Question for Amillennialists

[Spiritual Jew]

It’s not “deceptive” when it’s the truth. If The highly debatable passage of Zechariah 14, which mentions nothing of a thousand year reign, doesn’t count as evidence to you that the revelation 20 should be taken as literal future millennial, then why should the highly debatable passage of 2 Thessalonians 2, which mentions nothing of Satan being bound, count as evidence of your millennial view?

You are in the same boat as premils as you cannot provide any clear gospel or epistolic passages that teach Satan is bound for a long period of time to then released for a little season.

I have clear gospel and epistolic passages which teach that Christ began to reign and that His followers became priests of God and of Christ after His resurrection, so I can use that as a starting point for the thousand years. Since Satan is also bound at the beginning of the thousand years, I can safely conclude that Satan was bound when Jesus began to reign. I see gospel and epistolic passages that refer to Satan's power being lessened around that time, such as Hebrews 2:14-15 which talks about the power of death being taken away from him resulting in many people being set free from their fear of death, so I believe it's quite reasonable to conclude that Satan's binding relates to things like that.

I believe it's far more reasonable to view the thousand years as referring to an actual period of time with a beginning and ending since it clearly indicates that it comes to an end at some point and is followed by a short season of time. Why would a parable have such specific details such as referring to the end of the thousand years and referring to a little season of time following that? That makes no sense. That's not how parables work.

Im very comfortable with understanding revelation 20 as an allegory or story for Christs victory over Satan and Satan’s persecution of the church. I don’t stake my beliefs on correctly understanding the “millennium” as the apostles nor Jesus specifically nor clearly taught about a millennium.

You shouldn't be comfortable with that because your view has no explanation for why it refers to the end of the thousand years and why it refers to a short time following the thousand years. What do those things represent in the supposed allegory/story? You have no idea. Instead of explaining those things and what they mean in the supposed allegory/story, you just brush them under the rug.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Using the critical text, instead of the TR, it says God is (present tense) sending a delusion on those who had not received (past tense) the truth.

God was presently sending a delusion upon those perishing who had not in the past received the truth, while the man of sin was existing by the works of Satan and the mystery of lawlessness was already at work. Only when the restrainer was removed would the man of sin be revealed.

I'm sorry, but I believe this is nonsense. I believe Paul was clearly referring to a falling away that would occur at some point in the future just before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him, which is an event that has clearly not yet happened. The time of the falling away is related directly to the time that God would send strong delusion, so it's not talking about something that was already happening.

The Greek word “is” in 2 Thessalonians 2:9 is present indicative active regardless of what English translation you are using. That’s an objective fact. Translating it as future tense verb in English is “interpretation” by some translators, but not all- this is when things become subjective.

Surely, you understand that you can use the word "is" to describe a fact about something that will happen in the future? I would hope you can understand that, anyway. For example, I could say that when believers are gathered to Jesus and the wicked are destroyed on the day Jesus returns is a terrible day for unbelievers and a good day for believers. Am I saying that day is occurring today by saying that? No. I'm using the word "is" in place of "will be" in this case, which is something that happens all the time.

In the original grammar, no. It’s only “interpreted” that way by some, not all, English translators.

The presence of the lawless one is (present tense verb in the critical text) by the works of Satan in power and falsehood and deceit unto the perishing ones (present participle) who had not received (past tense) the truth. Zero mention of Satan being bound.

Yes, you require that it specifically say he is bound in order to relate to his binding. If it refers to his power being lessened or taken away in some sense (such as the power of death) or anything like that, it can't possibly relate to his binding in your mind.

If Paul was talking about a literal bodily descending of Christ with literal human bodies coming back together from dust and then flying into the air, then I absolutely agree- that In no way has happened yet and that is still future.

BUT, if Paul was using language of God descending from heaven consistent with OT prophets use, AND he was meaning the same thing im the sense of 2 Corinthians 6 - eternal heavenly home when the earthly tent destroyed, then I disagree it could not have yet happened.

This is why I can't take preterism seriously. The context is clearly in relation to the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. That is the only gathering to Christ that Paul wrote about.

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The context here is established in verse 14. It refers specifically to Christ's bodily resurrection. I would hope that you can acknowledge that? So, when it talks about the dead in Christ rising first, it's talking in the same context as Christ's bodily resurrection. This is just like what Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 where he indicated that Christ was the first to bodily rise from the dead (with the context being unto bodily immortality) and next in order are those who belong to Him at His second coming. That is what 1 Thess 4:14-17 is about and what 2 Thess 2:1 is about as well. I believe this is obvious.

The coming of “mass” antichrists and then going out of the church did not signal the shift to the “last days”. The shift to the last days was the coming of Christ and the pouring of the spirit. The coming of “mass” antichrists and leaving the church signaled the last hour, just as john, Paul, and Christ said it would.

I don't see that there is any difference between "the last days" and "the last time/hour". There were various things that would mark the last days/last time/hour including the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, but also including scoffers scoffing at the promise of Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3:3-4) and the appearance of many antichrists. Those things, however, did not indicate that the last day, which is the day Christ will return, was necessarily going to literally occur soon.

My only point was that John does mention a “mass” falling away, and that is how they knew it was the hour. So to say no mass falling away has occurred yet, is not true, regardless of your eschatological belief.

Was that really your only point? Were you not trying to say that what John mentioned was the same thing that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2:3? Yet, Paul referred to a mass falling away that would occur at some point in the future, so it's not possible that Paul was talking in the same context as John did in 1 John 2:18. I would equate what John said more with the idea that while wickedness was restrained until He that restrains no longer restrains, it was already at work back then. So, while there were already many antichrists in John's day, Paul seems to be talking about a time when we can say "And you thought there were many antichrists in John's day...".

I believe they are eternal. I don’t believe satan will ever have the power over death again. I don’t believe Satan will ever regain control of the household. In that sense I’m probably more postmil.

Yet, Paul taught that there would be a mass falling away just before the return of Christ and our being gathered to Him, which has clearly not yet happened. And, it's clear to me that Satan would play a role in all that. So, it's clear to me that your belief does not line up with what Paul taught in 2 Thessalonians 2. Your doctrine requires you to deny that Paul was referring to the future bodily return of Christ in 2 Thess 2 and our being bodily gathered to him.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I fully agree with that and that that has been my position for ages now.

I agree with this as well since this appears to be the case.

Yes. For example, during the first century when Christ walked the earth plus during the times of the Apostles, all the signs and wonders were basically legit, of God. I can't see satan with all signs and lying wonders being in full force when the legit signs and wonders were still in full force at the time. The way I reason it, right or wrong, Jesus and the Apostles were given their allotted time to do what they did 2000 years ago, and so will satan and his minions be given their allotted time in the closing days of this age to do what they are going to do. Where I see that involving the 42 month reign of the beast. One of those things being signs and lying wonders, whatever that ends up looking like. Maybe it has already started, and one place one should be looking for these things is in the Charismatic movement maybe?


Therefore, in my mind, when the restraint per 2 Thessalonians 2 is lifted, it equals the 42 month reign of the beast, except that can't be meaning satan's little season after the thousand years if Revelation 20:4 is already proving per the following, where that is undeniably involving the 42 month reign of the beast---and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--that the 42 month reign is not after the thousand years if it is already prior to the thousand years ending. It obviously can't be both, and what I submitted per verse 4 is undeniably involving the time of the 2 beasts recorded in Revelation 13, and that it is not after the thousand years.

So, the bottom line here is that you basically believe that Satan gets 2 little seasons and Amils believe he only gets one.

Take the following, for example. A person has been arrested for driving drunk numerous times over the years, and is then eventually sentenced to 5 years in prison. While this person is in prison is that the only thing being in prison prevents him from doing while in prison? If he had a full time job before he went to prison, can he still go to work every day at this same job while he in prison? Is the reason why he is in prison to begin with so that it can prevent him from going to work every day? No. Yet, it obviously prevents him from doing that even though that's not why he got locked up. He got locked up so that he won't drive around drunk anymore. I can think of a hundred more things that being locked up prevents him from doing though none of those are the reasons he is locked up, yet, being locked up prevents him from doing these things as well.

