The Temple of Flesh or the Temple of Stone?

[not an echo]

On 11/17/2021 at 4:09 AM, Diaste said:

On 11/15/2021 at 9:38 AM, Josheb said:

Great question but I think you will have to answer that for yourself because I am the one taking those words plainly; not you.  

 

To whom did I just post those words? To whom am I referring when I use the word, "you"? To whom does it directly apply? 

Yes, the brethren living in Thessalonica in the first century; not the brethren of any future century. 

 

2 Thessalonians 1:1-2:17 
Paul and Silvanus and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:  Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;  therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.  This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.  For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,  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,  dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,  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.  To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power,  so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,  that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.  Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,  who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.  Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?  And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.  For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.  Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;  that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,  and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.  For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,  in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.  

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.  It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.  Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace,  comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." 

 

The yous all refer to that original audience, not us. He wrote, "you," not "they". 

It's not incorrect and I encourage reading to so plainly anyone can understand it. 

 

Got it.

Hello Diaste,

When there is a conflict and our military is deployed to foreign soil, it will receive intelligence from the homeland.  If it is discovered that a platoon has become unsettled over rumors that the conflict is slated to abruptly escalate into a nuclear exchange, intelligence would be in order to confirm, clarify, or counter such a rumor.  It is not hard to imagine an intelligence briefing that would convey something like the following (though it would probably have some element of code)...

"We encourage you by the promise of our coming for you and your withdrawal from the hostile territory, that you be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled concerning the possibility that a nuclear exchange is at hand.  The nature of our intelligence is such that we can assure you that no such exchange shall occur except there come a much more serious escalation of tensions and a rogue leader with such an ominous capability arise.  Now, there are ever tensions and many rogue upstarts, but because of our knowledge, strength, and presence throughout the world, there is no need for you to be unsettled over this.  If we were to withdraw our present forces, we all know what could be expected.  And, one day another administration may do this.  But for now, don't forget the assurances that you have been given.  Further, if our present forces are ever removed and the inevitable takes place, we are quite confident that our enemies will be destroyed by the full manifestation of our power---in short order."

Such a briefing as this, though generated for a particular platoon, would be highly relevant to any in our present military and for any future generation of our military, as long as all future administrations hold to the same strategic policy.  One thing about it---we know that our Lord's "strategic policy" will not be changing.

In II Thessalonians 2:1-12, Paul wasn't talking to the Thessalonians about their work ethic, prayer life, or how his manner had been toward them.  He was talking to them about Christ's Second Coming.  With my little parabolic narrative above, the intelligence briefing didn't concern the latest night vision goggles they were going to be issued, what time they were expected to turn in for the night, or what was on their menu for Thanksgiving.  The briefing had to do with the possibility of an all encompassing concern---one that was relatively much bigger (probably an understatement ).

[Uriah]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

Slight clarification, if I may: Paul was writing about an anticipated coming. There isn't actually any specific "Second Coming" mentioned in scripture. There is mention he will come again but scripture tells us he has come many times in many ways for many reasons..... and he will come again. 

Heb 9:28- So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[Uriah]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Yes, a second time, not the second time. 

That verse does not preclude a third or fourth coming; it simply says he'll come a second time. It is the only verse in the Bible where a number accompanies a coming. 

Jesus came several time in the NT era. He came to the disciples at Pentecost to endow his Spirit. He came to Saul on the road to Damascus. He came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD. He came to you and me at our conversion. Jesus comes many times in many ways for may purposes BUT he will come again at the last day. 

Look closely at the Hebrews 9:28 text. According to what is stated, that coming will be to bring a salvation that has nothing to do with sin!  A pretrib coming is a coming inextricably related to sin. A rapture is a sin-related coming. The premillennialist's millennial reign brings a salvation from sin. 

 

What exactly is salvation apart from sin? 

 

You might want to consult the Greek on this because the Greek says Jesus will "a second time apart from sin will appear to those him awaiting for salvation." That's a transliteration of the Greek. The KJV and the more dynamic translations don't well render the Greek. 

• Jesus is coming again.
• Jesus is coming again for a second time. 
• Jesus is coming again for a second time apart from sin. 
• Jesus is coming again for a second time apart from sin to those awaiting him. 
• Jesus is coming again for a second time to those awaiting him for salvation. 

 

Keep in mind this was written by a regenerate believer to regenerate believers about regenerate believers. 

Regenerate believers don't need salvation from sin. 

They might need salvation from something else, though. 

 

 

So...... 

I completely accept, uphold, embrace and firmly affirm Hebrews 9:28 but it is not a verse asserting THE second coming, only A second coming. Subtle but important difference. 

