Let's play "Take the Challenge"

[Mellontes]

To successfully complete this challenge, you must respond saying who the red pronouns and nouns and blue pronouns and nouns refer to in the following passage. I have even provided a "subtle" hint in that first verse in case you have difficulty. Here is the passage:

2 Thessalonians 1:1-4 - Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2 Grace unto YOU, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
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;
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:

And one other thing...Is this 1st century Thessalonian church that Paul and friends had written to in this second epistle still existing?

A sample answer (with obvious wrong answers) should look like this:

Red = The Beatles
Blue = The Beach Boys
Yes

[Mellontes]

I had a feeling that there would have be no takers, and for obvious reasons.

So, after 20 views, I have decided to post my follow-up...

[QUOTE=SimpleSinner;1278954] I truly hope that you will see the implications of my first post in this eschatological passage. My choice is the next six verses dealing with the SAME 1st century recipients...

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 - 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:
6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to THEM that trouble YOU;
7 And to YOU WHO ARE TROUBLED rest with US, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance ON THEM THAT KNOW GOD, and THAT OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 WHO SHALL BE PUNISHED with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
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.

I have had to introduce two new colors. One color green into the passage to represent the individuals who were persecuting these 1st century Thessalonians and one color purple to represent both the authors and recipients in a general "them" sense. These persecutors are identified as the apostate Jews from Paul's first epistle in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. Notice also that I have continued with the previous color themes.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 - For YE, BRETHREN, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for YE ALSO HAVE SUFFERED like things of YOUR OWN COUNTRYMEN, even as they have of THE JEWS:
15 WHO BOTH KILLED THE LORD JESUS, and their own prophets, and HAVE PERSECUTED US; and THEY PLEASE NOT GOD, and are contrary to all men:

Every commentator and early church father exegetes this passage as the final parousia event commonly known as the second coming of Christ. Since this historical event contains the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, the judgment upon the Jews, etc. it must remain in the past. And since this Thessalonian church is no longer existing, Paul's promise to them of this rest from persecution either came true or Paul was mistaken. I will not even consider the latter possibility[/QUOTE].

[benstenson]

And since this Thessalonian church is no longer existing, Paul's promise to them of this rest from persecution either came true or Paul was mistaken. I will not even consider the latter possibility

The idea that Paul was referring to a couple thousand years in the future definitely seems wrong to me. I'm not totally convinced about preterism yet though.

It seems possible to me that God could have punished Jerusalem but delayed His full plan in order to allow more people time to repent. This would not make Paul any more mistaken than Jonah was when he foretold the destruction of Nineveh. If God changed/delayed part of His plan in order to show mercy, it would not mean Paul was mistaken to say what God's original plan was. God has already prophetically revealed that He has the authority to violate His own prophecies if He sees fit to do so (Jeremiah 18). Other than this consideration, I'd say preterism is the most compelling view. But the biblical possibility of a change of plans seems to require some skepticism regarding preterism.

[Mellontes]

And since this Thessalonian church is no longer existing, Paul's promise to them of this rest from persecution either came true or Paul was mistaken. I will not even consider the latter possibility

The idea that Paul was referring to a couple thousand years in the future definitely seems wrong to me. I'm not totally convinced about preterism yet though.

It seems possible to me that God could have punished Jerusalem but delayed His full plan in order to allow more people time to repent. This would not make Paul any more mistaken than Jonah was when he foretold the destruction of Nineveh. If God changed/delayed part of His plan in order to show mercy, it would not mean Paul was mistaken to say what God's original plan was. God has already prophetically revealed that He has the authority to violate His own prophecies if He sees fit to do so (Jeremiah 18). Other than this consideration, I'd say preterism is the most compelling view. But the biblical possibility of a change of plans seems to require some skepticism regarding preterism.

Hi Ben,

From Matthew 3:10 to the actual judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) was a period of roughly forty years. He gave a full generation to repent...in much the same way that the generation was purged before going into the physical promised land of the OT. I guess that is why 2 Peter 3:9 is in the Scriptures.

Jeremiah 18:8 - If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between Matthew 3:10 and the above Jeremiah passage...the old covenant nation needed to be transitioned over into the new covenant people through Jesus Christ - the holy nation of 1 Peter 2:9.

[benstenson]

I don't see a whole lot of difference between Matthew 3:10 and the above Jeremiah passage...the old covenant nation needed to be transitioned over into the new covenant people through Jesus Christ - the holy nation of 1 Peter 2:9.