The above is a real world example, and if Revelation 20 is using imagery of being locked up in a prison, it has to make sense the same way it would if this was literally happening in the real world. Another example would be a lion since satan is compared to a roaring lion in 1 Peter 5:8. In the real world if a lion was trapped in a pit, it would not at the same time be walking freely about outside of the pit, since it is preposterous that a lion can physically be in more than one place at the same time. In the same way, unless satan is omnipresent like God is, satan can't be depicted locked up in a pit and at the same time be freely walking about outside of the pit, since this implies that satan can physically be in two different places at the same time.

I already know that you take his binding very literally as if he was a physical being literally bound in a literal prison, so you didn't need to write all of this to explain why. I already knew that.

The following is an example I have used in the past.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.


Is anyone going to propose that when this same satan is standing here in front of God, that this same satan is also still doing this at the time---going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it, therefore, this same satan having the ability to be physically in multiple places at the same time? Probably not, right? That no one is going to propose nonsense like that. So why does anyone propose, that while he is depicted bound and locked up in a pit, that while he is depicted like that, he is also walking about freely outside of the pit at the same time?

This is such a waste of time. Of course, if your understanding of his binding was correct then what you're saying here would be true. That is very obvious and goes without saying. But, is your understanding of his binding accurate? That is the question. No one is asking you to explain what your understanding of his binding is. We already know that.

BTW, did you ever explain per this post in what way is 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 depicting what is recorded in Revelation 20:7-9? As in, how is 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, an example, in any sense, as to what Revelation 20:7-9 is depicting in regards to satan's little season, that for one, it involves being gathered to battle, whatever that might look like? How is 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 also depicting being gathered to battle, one of the major things involving satan's little season?

Yes, I did address it. But, since we think so differently, you missed it.

I don't see Revelation 20:7-9 as involving a literal gathering for battle in a literal, physical place. To me, it involves a higher level of unrestrained deception and wickedness that results in all unbelievers in the world being united in the cause of wanting to destroy the church worldwide. That type of unrestrained deception and wickedness is described in 2 Thess 2:9-12. The people described in that passage will have been deceived by the workings of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, right? So, that refers to Satan being unrestrained, right? It implies that he formerly was not acting with "all power ans signs and lying wonders", but then becomes unrestrained "with all power and signs and lying wonders", right? Is that not what Revelation 20:7-9 is about? Satan gaining full power again after not previously having his full power before? Which results in a higher level of deception than before?

The removal of the restraint is to such a degree that unbelievers are united behind the cause of destroying the church. Rather than some unbelievers here and there persecuting believers, this seems to be a case of all or most unbelievers in the world wanting to persecute believers and destroy the church. Of course, if you don't see Revelation 20:7-9 as being a description of a worldwide attack against the church, then you're not going to understand what I'm talking about.

 

[claninja]

I have clear gospel and epistolic passages which teach that Christ began to reign and that His followers became priests of God and of Christ after His resurrection, so I can use that as a starting point for the thousand years. Since Satan is also bound at the beginning of the thousand years, I can safely conclude that Satan was bound when Jesus began to reign. I see gospel and epistolic passages that refer to Satan's power being lessened around that time, such as Hebrews 2:14-15 which talks about the power of death being taken away from him resulting in many people being set free from their fear of death, so I believe it's quite reasonable to conclude that Satan's binding relates to things like that.

I believe it's far more reasonable to view the thousand years as referring to an actual period of time with a beginning and ending since it clearly indicates that it comes to an end at some point and is followed by a short season of time. Why would a parable have such specific details such as referring to the end of the thousand years and referring to a little season of time following that? That makes no sense. That's not how parables work.


You shouldn't be comfortable with that because your view has no explanation for why it refers to the end of the thousand years and why it refers to a short time following the thousand years. What do those things represent in the supposed allegory/story? You have no idea. Instead of explaining those things and what they mean in the supposed allegory/story, you just brush them under the rug.

Right, but I don’t hinge my theology on revelation 20 like you do. That’s why I’m looking for clear gospel and epistolic passages that state Satan’s binding was for a long period of time then would he would be released to war against the saints. If you don’t accept the debatable Zechariah 14 as proof that the millennium is literal, then don’t be surprised that I reject your debatable interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 which contains zero mention of Satan being bound and loosed.

Satan was bound, so that his house could be plundered, or “cast out of heaven and his works and power over death annulled”, but there’s no mention of an expiration on this binding.

Satan simultaneously, was thrown down from his heavenly position and was already deceiving as an angel of light, working through the sons of disobedience, blinding the minds of unbelievers, hindering the gospel, leading believers astray, throwing the saints in prison, and even murdering them, and prowling like a lion looking to devour…BUT he would quickly be crushed under the feet of the saints (Romans 16:20), not loosed.

my point is that the gospels epistles don’t recognize the modern traditional amil teaching that Satan was bound for a long period of time (at minimum 1,000 years), and then to be released. this is evident from the time statements of “near”, “at hand”, “in a little while and without delay”, “satan being quickly crushed”.

But hey, I can just say the 1,000 years is in “God’s time”, and really should be understood as a day in human terms.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right, but I don’t hinge my theology on revelation 20 like you do.

LOL. Say what now? You have to be kidding me. My theology does not hinge on Revelation 20. That is ridiculous. Premil theology hinges on Revelation 20, not Amil theology. Amils get our understanding of the timing of Christ's reign, the timing of Christ's followers being made priests, the timing of a time of increased wickedness in relation to Satan's activities, the timing of the resurrection of the dead in relation to Christ's return, and the timing of the judgment in relation to Christ's return all from other scripture besides Revelation 20. We use other scripture to interpret Revelation 20, not the other way around. You couldn't have said something more false if you tried.

That’s why I’m looking for clear gospel and epistolic passages that state Satan’s binding was for a long period of time then would he would be released to war against the saints.

There are more ways to look at this than just that.

Why don't you start with the timing of Christ's reign and the timing of His followers being made priests? That happened at His resurrection, right? So, there's your starting point. The other thing you can do is stop ignoring the fact that it talks about the thousand years coming to an end and being followed by a little season of time before the resurrection of the dead and the judgment occurs. Your theory that it's all just a allegory/story doesn't hold any water whatsoever. That view can't be taken seriously at all. What kind of made up allegory has details like that? If it's an allegory then tell me what the thousand years represent, what does its end represent and what does Satan's little season represent? You should be able to answer those questions, but you can't.

So, once you acknowledge that the thousand years represents and actual period of time with a beginning and ending and acknowledge that Satan's little season is an actual period of time on the earth, then you can realize that the thousand years and Satan's little season haven't ended yet (Satan's little season, at least) since the resurrection of the dead and the judgment have not yet occurred. To just write off Revelation 20 as an allegory is not an acceptable way to determine what it is all about. Not even close. That's just a case of giving up and admitting that you have no idea what it's about.

But, to me, we know it's about a time during which Christ reigns and it's talking about an actual period of time, even if not a literal one thousand years. And that Satan's little season follows that actual period of time and the resurrection of the dead and judgment follows that. So, we should start with all that and go from there, but you don't even get to that point because you turn it all into a made up story that means nothing.

If you don’t accept the debatable Zechariah 14 as proof that the millennium is literal, then don’t be surprised that I reject your debatable interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 which contains zero mention of Satan being bound and loosed.

That's fine. But, do you accept my scriptural evidence to support my view of the timing of the reign of Christ, the timing of His followers being made priests, as well as the scriptures showing that the dead are all resurrected at generally the same time and all people are judged at the same time? My understanding of those things demands that the thousand years and Satan's little season must represent actual periods of time that began when Christ began to reign and will end when Jesus returns to resurrect the dead and judge all people. So, even if I don't have explicit scripture to support Satan's binding and loosing, I can be confident it fits in there somehow because of all the other things that happen between Christ's resurrection and His return.