There is no verse explicitly or specifically asserting THE Second Coming, especially not as some eschatologies assert it. We're ALL (except for the full-prets) looking for his return but we do not all construe that in like manner. 

Josh,

I honestly forgot, you have that gazillion theory. But I did take your suggestion on the Greek. 

Now some modern translators do use "a" second time but even their usage in no way indicates an intent to be understood to be one of many. 

At best it is an argument from silence fallacy.

The KJV translates Strong's G1208 in the following manner: second (34x), the second time (with G1537) (4x), the second time (4x), again (with G1537) (2x), again (1x), secondarily (1x), afterward (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. the second, the other of two

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, not an echo said:

Hello Diaste,

When there is a conflict and our military is deployed to foreign soil, it will receive intelligence from the homeland.  If it is discovered that a platoon has become unsettled over rumors that the conflict is slated to abruptly escalate into a nuclear exchange, intelligence would be in order to confirm, clarify, or counter such a rumor.  It is not hard to imagine an intelligence briefing that would convey something like the following (though it would probably have some element of code)...

"We encourage you by the promise of our coming for you and your withdrawal from the hostile territory, that you be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled concerning the possibility that a nuclear exchange is at hand.  The nature of our intelligence is such that we can assure you that no such exchange shall occur except there come a much more serious escalation of tensions and a rogue leader with such an ominous capability arise.  Now, there are ever tensions and many rogue upstarts, but because of our knowledge, strength, and presence throughout the world, there is no need for you to be unsettled over this.  If we were to withdraw our present forces, we all know what could be expected.  And, one day another administration may do this.  But for now, don't forget the assurances that you have been given.  Further, if our present forces are ever removed and the inevitable takes place, we are quite confident that our enemies will be destroyed by the full manifestation of our power---in short order."

Such a briefing as this, though generated for a particular platoon, would be highly relevant to any in our present military and for any future generation of our military, as long as all future administrations hold to the same strategic policy.  One thing about it---we know that our Lord's "strategic policy" will not be changing.

In II Thessalonians 2:1-12, Paul wasn't talking to the Thessalonians about their work ethic, prayer life, or how his manner had been toward them.  He was talking to them about Christ's Second Coming.  With my little parabolic narrative above, the intelligence briefing didn't concern the latest night vision goggles they were going to be issued, what time they were expected to turn in for the night, or what was on their menu for Thanksgiving.  The briefing had to do with the possibility of an all encompassing concern---one that was relatively much bigger (probably an understatement ).

I don't understand the analogy. I mean...I understand the point, I don't understand how it fits. This seems to be an agreement but I'm not certain. 

[Diaste]

8 hours ago, Uriah said:

Josh,

I honestly forgot, you have that gazillion theory. But I did take your suggestion on the Greek. 

Now some modern translators do use "a" second time but even their usage in no way indicates an intent to be understood to be one of many. 

At best it is an argument from silence fallacy.

The KJV translates Strong's G1208 in the following manner: second (34x), the second time (with G1537) (4x), the second time (4x), again (with G1537) (2x), again (1x), secondarily (1x), afterward (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. the second, the other of two

Though not really the topic, this is good. We can't just insert a conjunction as we see fit and alter the concept or move aside the context. Paul is precise and used the term to convey exactly what he meant from what he was  taught; a second coming that's THE second coming.

[wingnut-]

On 11/16/2021 at 9:46 AM, Retrobyter said:

At no time in early history A.D. do we have ECFs telling us that this indeed happened in their lifetimes.

 

Hey brother,

Just a bit surprised by this statement so I have to ask, forgive me if this is redundant.  Considering none of the ECF's believed in a future fulfillment of this prophecy, doesn't that by process of elimination lead to the only conclusion being that they "knew" it had already happened?

[not an echo]

22 hours ago, Josheb said:

23 hours ago, not an echo said:

He was talking to them about Christ's Second Coming.

Slight clarification, if I may: Paul was writing about an anticipated coming. There isn't actually any specific "Second Coming" mentioned in scripture. There is mention he will come again but scripture tells us he has come many times in many ways for many reasons..... and he will come again. 

Hello Josheb,

Pardon my colloquialism, I didn't anticipate any confusion concerning which "coming" I was speaking of.  The coming that I stated Paul "was talking to them about" was simply the "coming" (II Thess. 2:8) that he was talking to them about.  As I see it, this is the same one that the "two men" in Acts 1:10 spoke of in 1:11.  I should probably say that since this is off topic for this thread, and I never have the time that I would like to give to reply in my own threads, this is about all that I'm going to be able to say about this---here.  Hope this is sufficient, whether there is agreement or not.

[Uriah]

7 hours ago, Josheb said:

The problem is there is no "the" in the Greek. Of the options Strong's provides it could be "the second time" if there were a "the" in the text but there is not. And that is the case in the textus receptus and the W&H. 

