No, you decided what interpretation alone is possible by choosing a neutral translation. That is cherry-picking a neutral translation, and rejecting any other translation that is more specific about what may have been meant.
that's.. literally the opposite of what cherry picking is.
cherry picking is picking 1 specific translation and going with what it says and discarding other "non cherry" options that disagree with what the one you like says.
What I'm doing is affirming that all commonly accepted translations are God's word, so any interpretation or doctrine I take from scripture should fit all of those translations. If a doctrine I hold only can be demonstrated using 1 translation, and the others dispute it, then my doctrine is wrong.
In this case it's more subtle, your translation could have been taken to mean that this was not continuous with the rest of the account, but other translations do not suggest that it could be taken from out of continuity, and another Gospel account explicitly states that the Olivet Discourse was private, precluding that Pharisees were part of the audience of the Olivet Discourse, which is what you were holding to. You have to reconcile scripture when we're talking about multiple references to the same thing. If there are omissions, then you can maybe still consider them the same thing, but if there is a CONTRADICTION, then they cannot be the same thing.
Like the discussion on whether Zechariah 14 and Matthew 24:29-31 are the same thing. They cannot be because one has the sun and moon going dark, and the other has it being light at evening time.
If they are the same thing, then there is a contradiction in God's word, and we definitely do not want to go down that road.
and in 2 Thessalonian 2:3's case, this cherry picking has resulted in an OPPOSITE interpretation to what that verse says in most translations.
Whatever doctrine or position you hold it should be able to be defended in all scripture mentioning it, and across every accepted translation of the bible (we can reject some translations like "the message" or other such nonsense that God will weed out of use shortly unless Jesus returns first)
The Disciples asked a private question, which did not involve the Pharisees. But what makes you think Pharisees weren't there? Why would Jesus' Disciples have to approach him privately if there were no other people around?
Pharisees may have been in the area, but this was taking Jesus aside and asking Him these questions in private, just for them alone (and to us who read the accounts). Pharisees were not part of the audience, nor were they being addressed in that particular discourse, however Jesus most likely reused some helpful statements that He'd used with the Pharisees prior on the way to Jerusalem. That's the way I see it.
I honestly don't know why you argue this point so hard.. To declare that the Olivet Discourse was to unbelieving Jews and not Christians?
Why is it such a thing to have the Olivet Discourse NOT be to Christians?
For all I know, Jesus could've indulged questions from both Pharisees and his Disciples at the same location. Maybe not, but I can't tell from just this text alone.
I can, and it is an important thing to me that Jesus was speaking to Christians, not "Unbelieving Jews" as His audience.
If it's to Christians then we should pay paramount attention to it.
If it's to unbelieving Jews then it doesn't mean much to us does it? Or we cherrypick verses like the pretribulationists.
Do me a favor and stop categorizing every position I've taken as being from a particular school? It's okay in some places, but it makes answering the points more difficult because I have to explain first why I'm not of that school and then explain what my belief actually is.
Are you an errant "historicist" interpreter simply because you believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago in fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
No because the bible is clear and explicit on this.
Were all of the Church Fathers who believed the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD historicist error-making teachers, as well?
Yes, in fact they were. It may have been a "type" fulfillment as Antiochus Epiphanes IV was (and some "great theologians" hold that view as well, despite Jesus using it as a still future event to the disciples, showing them to be in error), but it was not the true fulfillment.
Just as the famine in Egypt was a type fulfillment, and the plagues of Egypt were a type fulfillment of the Indignation, as was the Flood of Noah and destruction of Sodom.
They all point to the end times fulfillment of those things, just as Passover pointed to the fulfillment in Jesus.