Satan was bound, so that his house could be plundered, or “cast out of heaven and his works and power over death annulled”, but there’s no mention of an expiration on this binding.

But there is scripture that speaks of a time of increased wickedness in the future in relation to the workings of Satan, which implies he will have more power at that point than he has had previously, but you don't accept that. Whatever. I'm not going to concern myself with things that you can't see.

Satan simultaneously, was thrown down from his heavenly position and was already deceiving as an angel of light, working through the sons of disobedience, blinding the minds of unbelievers, hindering the gospel, leading believers astray, throwing the saints in prison, and even murdering them, and prowling like a lion looking to devour…BUT he would quickly be crushed under the feet of the saints (Romans 16:20), not loosed.

my point is that the gospels epistles don’t recognize the modern traditional amil teaching that Satan was bound for a long period of time (at minimum 1,000 years), and then to be released. this is evident from the time statements of “near”, “at hand”, “in a little while and without delay”, “satan being quickly crushed”.

But hey, I can just say the 1,000 years is in “God’s time”, and really should be understood as a day in human terms.

You can believe what you want. Go ahead and sweep Revelation 20 under the rug and just call it an allegory if you want, but it clearly is not. Making it an allegory is not an acceptable solution to your dilemma of not being able to understand how Satan's binding can fit if it's referring to an actual period of time.

 

[claninja]

I'm sorry, but I believe this is nonsense. I believe Paul was clearly referring to a falling away that would occur at some point in the future just before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him, which is an event that has clearly not yet happened. The time of the falling away is related directly to the time that God would send strong delusion, so it's not talking about something that was already happening.


Surely, you understand that you can use the word "is" to describe a fact about something that will happen in the future? I would hope you can understand that, anyway. For example, I could say that when believers are gathered to Jesus and the wicked are destroyed on the day Jesus returns is a terrible day for unbelievers and a good day for believers. Am I saying that day is occurring today by saying that? No. I'm using the word "is" in place of "will be" in this case, which is something that happens all the time.


Yes, you require that it specifically say he is bound in order to relate to his binding. If it refers to his power being lessened or taken away in some sense (such as the power of death) or anything like that, it can't possibly relate to his binding in your mind.


This is why I can't take preterism seriously. The context is clearly in relation to the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. That is the only gathering to Christ that Paul wrote about.

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The context here is established in verse 14. It refers specifically to Christ's bodily resurrection. I would hope that you can acknowledge that? So, when it talks about the dead in Christ rising first, it's talking in the same context as Christ's bodily resurrection. This is just like what Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 where he indicated that Christ was the first to bodily rise from the dead (with the context being unto bodily immortality) and next in order are those who belong to Him at His second coming. That is what 1 Thess 4:14-17 is about and what 2 Thess 2:1 is about as well. I believe this is obvious.


I don't see that there is any difference between "the last days" and "the last time/hour". There were various things that would mark the last days/last time/hour including the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, but also including scoffers scoffing at the promise of Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3:3-4) and the appearance of many antichrists. Those things, however, did not indicate that the last day, which is the day Christ will return, was necessarily going to literally occur soon.


Was that really your only point? Were you not trying to say that what John mentioned was the same thing that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2:3? Yet, Paul referred to a mass falling away that would occur at some point in the future, so it's not possible that Paul was talking in the same context as John did in 1 John 2:18. I would equate what John said more with the idea that while wickedness was restrained until He that restrains no longer restrains, it was already at work back then. So, while there were already many antichrists in John's day, Paul seems to be talking about a time when we can say "And you thought there were many antichrists in John's day...".


Yet, Paul taught that there would be a mass falling away just before the return of Christ and our being gathered to Him, which has clearly not yet happened. And, it's clear to me that Satan would play a role in all that. So, it's clear to me that your belief does not line up with what Paul taught in 2 Thessalonians 2. Your doctrine requires you to deny that Paul was referring to the future bodily return of Christ in 2 Thess 2 and our being bodily gathered to him.

Right. “Is” can be used to talk about something in the future when prefaced with the word such as “when”. Adding “when” denotes a future aspect thus we know you are talking about a future event. BUT The the passage does NOT say “when” the man of sins is coming, it is by the works of Satan. It just says the presence of the man of sin “is” by the works of Satan. There is no grammatical indicator that he is using is in a future sense. So your example doesn’t really work.

And Right,Paul said there would be a falling away prior to the coming of Christ.

And John said there was a mass number of antichrists leaving the church, and that is how they knew it was the last hour. so to say there was not mass falling away in the first century would be incorrect, as John literally says “mass, numerous, many” have gone out from us.

4183 polýs – many (high in number); multitudinous, plenteous, "much"; "great" in amount (extent). - helps word studies.

“ἐσχάτῃ ὥρα, the last hour i. e. the end of this age and very near the return of Christ from heaven (see ἔσχατος, 1, p. 253b), 1 John 2:18 ” - thayers Greek lexicon

As to 1 Thessalonians 4, like i said, if Paul was talking about literal dead bodies reanimating and flying out of the ground into the air, then I agree with you. BUT if he meant similar to 2 Corinthians 5, then I don’t agree with you.

As to the “binding” being for a minimum of a thousand years or symbolic for thousands of year, and then Released to war against the saints, yes, i require clear teaching from the gospels and epistles on this, as I don’t hinge this belief on the symbolic vision of revelation 20 as you do.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right. “Is” can be used to talk about something in the future when prefaced with the word such as “when”. Adding “when” denotes a future aspect thus we know you are talking about a future event. BUT The the passage does NOT say “when” the man of sins is coming, it is by the works of Satan. It just says the presence of the man of sin “is” by the works of Satan. There is no grammatical indicator that he is using is in a future sense. So your example doesn’t really work.

LOL. I love how you think you are the ultimate grammar authority of the world. Sorry, but you are not nearly the English or Greek expert that you pretend to be. My example does work. I'm not tied to the man-made rule that you came up with here.

And Right,Paul said there would be a falling away prior to the coming of Christ.

Right. And Christ hasn't come yet, so if it already started long ago then it's still going on today. We can keep arguing about the timing of the falling away if you want, but I'd rather focus on the fact that Christ hasn't come yet. How long of a duration the falling away occurs is less important than the fact that it occurs before the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him which has not yet occurred.

4183 polýs – many (high in number); multitudinous, plenteous, "much"; "great" in amount (extent). - helps word studies.

“ἐσχάτῃ ὥρα, the last hour i. e. the end of this age and very near the return of Christ from heaven (see ἔσχατος, 1, p. 253b), 1 John 2:18 ” - thayers Greek lexicon

While Greek lexicons and such can be helpful, they are not scripture. Those guys who created those are fallible just like everyone else. Jesus has not come yet and did not come in 70 AD. Don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.

As to 1 Thessalonians 4, like i said, if Paul was talking about literal dead bodies reanimating and flying out of the ground into the air, then I agree with you.

Of course that's what he is talking about. There is no other reasonable explanation for what he was talking about.

BUT if he meant similar to 2 Corinthians 5, then I don’t agree with you.

Explain to me in detail how he could have meant that. Please paraphrase 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 in a way that could be seen as a reasonable alternative to him talking about the resurrection of the physically dead in Christ and saying that they then, along with those who are still alive, will be literally caught up to meet Christ in the air after He literally descends from heaven.

As to the “binding” being for a minimum of a thousand years or symbolic for thousands of year, and then Released to war against the saints, yes, i require clear teaching from the gospels and epistles on this, as I don’t hinge this belief on the symbolic vision of revelation 20 as you do.

I interpret Revelation 20 in light of other scripture and not the other way around. That is a fact regardless of what you say. I believe that your current interpretation of Revelation 20 is nothing more than a complete joke. It's the most asbsurd interpretation of any passage of scripture that I've ever seen. It's one thing to not see Revelation 20 as using literal text and seeing it as using symbolic text instead. It's another thing entirely to turn it into just an allegory when there is no indication whatsoever of that anywhere in the text. If that's an allegory, then surely there would be at least one or two other allegories in Revelation somewhere. But, I doubt you believe that is the case. Somehow, Revelation 20 is the only one in your view, right?