Not "some. All. Even the NKJV translates an "a" and not a "the". The Aramaic says "the" but it says "the second time" leaving room for more than two comings.

It would be an argument from silence if there were absolutely no other verses, if there absolute silence, but as I have already pointed out Jesus came at Pentecost. That is not silence. Jesus came to Saul on the road to Damascus. That is not silence. I have plainly read scripture to support what I have posted. What I have received in response is the selective use of Strong's. 

The men who translated in 1611 were a devout and conscientious bunch but they did make a few mistakes. Putting a "the" in Hebrews 9:28 was one of them. 

Many who use the KJV only have an eschatology where he comes two or three more times; he comes at a pretribulation rapture, he come to live on earth, then he leaves and comes back to gather his own. They've got him coming two, three, four time! They split hairs over whether or not he touches foot on earth but it's a multiple-coming Second Coming. 

 

 

And have some respect. Appeals to ridicule like "gazillion theory" are disrespectful. I provided scriptural examples for each. The facts remain the term "The Second Coming" does not appear in our Bible and not everyone construes the term identically. Selective use of Strong's do not change that fact. Selective use of scripture does not change that fact, either. It is evident due the audience affiliations, the temporal markers and the implicit urgency in the epistolary the first century Christians expected Jesus to come in their lifetime. Either they were all wrong or he did come but he did not come as some now eschatologically imagine. 

In 70AD Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem and the covenant-breaking Jews and he saved those who were looking for him, but that salvation of the already-saved-from-sin believers was not a salvation from sin. 

That does not mean he is not coming again at the last day. 

Sorry Josh, you are following the thinking of the pre trib crowd with multiple (secret) comings by tortured methodologies.

[Uriah]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

No, that is not what I am following. It is laughable that such would be attributed to me. It has no bearing whatsoever on my post. Read it again. 

 

 

.

I did. A "coming" in 70 A.D.? As in preterist dogma? Attributed to you? Laughable.

[not an echo]

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

On 11/18/2021 at 12:49 PM, not an echo said:

Hello Diaste,

When there is a conflict and our military is deployed to foreign soil, it will receive intelligence from the homeland.  If it is discovered that a platoon has become unsettled over rumors that the conflict is slated to abruptly escalate into a nuclear exchange, intelligence would be in order to confirm, clarify, or counter such a rumor.  It is not hard to imagine an intelligence briefing that would convey something like the following (though it would probably have some element of code)...

"We encourage you by the promise of our coming for you and your withdrawal from the hostile territory, that you be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled concerning the possibility that a nuclear exchange is at hand.  The nature of our intelligence is such that we can assure you that no such exchange shall occur except there come a much more serious escalation of tensions and a rogue leader with such an ominous capability arise.  Now, there are ever tensions and many rogue upstarts, but because of our knowledge, strength, and presence throughout the world, there is no need for you to be unsettled over this.  If we were to withdraw our present forces, we all know what could be expected.  And, one day another administration may do this.  But for now, don't forget the assurances that you have been given.  Further, if our present forces are ever removed and the inevitable takes place, we are quite confident that our enemies will be destroyed by the full manifestation of our power---in short order."

Such a briefing as this, though generated for a particular platoon, would be highly relevant to any in our present military and for any future generation of our military, as long as all future administrations hold to the same strategic policy.  One thing about it---we know that our Lord's "strategic policy" will not be changing.

In II Thessalonians 2:1-12, Paul wasn't talking to the Thessalonians about their work ethic, prayer life, or how his manner had been toward them.  He was talking to them about Christ's Second Coming.  With my little parabolic narrative above, the intelligence briefing didn't concern the latest night vision goggles they were going to be issued, what time they were expected to turn in for the night, or what was on their menu for Thanksgiving.  The briefing had to do with the possibility of an all encompassing concern---one that was relatively much bigger (probably an understatement ).

I don't understand the analogy. I mean...I understand the point, I don't understand how it fits. This seems to be an agreement but I'm not certain. 

Hello Diaste,

By my little parable, I was merely showing how the foregoing preterist take on II Thessalonians 2 was too straitjacketed---at least IMHO.  Also, my last sentence was very much an intentional understatement, written tongue in cheek.  I cannot put pen to paper (or fingers to keys) and articulate a sentence that would do justice to the difference of concern there is (or should be) over what the work ethic of some of the Thessalonians was compared to the coming of Christ that Paul spoke to.  Similar to the difference of concern over what is on the Thanksgiving menu of a certain military platoon (which concerns only them and possibly a handful of others) and the news that a nuclear exchange is at hand (which concerns some 7.9 billion people---you and I included).