't somebody 'caught up' in the NT and they later appeared someplace else?

[/QUOTE]
Where do you get the idea that the Four Gospels is what is meant by "preaching the Gospel?" All the Apostles were busy preaching the Gospel before the Four were written down.
[/QUOTE]
It does say 'this Gospel'
Would it include all 4 books that are called Gospels. Is writing epistles spreading the Gospels? Is Re considered to be part of what was to be preached?

Wayne