 

[claninja]

LOL. I love how you think you are the ultimate grammar authority of the world. Sorry, but you are not nearly the English or Greek expert that you pretend to be. My example does work. I'm not tied to the man-made rule that you came up with here.


Right. And Christ hasn't come yet, so if it already started long ago then it's still going on today. We can keep arguing about the timing of the falling away if you want, but I'd rather focus on the fact that Christ hasn't come yet. How long of a duration the falling away occurs is less important than the fact that it occurs before the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him which has not yet occurred.


While Greek lexicons and such can be helpful, they are not scripture. Those guys who created those are fallible just like everyone else. Jesus has not come yet and did not come in 70 AD. Don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.


Of course that's what he is talking about. There is no other reasonable explanation for what he was talking about.


Explain to me in detail how he could have meant that. Please paraphrase 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 in a way that could be seen as a reasonable alternative to him talking about the resurrection of the physically dead in Christ and saying that they then, along with those who are still alive, will be literally caught up to meet Christ in the air after He literally descends from heaven.


I interpret Revelation 20 in light of other scripture and not the other way around. That is a fact regardless of what you say. I believe that your current interpretation of Revelation 20 is nothing more than a complete joke. It's the most asbsurd interpretation of any passage of scripture that I've ever seen. It's one thing to not see Revelation 20 as using literal text and seeing it as using symbolic text instead. It's another thing entirely to turn it into just an allegory when there is no indication whatsoever of that anywhere in the text. If that's an allegory, then surely there would be at least one or two other allegories in Revelation somewhere. But, I doubt you believe that is the case. Somehow, Revelation 20 is the only one in your view, right?

Lol, You don’t have to be a grammar expert to know your example doesn’t work. “When” is used of time statements. I didn’t “make this up”, This is a basic principle taught in elementary school English class.

“At what time; at the time which;”

when

1. at what time; at the time at which: 2. what/which time: 3. considering the…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Obviously adding “when” changes the grammar of the sentence.

A.) “When the man of sin arrives, it is by the power of Satan” is a completely different statement than B.) “the presence of the man of sin is by the power of Satan”.

“When” is it not in the passage.

It cracks me up that you have to say something about me personally, instead of just addressing the basic English grammatical rule on how to use “when”…….

Why not just argue the prophetic perfect idiom like ellicot. I can at least see that as validating

“Is . . . with all power.—“Is:” St. Paul sees the future as present.”

Im not trying to, nor have I ever tried to convince you that Christ literally and bodily descended from heaven in 70ad. I don’t even believe that. I simply believe 66-70 ad and the fall of the temple was the SIGN of Christ’s presence (parousia) whereby it was demonstrated that he did come on the clouds of heaven to the Father.

I believe the majority of the expressions, Concerning the nearness of the presence (parousia) of Christ, in the epistles, refer to the nearness of the temple destruction.

That being said, I’m not dogmatic on the expressions of Christ descending from heaven. The OT prophets used metaphorical expressions to represent God coming down from heaven in judgment on nations. But I also agree with the creeds that Christ will literally and bodily come again. So, like I’ve already said - IF Paul was talking about Christ literally and bodily descending, then i absolutely agree with you here. But if Paul was using the same language as the OT prophets then I don’t agree with you. that’s all I have for you on that.

As to revelation 20, you in fact do not interpret Satan’s binding for a thousand years or more and then released for a little season to war on the saints in light of other scripture. That is solely found in revelation 20. You will find not one epistolic nor gospel passage that teaches Satan will be bound for thousands of years and then Released to war against the church.

The epistles teach that Satan was already warring on the church, but that the parousia of Christ was near, and in a little while without delay, and that Satan would be crushed quickly.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Lol, You don’t have to be a grammar expert to know your example doesn’t work. “When” is used of time statements. I didn’t “make this up”, This is a basic principle taught in elementary school English class.

“At what time; at the time which;”

when

1. at what time; at the time at which: 2. what/which time: 3. considering the…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Obviously adding “when” changes the grammar of the sentence.

A.) “When the man of sin arrives, it is by the power of Satan” is a completely different statement than B.) “the presence of the man of sin is by the power of Satan”.

“When” is it not in the passage.

It cracks me up that you have to say something about me personally, instead of just addressing the basic English grammatical rule on how to use “when”…….

I say something about you personally because you act as if your understanding of Greek is infallible. It's not. That fact needs to be taken into account when you say what you THINK a passage is saying.

I say "when" because that fits the context of the passage.

2 Thess 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 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: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

This indicates that Paul was talking about something that would happen in the future. It would not be until the one who holds it back is taken out of the way that the man of sin/lawless one will come "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" and be revealed.

Why not just argue the prophetic perfect idiom like ellicot. I can at least see that as validating

“Is . . . with all power.—“Is:” St. Paul sees the future as present.”

That does not fit the context of what Paul was saying. He would not come "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" until after "he who now letteth...be taken out of the way" first.

Im not trying to, nor have I ever tried to convince you that Christ literally and bodily descended from heaven in 70ad. I don’t even believe that.

And I didn't say that you believe that. But, you believe He came in a sense in 70 AD, but scripture does not teach that anywhere.

I simply believe 66-70 ad and the fall of the temple was the SIGN of Christ’s presence (parousia) whereby it was demonstrated that he did come on the clouds of heaven to the Father.

Why would that be considered the sign of His presence and why would that be necessary to demonstrate that He did come on the clouds of heaven to the Father? Didn't the preaching of His gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit demonstrate that? Was that not demonstrated powerfully on the day of Pentecost?

I believe the majority of the expressions, Concerning the nearness of the presence (parousia) of Christ, in the epistles, refer to the nearness of the temple destruction.

Keeping in mind that Peter made it a point to indicate that His coming (parousia) could not be considered to be taking too long because of the fact that time has no affect on the Lord's perspective (2 Peter 3:8-9), why would you not think that at least some of those verses are speaking from the Lord's perspective of time rather than man's? Such as 1 Peter 4:7, for example? Peter obviously had the Lord's perspective of time in mind when thinking of things like that, so why couldn't that be the case in a verse like 1 Peter 4:7 as well?

That being said, I’m not dogmatic on the expressions of Christ descending from heaven. The OT prophets used metaphorical expressions to represent God coming down from heaven in judgment on nations. But I also agree with the creeds that Christ will literally and bodily come again.

Is that the only thing that you believe is left to happen in terms of fulfilling Bible prophecy? You say you agree with the creeds. The writers of the creeds obviously got their belief about that from scripture. So, what scripture(s) do you believe teaches that Christ will literally and bodily come again?

So, like I’ve already said - IF Paul was talking about Christ literally and bodily descending, then i absolutely agree with you here. But if Paul was using the same language as the OT prophets then I don’t agree with you. that’s all I have for you on that.

But, if he was talking about Christ literally and bodily descending and about us literally and bodily being gathered to Him, would that not change your understanding of 2nd Thessalonians 2? It would, right? That's why it's an important consideration.

When you say "if Paul was using the same language as the OT prophets", what do you mean? Not in terms of Christ's coming necessarily, but in terms of the dead in Christ rising and meeting the Lord "in the air" together with those who are alive and remain? What OT prophets wrote about something like that? None that I'm aware of. So, what reason is there to think that Paul wasn't taking about the dead in Christ being bodily resurrected and then literally being caught up bodily with those who are alive and remain to meet Christ in the air?

Do you believe that the dead in Christ will be bodily resurrected when Christ comes again bodily? If so, why would that not be what Paul was writing about in 1 Thess 4:14-17?

As to revelation 20, you in fact do not interpret Satan’s binding for a thousand years or more and then released for a little season to war on the saints in light of other scripture.

