Replies

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

Dartuser, I found your comments well thought out and stimulating. You are smarter than me. Please don't leave us.

Preterism seems a very morbid doctrine. Its focus is the judgment on the Jews and the destruction of Jersualem. It leaves the Gentile churches abandoned and falling into error since they did not understand the Scriptures and lost the core leadership of the early Church when the the Jewish believers were gathered and raptured/resurrected into heaven without telling them what was going on. There is no record of this in Church History.

Let's assume 2 Thessalonians was written in 52-54 AD. It almost sounds like Paul is talking about a Preterist who was early. Nonetheless, I don't recall Philip discussing this, but he is so prolific perhaps I missed it.

Where was the great falling away that extended to the Thessalonians ?
When was the man of sin revealed to the Thessalonians ?
When did the man of sin sit in the Temple of God at Jerusalem declaring himself to be God ?
Paul had told them this previously and now had to remind them to comfort them because some Preterists were troubling them. He clearly alludes that now they understand and then describes how Messiah is going to defeat the son of perdition with the spirit of this mouth and brightness of his coming.
Paul told them to hold fast to the traditions that he taught them when he explained this in person. And yet we have no Preterist tradition from the early Church Fathers so it seems Paul was not teaching them the doctrine of Preterism. We have Paul's doctrines in Romans. Compare Romans 9-11 with dark Preterism.
If Preterism were true, the Thessalonians were not directly involved, or at risk, like the Jews in the Land of Israel. Look at the text. Why would Paul be so concerned ? Do you really think he misunderstood and got it wrong ? He sounds very confident, in the Holy Spirit, that he knew exactly what was going to happen and why it had not happened yet. Why would we have a record of Paul's doctrines and somehow missed Preterism ? If it was important for the Thessalonians to know, who were not in Israel, why would it not be important for us ? If it happened as Phillip teaches, why is there no record from the churches that remained after 70AD ? Were all the elect raptured in 70AD ?
I also found interesting this article about Pella Pella: A Window on Survival
In the article “Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion,” Bargil Pixner writes “The Judeo-Christian community in Jerusalem escaped this terrible catastrophe by fleeing to Pella in Transjordan and the countryside of Gilean and Bashan in expectation of the Parousia, the second coming of Christ. When this did not occur and they realized that the time of Jesus’ return was not yet at hand, they decided to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild their sanctuary on the site of the ancient Upper Room—where the Last Supper had been held, where the apostles returned after witnessing Jesus’ ascension on the Mount of Olives and where Peter delivered his Pentecost sermon as recorded in Acts 2. It was this site on which they made their synagogue. They were free to do this because they enjoyed a certain religious freedom from the Romans (religio licita) inasmuch as they were Jews who confessed Jesus as their Messiah, and not gentile converts.”

>>>>Preterism seems a very morbid doctrine.<<<

I don't know everything about preterism, but one thing I am fairly certain of is, they do not believe such morbid things as the world being destroyed. It takes a very morbid mind to believe that, considering all the scripture pointing in the opposite direction, beginning with John 3:17:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)

>>>Its focus is the judgment on the Jews and the destruction of Jersualem.<<<

That takes a lot of the heat off of us. What is morbid about that? That places all general (national) judgements in the past. Futurism is the truly morbid doctrine: from their literal interpretations of "all green grass is burnt up," to a "third part of men slain," to the "great tribulation" which they miraculously escape from!

>>>It leaves the Gentile churches abandoned and falling into error since they did not understand the Scriptures and lost the core leadership of the early Church when the the Jewish believers were gathered and raptured/resurrected into heaven without telling them what was going on.<<<

That is a truly bizarre interpretation. I certainly don't believe the first part of your very long sentence. Christ loved the church, and gave his life for it. He will never abandon the church. The church will remain on this earth, eternally.

I do believe Christ will eventually force a reconsideration of unbiblical doctrine, such as that of the RCC and futurism: and certainly that of the antichristian religions, such as Judaism and Islam.

>>>When did the man of sin sit in the Temple of God at Jerusalem declaring himself to be God?<<<

It never said he would sit in the Temple of Jerusalem. You made that up, or someone did and you plagarized. Paul very well may have been referring to either the spiritual temple (which he generally did in his epistles,) or to a pagan shrine or temple. This is the Greek:

nah-os’; from a primary nai>w (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple: — shrine, temple.

In every case where Jesus or the apostles referred to the body as the temple, that same Greek word was used. Not so for the Greek for the physical Temple at Jerusalem (hee-er-on):

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple (nah-os,) and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19)

"Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples (nah-os) made with hands; as saith the prophet," (Acts 7:48)

"If any man defile the temple (nah-os) of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple (nah-os) of God is holy, which temple (nah-os) ye are." (1 Corin 3:17)

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple (nah-os)of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess 2:4)

Everything you wrote is speculative hogwash, and a bitter pill, to boot.

Philip

Preterists have a problem with that “temple” argument. Daniel called it the “abomination of desolation” where the antichrist stands in the temple and calls himself God.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,

We can know what was referred to as the Holy Place by looking again at scripture.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Besides not only does the antichrist sign a peace treaty first but then the antichrist puts an end to the sacrifices then sets himself up as God in the Holy Place.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

They can’t tell us who it was prior to 70AD that signed a peace treaty with Israel then stopped the sacrifice and set himself up as God in the “Holy Place” aka Temple?