Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

2 Thessalonians 2:2-6?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


Again we see the plurality if those builded together into the singular habitation of God. All these verses you quoted show that there is one temple.

As to the rest of my post, that is your opinion probably from what you have been taught.


I am just going to look at one passage, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

Does the Holy Spirit indwell believers individually or only the church as a group? The individual correct? If your doctrine was correct you would also have to logically conclude from verse 19 that he indwelt only the group as a whole not individuals. Not to mention if you take 1 Corinthians 6:19 in context you also have to look at the verses before it which are instructing individuals. Also look how many times "body" or bodies" are mentioned in that chapter. Eight times I believe if i counted right. Every time the term is used in that chapter it is speaking of a physical body not a spiritual body. For your position to be correct we would have to assume that although Paul had been talking about the need for individuals to avoid fornication with their physical bodies he suddenly switched to speaking of the church body without giving any indication that he was going to do that. That is very unlikely. That passage is undeniable proof that Christ considers each believers body to be a temple of the Holy Ghost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

read 7 and 8 of the same chapter

He cannot be revealed until the Spirit has been removed...with the Holy Spirit, we also go.




That, to me, is a common misconception, because if you read on over in Revelation and get to the two witnesses the Spirit of life is there, so it is not gone completely. It will be more like the Old Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I beleive this teaching is contradictory to the omnipresence of the Lord. Notice:

Psa 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].
Psa 139:9 [if] I take the wings of the morning, [and] dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Psa 139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

If the Lord is eternal and everywhere, why would our location change his omnipresent nature? This is not logical. Also, if you will be honest, you are subjecting this passage to your interpretation instead of subjecting your interpretation to the passage. The ox is behind the cart. You assume that the Spirit goes with the believers, but the text does not say that. Don't give us theory, for theory is not proof, give us scripture, solid supporting scripture that clearly and directly points to this passage.

For example, if the Spirit is gone after a pretrib rapture, who is this:

Rev 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

According to this text which takes place somewhere up in the tribulation, the Spirit of life from God entered these men, (note capital "S" in Spirit, this is the Holy Spirit.)

Bro. Ben





Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I beleive this teaching is contradictory to the omnipresence of the Lord. Notice:

Psa 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].
Psa 139:9 [if] I take the wings of the morning, [and] dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Psa 139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

If the Lord is eternal and everywhere, why would our location change his omnipresent nature? This is not logical......


Our location will never change His ominipresence. But our location is associated with His dwelling place and particular ministry.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Why wasn't the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) already there? He was. The Bible says that Jesus was full of Him. (Luke 4:1) Now read this...
John 14:10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? What does this mean? It means that God the Father was also "In" Jesus. Simple enough. Now read this...
John 14:8,9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? Who is speaking, now, to Philip? God the Father, in the body of Jesus. The Bible says that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus. Now read this...

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, 17even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you. The Holy Ghost was WITH them, in the body of Jesus, (Luke 4:1) but He could not be IN them until Jesus ascended.

So we see that the Holy Spirit indwelled Jesus, as did the Father...but, He did not indwell the disciples until Jesus was gone. The Holy Spirit indwells all believers today and each individual believer is His temple on this earth (1 Corinthians 3:17). The first time I remember, as a lost person, witnessing anybody full of the Holy Spirit, was a Baptist preacher. I myself have been filled with the Holy Ghost many times... but not nearly enough. When we, God's people, are taken out, lost people will not be able to witness that. There will be no temples here for Him to live in. God's Spirit is everywhere at all times, but when we are taken out, the temples of the Holy Ghost will be gone. Think about it. No love, no joy, no peace, longsuffering, meakness, temperence, no preaching, no Comforter. There will be no beleivers to manifest the works of the Spirit, so I believe He will be present, but His presence will not be the same as it is now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Members

Sorry to jump in at a late stage in the discussion.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in about AD 50, while the temple of God in Jerusalem was still standing. Also still standing was the Lord's Olivet prophecy:

Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

That immediately directs attention in the context to the prophesied destruction. Jesus had also prophesied coming in judgement of the generation that rejected him:

Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

He prophesied that believers should see the signs & flee from Jerusalem before the destruction:

Luk 21:20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nice try to explain away a Bible passage. it is referring to the coming one-world Antichrist that Daniel 9, the book of Revelation, and various other places speaks about. There has been no one-world leader yet that has fulfilled all that has been prophesied about him.

Luke 21 does deal with the destruction of the temple in the first century - but not Matthew 24 and Mark 13. These both refer specifically to the endtimes. Luke goes there after stating some things about the first century.

Luke 21:20-24 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 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. 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.

All that Luke speaks about after this is referring to the endtimes. Luke refers to the Roman armies that surrounded Jerusalem - Matthew and Mark refer specifically to the abomination of desolation that the Antichrist sets up in the temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nice try to explain away a Bible passage. it is referring to the coming one-world Antichrist that Daniel 9, the book of Revelation, and various other places speaks about. There has been no one-world leader yet that has fulfilled all that has been prophesied about him.

Daniel 9 is a prrophecy of 70 weeks - 490 years that relate the Lord's anointing at his baptism to start the 70th week. The 70 weeks were completed in the 30s. Any idea that the 70th week is still future is fantasy. The prophecy would have referred to 350 weeks or more.

Luke 21 does deal with the destruction of the temple in the first century - but not Matthew 24 and Mark 13. These both refer specifically to the endtimes. Luke goes there after stating some things about the first century.