Can you read my mind? I'm pretty sure you can't. So, you have no authority to declare how I interpret that. I do interpret it in light of other scripture because I interpret the passage as a whole in light of other scripture. So, this means I take what other scripture says about the timing of Christ's reign and of His people being made priests into account, passages that speak of Satan's activities being lessened and restrained and later unrestrained, passages that speak of the resurrection of the dead and passages that speak of judgment day all into account to help determine what Revelation 20 is saying. You can try to say otherwise all you want, but you don't speak for me.

That is solely found in revelation 20.

In your opinion. The concept is also taught in other scripture even if not with the same exact words. Your requirement that other scripture use the same words to describe his binding as is used in Revelation 20 is not reasonable, in my opinion.

You will find not one epistolic nor gospel passage that teaches Satan will be bound for thousands of years and then Released to war against the church.

Not with those words, no. But, is there scripture that speaks of Satan's power being restrained for a time and then later being unrestrained. I believe so. The fact that you don't believe so is irrelevant. You try to say that I don't understand Revelation 20 in light of other scripture, but I do. Period.

The epistles teach that Satan was already warring on the church,

But in a limited capacity. He was restrained. He was not able to keep the church from expanding into the entire world. That is what his binding relates to, but you don't recognize that because you think similar to Premils in that you think him being active at all means he is loosed and not bound.

but that the parousia of Christ was near, and in a little while without delay, and that Satan would be crushed quickly.

The parousia of Christ has not yet occurred, so you need to adjust your understanding of what some of those words mean and from what perspective some of them should be understood. His parousia is related to Him coming bodily to meet His people (1 Thess 4:14-17) and it relates to Him destroying the heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:3-13). Those things have clearly not yet happened. I have never seen your give a viable interpretation of those passages.

 

[claninja]

I say something about you personally because you act as if your understanding of Greek is infallible. It's not. That fact needs to be taken into account when you say what you THINK a passage is saying.

I say "when" because that fits the context of the passage.

2 Thess 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 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: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

This indicates that Paul was talking about something that would happen in the future. It would not be until the one who holds it back is taken out of the way that the man of sin/lawless one will come "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" and be revealed.

That does not fit the context of what Paul was saying. He would not come "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" until after "he who now letteth...be taken out of the way" first.

And you are not a scholarly theologian, so does that mean i should just say that? Lol no, that would be a ridiculous argument on a forum such as CF. I enjoy studying Greek, and I rely on scholars and academics who are a lot more knowledgeable than me. Maybe, point out where I am wrong in my understanding of the grammatical Greek, and explain why, and even provide a serious academic source. I would be really impressed. That would be more helpful than personal quips.

Anyways………..

right, Paul was talking about something future: the “revealing” of the man of lawlessness. He doesn’t say the “arrival” is future anywhere in the entire passage.

2 Thessalonians 2:3,6,8 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessnessb is revealed (apokalýptō) , the son of destruction,

6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed (apokalýptō) at the proper time.

8And then the lawless one will be revealed (apokalýptō)

601 apokalýptō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2572 /kalýptō, "to cover") – properly, uncover, revealing what is hidden (veiled, obstructed), especially its inner make-up; (figuratively) to make plain (manifest), particularly what is immaterial (invisible).

And this “revealing” was being presently restrained in Paul’s day, While the MYSTERY of the lawless [one] was already at work.

2 Thessalonians 2:6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way

Next, I want to mention that the noun for lawless in vs 7 is the same as vs 8, AND that [one] is inserted in vs 8. In other words, the passage says:

“the mystery of the lawless is already at work, only the one now restraining might be taken out of the midst and then the lawless will be revealed”

OR

“the mystery of the lawless [one] is already at work, only the one now restraining might be taken out of the midst and then the lawless [one] will be revealed.”

The mystery of the lawless [one] already at work is consistent with his presence already existing by the works of Satan.

So I would appreciate you pointing out which part of my Greek understanding is wrong instead of giving me an English example that is completely unrelated.

And I didn't say that you believe that. But, you believe He came in a sense in 70 AD, but scripture does not teach that anywhere.

Why would that be considered the sign of His presence and why would that be necessary to demonstrate that He did come on the clouds of heaven to the Father? Didn't the preaching of His gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit demonstrate that? Was that not demonstrated powerfully on the day of Pentecost?

the question of the SIGN of his presence and end of the age was asked in association with “not one stone upon another.”

Keeping in mind that Peter made it a point to indicate that His coming (parousia) could not be considered to be taking too long because of the fact that time has no affect on the Lord's perspective (2 Peter 3:8-9), why would you not think that at least some of those verses are speaking from the Lord's perspective of time rather than man's? Such as 1 Peter 4:7, for example? Peter obviously had the Lord's perspective of time in mind when thinking of things like that, so why couldn't that be the case in a verse like 1 Peter 4:7 as well?

Everything is near to God, who doesn’t exist in linear time, because a thousand years are like a day and a day like a thousand years. The creation is just as near to God as the 2nd coming. To use the argument “God’s time” in the way you are, doesn’t mean anything.

But, if he was talking about Christ literally and bodily descending and about us literally and bodily being gathered to Him, would that not change your understanding of 2nd Thessalonians 2? It would, right? That's why it's an important consideration.

When you say "if Paul was using the same language as the OT prophets", what do you mean? Not in terms of Christ's coming necessarily, but in terms of the dead in Christ rising and meeting the Lord "in the air" together with those who are alive and remain? What OT prophets wrote about something like that? None that I'm aware of. So, what reason is there to think that Paul wasn't taking about the dead in Christ being bodily resurrected and then literally being caught up bodily with those who are alive and remain to meet Christ in the air?

Do you believe that the dead in Christ will be bodily resurrected when Christ comes again bodily? If so, why would that not be what Paul was writing about in 1 Thess 4:14-17?

No disagreement, if Paul was talking about the literal and visible body of Christ descending, with bodies of humans reanimating from the dust and flying up into the air, then I absolutely agree with you. That is 100 percent still future.

But God was described as “bodily” and “visibly” descending on the clouds in the OT in judgement upon nations, so it’s possible Paul was using this same language.

The OT also used the language of dead bodies coming together and out of the ground in regards to Israel’s restoration after the Babylon captivity. But like I said, if Paul was talking about the dead rising in the same way that they rise in 2 Corinthians 5, then I don’t agree with you. Not much else to say on that.

Can you read my mind? I'm pretty sure you can't. So, you have no authority to declare how I interpret that. I do interpret it in light of other scripture because I interpret the passage as a whole in light of other scripture. So, this means I take what other scripture says about the timing of Christ's reign and of His people being made priests into account, passages that speak of Satan's activities being lessened and restrained and later unrestrained, passages that speak of the resurrection of the dead and passages that speak of judgment day all into account to help determine what Revelation 20 is saying. You can try to say otherwise all you want, but you don't speak for me.

In your opinion. The concept is also taught in other scripture even if not with the same exact words. Your requirement that other scripture use the same words to describe his binding as is used in Revelation 20 is not reasonable, in my opinion.

Not with those words, no. But, is there scripture that speaks of Satan's power being restrained for a time and then later being unrestrained. I believe so. The fact that you don't believe so is irrelevant. You try to say that I don't understand Revelation 20 in light of other scripture, but I do. Period.

Not with those words, no. But, is there scripture that speaks of Satan's power being restrained for a time and then later being unrestrained. I believe so. The fact that you don't believe so is irrelevant. You try to say that I don't understand Revelation 20 in light of other scripture, but I do. Period.

Can I read your mind? No, but I can the read the absence of any clear gospel or epistolic passages, that state Satan would be bound for thousands of years and be released to war against the church, in your posts. Again, until you can do this, your belief hinges solely on revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And you are not a scholarly theologian, so does that mean i should just say that? Lol no, that would be a ridiculous argument on a forum such as CF.

I don't pretend to be a Greek expert the way you do. That's a big difference between us.

I enjoy studying Greek, and I rely on scholars and academics who are a lot more knowledgeable than me.

Yet, those scholars and academics don't always agree with each other, In fact, they often disagree. So, what does it prove to reference one of them? Nothing.