I guess I've just been wondering if some of the "end-time" prophecies could simply have been delayed or put away altogether as part of a change of plans? I'm probably not familiar enough with preterism to be highly skeptical of it. But it's never seemed to me like anyone has all this prophecy figured out so I've been wondering if some of it could have been delayed even though it clearly said it was imminent in the Bible.

There are folks who teach this but they seem to use the idea to fabricate a second gospel where repentance is not required. Obviously that's junk, but it doesn't mean their prophecy idea is wrong. I'm probably in over my head on this topic because there is so much material to cover.

[Mellontes]

If it was delayed, then Daniel's prophecies were in error, Malachi's prophecies were in error, as well as several other true prophets of God. The time had come, the time had been fulfilled...

Mark 1:15 - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

For those who believe in a delay, it means that everything would have to be fulfilled again. The main problem is the the hermeneutic of audience relevance is not being consistently applied because the presuppositional NATURE of the last days is governing the paradigm. Another problem is the definite nearness of the last days to that first century church. I still believe C.S. put is in the best perspective possible, even though it is a most shameful perspective...

“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

I will always stand with the view that C.S. Lewis is the embarrassment and NOT my Lord Jesus, or any of His apostles...

[steve7150]

I think Preterism deserves to be questioned as it makes one event in one city the climax of the entire bible including the claim that evil is destroyed , which it clearly is not. If Paul was referencing Jerusalem 70AD that does'nt legitimatize Preterism , since we must believe the entire book of Revelation is again all about Jerusalem 70AD.
The historicist view of Revelation makes sense and just flows and answers questions about what will be coming and is relevant to all Christians during the church age.

[Mellontes]

I think Preterism deserves to be questioned as it makes one event in one city the climax of the entire bible including the claim that evil is destroyed , which it clearly is not. If Paul was referencing Jerusalem 70AD that does'nt legitimatize Preterism , since we must believe the entire book of Revelation is again all about Jerusalem 70AD.
The historicist view of Revelation makes sense and just flows and answers questions about what will be coming and is relevant to all Christians during the church age.

You certainly have the right to question preterism. I know I did.
This claim that evil is destroyed, where exactly is it? I hear about it all the time... To me, the sin death (curse) is destroyed in Jesus Christ. Is this the evil to which you refer?

Why don't you take the challege? If your view is similar to most futurists, the first 4 verses have to represent 1st century people, but then you must shift to a generation of people thousands of years removed from that 1st century church, despite the fact that the nouns and pronouns have NOT changed from the first century CONTEXT. This is the grammatical/historical hermeneutic of audience relevance. Futurists generally question this because their NATURE of events for the last days governs their paradigm. It doesn't really matter who Paul was addressing, does it?

[benstenson]

..The time had come, the time had been fulfilled
..For those who believe in a delay, it means that everything would have to be fulfilled again.
..problem is the definite nearness of the last days to that first century church.

What I am thinking is that just because the time came does not mean that everything was fulfilled.

The main problem is the the hermeneutic of audience relevance is not being consistently applied because...

But I'm ok with audience relevance and literal interpretation. I'm saying that things may not have been as set in stone as we might assume. When it came time to descend in flaming fire God may simply have held off because there were some people He believed could still be saved if He gave them more time.

..the presuppositional NATURE of the last days is governing the paradigm.

Yeah, some of the things that are said about the end times seem so literal. I have not done a major study on this, but making everything figurative seems like a real stretch in some cases. But partial preterism seems possible to me because I can see how some thing might be figurative.

btw Do you believe in a literal physical resurrection?

“This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

I will always stand with the view that C.S. Lewis is the embarrassment and NOT my Lord Jesus, or any of His apostles...

It must be embarrassing to Lewis because he expects that the future is all settled in advance, set in stone, exhaustively foreknown, etc. For God, there is no embarrassment in failed prophecy or in delayed fulfillment because whatever new plan He adopts is the wisest based on new circumstances.

Preterism also allows that there is no embarrassment in those passages by saying they were figurative and thus fulfilled. But it does not seems necessary to conclude all is figurative in order to avoid a supposed "embarrassment".

[TK]

Ben wrote:

It must be embarrassing to Lewis because he expects that the future is all settled in advance, set in stone, exhaustively foreknown, etc.

Actually, CS didnt believe this (at least he didn't in Mere Christianity)-- just wanted to clarify.

TK