The endtimes of what? Sure of the old covenant. Jesus prophesies the destruction in such great detail that the Jerusalem Christians knew when to flee the city.

In Mark 13 & Mat. 24, Jesus makes a prophecy & answers a question:
Mar 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Covenator, the fact that you can't get the Jews and God's future dealing with them as a nation placed properly within scripture will lead directly to your mangling anything the Bible says on prophecy. You are completely in the dark because of you hatred for Israel. I haven't met a "preterist" yet who didn't hate the Jews to the core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Covenator, the fact that you can't get the Jews and God's future dealing with them as a nation placed properly within scripture will lead directly to your mangling anything the Bible says on prophecy. You are completely in the dark because of you hatred for Israel. I haven't met a "preterist" yet who didn't hate the Jews to the core.


Perhaps I've missed it, but where has there been talk of hatred of Israel in this thread?

I would have to look up exactly what a preterist is (all these different lables get confusing), but I've known those who hold to what I think Covenator is saying and they didn't hate Jews.

Is preterist and pre-wrath the same, similar or totally different? I'll have to refresh myself on which of the various end-times ideas mean what.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Prewrath teaches that the rapture is yet future - and that true believers will go through part of it - until the "wrath" of God is poured out (of course, that contradicts the passages that teach the whole 7 year tribulation is a time of God's wrath...).

Preterism teaches that the prophetic endtime events already happened in the first century, as Covenanter has been attempting to teach in various threads on these boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Prewrath teaches that the rapture is yet future - and that true believers will go through part of it - until the "wrath" of God is poured out (of course, that contradicts the passages that teach the whole 7 year tribulation is a time of God's wrath...).

Preterism teaches that the prophetic endtime events already happened in the first century, as Covenanter has been attempting to teach in various threads on these boards.


Thank you Jerry. I "know" all these things but for some reason have a hard time keeping the different names lined up; and then some change what they call some of them from time to time.

Pre-wrath teach that Christians will only be removed before the wrath of God is poured out and thus will endure part of the tribulation, but not the actual full wrath of God.

I'll have to refamiliarize myself with preterism, unless someone would be so kind as to remind me of their position on how it all plays out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I tried to see if I had something handy on Preterism, but I can't find anything right now. However, this is an interesting definition, which fits somewhat (as prOBaby being the root word):

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

PRE'TERIT, a. L. proeteritus, proetereo; proeter, beyond, and eo, to go. Past; applied to the tense in grammar which expresses an action or being perfectly past or finished, often that which is just past or completed, but without a specification of time.

I think that is a main part of their position on endtimes prophecy - ie. that it was already fulfilled in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I tried to see if I had something handy on Preterism, but I can't find anything right now. However, this is an interesting definition, which fits somewhat (as prOBaby being the root word):

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

PRE'TERIT, a. L. proeteritus, proetereo; proeter, beyond, and eo, to go. Past; applied to the tense in grammar which expresses an action or being perfectly past or finished, often that which is just past or completed, but without a specification of time.

I think that is a main part of their position on endtimes prophecy - ie. that it was already fulfilled in the past.


That's my prOBlem, what I have on preterism isn't handy at the moment. I suppose I could try a web search; sometimes what I search for actually shows up. I can't remember if preterists believe Christians will help usher in the Kingdom of God or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Found this at:
http://en.preterism.com/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions#The_End_of_the_World


The Bible speaks of events called "The End of the World" or "The end of time" -- events which are directly connected with the Second Coming of Jesus. How could the Second Coming be a past even yet the planet Earth still be here?
Answer: The truth is that the Bible does not speak of something called "The End of the World or Time." The distinction is in the interpretation of passages in which "the time of the End" is discussed. While seemingly minor, the difference is crucial in that Biblical passages discussing the "time of the End" are not describing events which will take place in the future, rather events related to the time of the "end of the Jewish nation" and the "end of the Mosaic covenant." This "time of the end" according to Preterist eschatology was around A.D. 70 when the Jewish Temple was destroyed by the Roman armies and Jerusalem was burned to the ground.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So is this present world the New Heavens and New Earth spoken of in the book of Revelation?
Answer: Yes, that seems to be the case. The book of Revelation seems to be clearly describing in the last few chapters a planet, nations, kings and kingdoms, and many other features that indicate a continual existence of mankind and of planet Earth. Therefore what makes the Heavens and Earth "new" is not an act of God physically re-creating them, but a renewing and reconcilliation of all things in Christ, through his sacrifice, resurrection and return in A.D. 70. The very presence of Christ (his parousia) is what gives the Heavens and Earth a renewed character.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there any Study Bibles teaching anything even close to Preterism?
Answer: Yes, in fact two of the most important and well-known Study Bibles take a Preterist approach to the Scriptures. The Geneva Bible, which was a Protestant translation of the Bible was notoriously Preteristic in its approach to prophetic passages. The Orthodox Study Bible published by Nelson Publishing in the United States also places many of the prophecies of Matthew 24 in the first century, specifically A.D. 70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

After reviewing some about preterism I remember studying this a few years ago. This belief, to me anyway, is one of the least soundly supported of the different eschatological views. There is too much over stretching of Scripture, denying the clear, plain wording of Scripture and giving it a meaning different than a plain reading of the Word presents, and relies upon outside (non-biblical) sources to support some of their ideas because Scripture itself doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...