Maybe, point out where I am wrong in my understanding of the grammatical Greek, and explain why, and even provide a serious academic source. I would be really impressed. That would be more helpful than personal quips.

How would you know if the source was trustworthy and reliable or not? You wouldn't. So, that's a waste of time.

Anyways………..

Yeah, no kidding. Anyways....

right, Paul was talking about something future: the “revealing” of the man of lawlessness. He doesn’t say the “arrival” is future anywhere in the entire passage.

2 Thessalonians 2:3,6,8 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessnessb is revealed (apokalýptō) , the son of destruction,

6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed (apokalýptō) at the proper time.

8And then the lawless one will be revealed (apokalýptō)

601 apokalýptō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2572 /kalýptō, "to cover") – properly, uncover, revealing what is hidden (veiled, obstructed), especially its inner make-up; (figuratively) to make plain (manifest), particularly what is immaterial (invisible).

And this “revealing” was being presently restrained in Paul’s day, While the MYSTERY of the lawless [one] was already at work.

2 Thessalonians 2:6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way

Next, I want to mention that the noun for lawless in vs 7 is the same as vs 8, AND that [one] is inserted in vs 8. In other words, the passage says:

“the mystery of the lawless is already at work, only the one now restraining might be taken out of the midst and then the lawless will be revealed”

OR

“the mystery of the lawless [one] is already at work, only the one now restraining might be taken out of the midst and then the lawless [one] will be revealed.”

The mystery of the lawless [one] already at work is consistent with his presence already existing by the works of Satan.

So I would appreciate you pointing out which part of my Greek understanding is wrong instead of giving me an English example that is completely unrelated.

If only you knew how hard you are to follow sometimes. I can't make any sense of what you said here. And I did try. I just can't follow it. It's clear to me that it's talking about the restraining of wickedness/iniquity at that time even though the mystery of wickedness/iniquity was already at work to an extent at that time. It was being restrained until a future time before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. When he is taken out of the way, it means there is no longer any restraint at that point and it results in the mass falling away that Paul talked about.

And, again, let me reiterate that these are things that Paul says will happen before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. THAT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. You have no way around that. Until you interpret the passage in that context, you will continue to interpret the passage wrongly. That's the bottom line for me and I will never change my view on that. I am 100% convinced that the context of the passage centers around the FUTURE second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him in the air as Paul wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

the question of the SIGN of his presence and end of the age was asked in association with “not one stone upon another.”

From the disciples' perspective, that is true. They naturally would have thought that the destruction of the temple building would occur at the end of the age. However, Jesus was not obligated to answer them from THEIR perspective, He answered them from HIS perspective.

This is similar to Acts 1:6-8 where the disciples asked Him "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?". I think you agree that their understanding of the kingdom at that time was flawed. They expected an earthly kingdom similar to what Premils are expecting now. But, Jesus's answer was not given according to THEIR flawed perspective of the kingdom, but rather from HIS true perspective. He said "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.". Jesus described a spiritual kingdom that would come in power at which point the Holy Spirit would come upon them (dwell in them) and give them the power of boldness to preach the gospel throughout Israel and then to the Gentile nations. And, we know that the kingdom first came in power on the day of Pentecost long ago.

So, with all that in mind, Jesus was not obligated to answer their questions from their own perspective and He instead answered them from His perspective. He talked about things that would be related to the destruction of the temple buildings since they obviously did ask about that. But, He knew that the destruction of the temple buildings would not necessarily coincide with His second coming at the end of the age because He knew His coming at the end of the age would be a global event rather than only a local or regional one. So, He spoke about each thing separately.

The end of the age most certainly did not occur in 70 AD. You need to interpret scripture with scripture here and see what Jesus said about the end of the age as well as this age and the age to come in other scripture. What He said in those scriptures does not line up with what happened in 70 AD. He indicated that this age is temporal and is one during which people get married and they die. And He indicated that the age to come will begin after the resurrection of the dead at which point people will no longer get married or die (Luke 20:34-36). That age has clearly not yet come.

Regarding the end of the age, Jesus said that all people, good and bad, will live on the earth until such time that they are all gathered up and separated with the righteous inheriting "the kingdom of their Father" (Matt 13:43) and the wicked being cast into the fire, which lines up with Revelation 20:15. That has clearly not yet occurred.

In Matthew 25:31-46, which is part of the Olivet Discourse, but not recorded in the Mark 13 or Luke 21 accounts, Jesus talks about all people being gathered for judgment before Christ on His throne. Other scripture indicates that all people will stand before Christ one day to give an account of themselves (Romans 14:10-12). And other scripture indicates that God has appointed a day to judge all people (Acts 17:30-31). Matthew 25:31-46 portrays that event which clearly has not yet occurred. Yet, your preterist beliefs lead you to believe that it has already occurred, which leads you to interpret the Olivet Discourse in such a way that contradicts other scripture.

Everything is near to God, who doesn’t exist in linear time, because a thousand years are like a day and a day like a thousand years. The creation is just as near to God as the 2nd coming. To use the argument “God’s time” in the way you are, doesn’t mean anything.

I don't care what means something to you or not. It means something to me.

No disagreement, if Paul was talking about the literal and visible body of Christ descending, with bodies of humans reanimating from the dust and flying up into the air, then I absolutely agree with you. That is 100 percent still future.

And if you ever come to understand that this is true, then you will then have to not only readjust your understanding of 2 Thess 2, but of other scriptures as well. Agree?

But God was described as “bodily” and “visibly” descending on the clouds in the OT in judgement upon nations, so it’s possible Paul was using this same language.

No, it isn't possible because it doesn't just mention His coming, but also the resurrection of the dead in Christ as well as His people being gathered to Him "in the air". Are you going to try to say it's not talking about the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ there and not talking about His people being literally gathered to Him? If so, what scriptures do you have to back that up?

The OT also used the language of dead bodies coming together and out of the ground in regards to Israel’s restoration after the Babylon captivity. But like I said, if Paul was talking about the dead rising in the same way that they rise in 2 Corinthians 5, then I don’t agree with you. Not much else to say on that.

You're talking about text that was clearly within books that contained a great deal of symbolism. Is that the case for 1 Thessalonians? Is that a prophetic book where Paul uses a bunch of symbolism? No. So, there is no basis for thinking he was not being literal in the 1 Thess 4 passage. Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead or not? If so, when do you think it happens? Did Paul not also indicate that it happens at Christ's second coming in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23? I believe he clearly did. So, I see no basis whatsoever for concluding that Paul was talking about anything but the bodily return of Christ in passages like 1 Thess 4:13-18, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and 2 Thess 2:1-12. But, because you are so married to preterism you can't allow yourself to acknowledge this.

Can I read your mind? No, but I can the read the absence of any clear gospel or epistolic passages, that state Satan would be bound for thousands of years and be released to war against the church, in your posts. Again, until you can do this, your belief hinges solely on revelation 20.

Why do you keep lying? I have indicated MANY times now where I see his binding being referenced in scripture and how it talks about a restraint of wickedness for a time with it being unrestrained at a later time resulting in increased wickedness and a mass falling away from the faith. So, no matter what you say, my understanding of his binding DOES NOT hinge solely on Revelation 20. And the same is the case for other aspects of Revelation 20, such as Christ's reign, His followers reigning with Him as priests, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment.

 

[Douggg]

Are Amillennialists and partial preterists more or less in the same camp ?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Are Amillennialists and partial preterists more or less in the same camp ?

Not exactly. Partial preterists are amillennialists, but not all amillennialists are partial preterists.

Look at the discussion I'm having with claninja. He is a partial preterist. Does it look like he and I are "more or less in the same camp"? Clearly not, right?

For example, partial preterists typically believe that all or most of the Olivet Discourse and all or most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled by 70 AD. I disagree with that. There are some amillennialists who are historicists, some who are idealists and some who are futurists. And some who don't fit only into one of those categories, which is where I would put myself. I have more of an idealist view of the book of Revelation, but it does refer to specific past, current, ongoing and future events as well (past, current, ongoing and future as of the time it was written).

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

You can see here that John was told to write about things that had happened in the past, were happening at the time and that would happen after that (which includes ongoing and future realities and events).

In terms of viewing Christ's reign and Satan's binding as having begun at His resurrection, most Amillennialists, including partial preterists, are in agreement with that and in agreement that the thousands years is not literal and began back then.

 

[Douggg]

Not exactly. Partial preterists are amillennialists, but not all amillennialists are partial preterists.

Look at the discussion I'm having with claninja. He is a partial preterist. Does it look like he and I are "more or less in the same camp"? Clearly not, right?

For example, partial preterists typically believe that all or most of the Olivet Discourse and all or most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled by 70 AD. I disagree with that. There are some amillennialists who are historicists, some who are idealists and some who are futurists. And some who don't fit only into one of those categories, which is where I would put myself. I have more of an idealist view of the book of Revelation, but it does refer to specific past, current, ongoing and future events as well (past, current, ongoing and future as of the time it was written).

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

You can see here that John was told to write about things that had happened in the past, were happening at the time and that would happen after that (which includes ongoing and future realities and events).

In terms of viewing Christ's reign and Satan's binding as having begun at His resurrection, most Amillennialists, including partial preterists, are in agreement with that and in agreement that the thousands years is not literal and began back then.

Thanks for the commentary.

Generally speaking, I try to stay clear of threads dedicated to either Amil or partiel preterism - because my experience in the past tells me such discussions are fruitless because neither is logically sound. So I will just stick primarily to the futurist dominate threads.

 

[claninja]

Are Amillennialists and partial preterists more or less in the same camp ?

Preterism, historicism, futurism, and idealism are eschatological beliefs.

Amil is not necessarily an eschatological belief. An amil can fall into any of the four camps I listed above.

 

[claninja]

I don't pretend to be a Greek expert the way you do. That's a big difference between us.

Yet, those scholars and academics don't always agree with each other, In fact, they often disagree. So, what does it prove to reference one of them? Nothing.

How would you know if the source was trustworthy and reliable or not? You wouldn't. So, that's a waste of time.

I don't pretend to be a Greek expert the way you do. That's a big difference between us.

Yet, those scholars and academics don't always agree with each other, In fact, they often disagree. So, what does it prove to reference one of them? Nothing.

How would you know if the source was trustworthy and reliable or not? You wouldn't. So, that's a waste of time.

So, in your opinion, unless one is an actual Greek scholar, one can’t provide definitions of Greek words from scholarly sources or links to how Greek grammatical constructions work from credible sources?

it seems that one can only provide those sources if it agrees with your position? Everyone else is just being a “self professed Greek expert”?

A better argument would be to just point out where I am wrong on my understanding of the Greek grammatical construct.

If only you knew how hard you are to follow sometimes. I can't make any sense of what you said here. And I did try. I just can't follow it. It's clear to me that it's talking about the restraining of wickedness/iniquity at that time even though the mystery of wickedness/iniquity was already at work to an extent at that time. It was being restrained until a future time before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. When he is taken out of the way, it means there is no longer any restraint at that point and it results in the mass falling away that Paul talked about.

And, again, let me reiterate that these are things that Paul says will happen before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. THAT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. You have no way around that. Until you interpret the passage in that context, you will continue to interpret the passage wrongly. That's the bottom line for me and I will never change my view on that. I am 100% convinced that the context of the passage centers around the FUTURE second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him in the air as Paul wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

I’ll make it simple. No where does 2 Thessalonians 2 state the man of lawlessness’ arrival was future, and no where does the passage say that wickedness was being restrained.

The “revealing” of the man of lawlessness was future. The restraining of this revealing was presently happening in Paul’s days.

2 Thessalonians 2:3, 6 Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the apostasy occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed

6And you know what is now restraining, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

the mystery of the man of lawlessness was already at work in Paul’s day, which is consistent with paul stating the man of sin “is” by the works of Satan, but his revealing was being restrained in his day.

What was future, was NOT the arrival of the man of sin, but the revealing of the man of sin, who was already mysteriously at work, but whose revealing was then being restrained.

From the disciples' perspective, that is true. They naturally would have thought that the destruction of the temple building would occur at the end of the age. However, Jesus was not obligated to answer them from THEIR perspective, He answered them from HIS perspective.

This is similar to Acts 1:6-8 where the disciples asked Him "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

Ok, so it appears we agree that from the disciples perspectives, they were asking “by what SIGN shall we know of your presence at the end of the age/when the temple will be destroyed” in response to “not one stone upon another”.

I don't care what means something to you or not. It means something to me.

Ok

And if you ever come to understand that this is true, then you will then have to not only readjust your understanding of 2 Thess 2, but of other scriptures as well. Agree?

Agreed in a sense. It wouldn’t change my position that the man of lawlessness was already and work, by the power of satan. It would change my understanding of the man of sin being a singular person. Obviously, a singular man would be dead already. therefore it would have to be understood as an “organization” that has been working in secret for the last 2,000 years by the power of satan, and wouldn’t be revealed until end. This would be with the presupposition that 2 Thessalonians was truly written by Paul and not a forgery, like some modern scholars believe.

You're talking about text that was clearly within books that contained a great deal of symbolism. Is that the case for 1 Thessalonians? Is that a prophetic book where Paul uses a bunch of symbolism? No. So, there is no basis for thinking he was not being literal in the 1 Thess 4 passage. Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead or not? If so, when do you think it happens? Did Paul not also indicate that it happens at Christ's second coming in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23? I believe he clearly did. So, I see no basis whatsoever for concluding that Paul was talking about anything but the bodily return of Christ in passages like 1 Thess 4:13-18, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and 2 Thess 2:1-12. But, because you are so married to preterism you can't allow yourself to acknowledge this.

I’ve already addressed this, and didn’t have much else to say.

Why do you keep lying? I have indicated MANY times now where I see his binding being referenced in scripture and how it talks about a restraint of wickedness for a time with it being unrestrained at a later time resulting in increased wickedness and a mass falling away from the faith. So, no matter what you say, my understanding of his binding DOES NOT hinge solely on Revelation 20. And the same is the case for other aspects of Revelation 20, such as Christ's reign, His followers reigning with Him as priests, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment.

It’s not a lie. You have literally provided zero gospel or epistolic passages, outside of revelation 20, that clearly and specifically teach Satan would be bound for thousands of years and then released to war against the church.

You argue this was hinted, with not exact words, via a future “mass” falling away. BUT…..

A “mass” falling away was already occurring according to John. He literally said a “mass” amount of antichrists have come and gone out from the church.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Thanks for the commentary.

Generally speaking, I try to stay clear of threads dedicated to either Amil or partiel preterism - because my experience in the past tells me such discussions are fruitless because neither is logically sound. So I will just stick primarily to the futurist dominate threads.

You can do what you want, of course. It doesn't matter to me what you do. But I, of course, completely disagree with your take on Amil, though I do agree that partial preterism is not logically sound.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So, in your opinion, unless one is an actual Greek scholar, one can’t provide definitions of Greek words from scholarly sources or links to how Greek grammatical constructions work from credible sources?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that none of the Greek scholars that put out lexicons and concordances and such are infallible. I'd say their definitions of Greek words can mostly be trusted. There are multiple definitions for most Greek words just as is the case in English.

But, my point is that we can't assume they are correct if they offer their opinion on which definition should be used in any given verse. It seems like you put much more trust in the interpretations of those Greek scholars than I do even though they don't even all agree in their interpretations. They mostly agree on the definitions of Greek words and that makes them good sources, but we don't need them to tell us which definition of a word applies to any given verse. We need to spiritually discern that for ourselves.

it seems that one can only provide those sources if it agrees with your position? Everyone else is just being a “self professed Greek expert”?

Nope. You completely misunderstood me.

A better argument would be to just point out where I am wrong on my understanding of the Greek grammatical construct.

I am not a Greek expert, either, and am not going to pretend to be one. You want to focus on the Greek grammatical construct, but I would prefer to focus on what the timing of a passage like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 centers around, which is the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him which Paul references in verse 1. That is the starting point for understanding that passage for me. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to do the same. I guess that would be because you don't know what Paul is referring to in verse 1.

I’ll make it simple. No where does 2 Thessalonians 2 state the man of lawlessness’ arrival was future, and no where does the passage say that wickedness was being restrained.

The “revealing” of the man of lawlessness was future. The restraining of this revealing was presently happening in Paul’s days.

2 Thessalonians 2:3, 6 Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the apostasy occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed

6And you know what is now restraining, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

the mystery of the man of lawlessness was already at work in Paul’s day, which is consistent with paul stating the man of sin “is” by the works of Satan, but his revealing was being restrained in his day.

What was future, was NOT the arrival of the man of sin, but the revealing of the man of sin, who was already mysteriously at work, but whose revealing was then being restrained.

It's not just talking about restraining the revealing of the man of sin, but also about restraining iniquity. It was occurring in his day, but was being restrained. The falling away he referenced was to be something that would be a sign of the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. That lines up with the idea of iniquity being restrained to an extent at that time and later being unrestrained, resulting in the falling away and revealing of the man of sin (revealing of the fact that people will have lost their faith and essentially replaced trusting in the true God with trusting in themselves, thereby essentially making themselves God).

Again, I have to point out that my starting point for understanding all of this is that it relates to a time before the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. As long as you disagree with me on that, then we will remain far apart in our understanding of the passage, overall.

Ok, so it appears we agree that from the disciples perspectives, they were asking “by what SIGN shall we know of your presence at the end of the age/when the temple will be destroyed” in response to “not one stone upon another”.

Sure, that's quite possible. I don't know how we can know that for sure. Did they yet have a full understanding of His second coming at the end of the age and all that entails at that point? No. So, it makes sense to me that they might ask a question based on a flawed understanding of what His second coming at the end of the age would entail. Just like they didn't have a full understanding of His kingdom, as evidenced by the question they asked Him in Acts 1:6.

Agreed in a sense. It wouldn’t change my position that the man of lawlessness was already and work, by the power of satan. It would change my understanding of the man of sin being a singular person. Obviously, a singular man would be dead already. therefore it would have to be understood as an “organization” that has been working in secret for the last 2,000 years by the power of satan, and wouldn’t be revealed until end.

So, this would mean that you also would still believe that the mass falling away Paul referenced was already occurring at that time? Please explain why Paul would talk about things that had to happen before the still future second coming of Christ if those things, like the falling away, were happening already around 2,000 years (or more) before He actually comes again?

Isn't it implied that he was talking about something that would happen shortly before the second coming and could be a sign that His coming was near? Assuming he was talking about Christ's yet future second coming, you would conclude that he indicated that a mass falling away that would last for at least around 2,000 years had to occur first?

Or would it be your view that the mass falling away already happened long ago and is not still ongoing today? If so, how would that make sense? It seems clear that Paul was indicating that the falling away would have to happen first before Christ's return and would be happening up until Christ's return.

This would be with the presupposition that 2 Thessalonians was truly written by Paul and not a forgery, like some modern scholars believe.

All I can say about this is that I believe that is complete nonsense.

It’s not a lie. You have literally provided zero gospel or epistolic passages, outside of revelation 20, that clearly and specifically teach Satan would be bound for thousands of years and then released to war against the church.

I don't share that opinion. Obviously.

You argue this was hinted, with not exact words, via a future “mass” falling away. BUT…..

A “mass” falling away was already occurring according to John. He literally said a “mass” amount of antichrists have come and gone out from the church.

Where did John indicate that those antichrists had fallen away from the faith? It seems to me that in 1 John 2:18-19 he indicated that the ones who left never had faith to begin with. I don't believe that is the same context as what Paul was talking about. I believe Paul was talking about people who actually have faith and then they later lose their faith.

 

[claninja]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that none of the Greek scholars that put out lexicons and concordances and such are infallible. I'd say their definitions of Greek words can mostly be trusted. There are multiple definitions for most Greek words just as is the case in English.

But, my point is that we can't assume they are correct if they offer their opinion on which definition should be used in any given verse. It seems like you put much more trust in the interpretations of those Greek scholars than I do even though they don't even all agree in their interpretations. They mostly agree on the definitions of Greek words and that makes them good sources, but we don't need them to tell us which definition of a word applies to any given verse. We need to spiritually discern that for ourselves.

I am not a Greek expert, either, and am not going to pretend to be one. You want to focus on the Greek grammatical construct, but I would prefer to focus on what the timing of a passage like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 centers around, which is the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him which Paul references in verse 1. That is the starting point for understanding that passage for me. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to do the same. I guess that would be because you don't know what Paul is referring to in verse 1.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that none of the Greek scholars that put out lexicons and concordances and such are infallible. I'd say their definitions of Greek words can mostly be trusted. There are multiple definitions for most Greek words just as is the case in English.

But, my point is that we can't assume they are correct if they offer their opinion on which definition should be used in any given verse. It seems like you put much more trust in the interpretations of those Greek scholars than I do even though they don't even all agree in their interpretations. They mostly agree on the definitions of Greek words and that makes them good sources, but we don't need them to tell us which definition of a word applies to any given verse. We need to spiritually discern that for ourselves.

Nope. You completely misunderstood me.

I am not a Greek expert, either, and am not going to pretend to be one. You want to focus on the Greek grammatical construct, but I would prefer to focus on what the timing of a passage like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 centers around, which is the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him which Paul references in verse 1. That is the starting point for understanding that passage for me. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to do the same. I guess that would be because you don't know what Paul is referring to in verse 1.

Can’t read an English Bible without a translator. Words have definitions and words have grammatical constructions that have meaning. I completely agree that you can’t just trust every fallible English translation. That’s why, when studying, I like to review multiple English translations, review commentaries, and study up on the “original” Greek of the passage to get the best picture. I can’t help that you don’t study Greek.


let’s look over at 2 Thessalonians 2. The context: Paul is trying to correct a misunderstanding that the day of the Lord had already occurred or was currently happening in their day. To correct this misunderstanding, 2 things had to first occur prior to the day of the Lord - 1.) the apostasy and 2.) the revealing of the man of sin.

So i think we can safely agree that Paul believed: 1.) the day of the Lord, 2.) the apostasy, and 3.) the revealing of the man of sin were all still future.

It's not just talking about restraining the revealing of the man of sin, but also about restraining iniquity. It was occurring in his day, but was being restrained. The falling away he referenced was to be something that would be a sign of the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. That lines up with the idea of iniquity being restrained to an extent at that time and later being unrestrained, resulting in the falling away and revealing of the man of sin (revealing of the fact that people will have lost their faith and essentially replaced trusting in the true God with trusting in themselves, thereby essentially making themselves God).

Again, I have to point out that my starting point for understanding all of this is that it relates to a time before the future second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. As long as you disagree with me on that, then we will remain far apart in our understanding of the passage, overall.

Please point out where it says wickedness was being restrained?

2 Thessalonians 2:7 7For the mystery (subject) of the lawlessness (genitive noun) is already at work. Only he (ho) who now is restraining (present active participle) until he is out of the way.


1.) The nominative noun, or subject of the sentence, of vs 7 is “mystery”. “Restraining” is a present active participle following the article (ho), which means it’s an attributive, or an adjective describing a person. In other words it should be understood as “the restraining one” or “one who restrains”. additionally, [it] is inserted into the passage by some, but not all translators. So IF the restrainer is restraining this inserted [it], what would be the antecedent? why are you understanding this inserted antecedent as lawlessness, when mystery is the actual subject of vs 7? in other words, it should be understood as:

“The mystery of the lawless is already at work, only he who is now restraining [the mystery]…….


2.) the noun for the lawless in vs 7 is the same as vs 8. The only difference would be that vs is genitive, and vs 8 is nominative. Additionally, [one] is not in the original Greek, it is inserted, but only in vs 8. I would argue, in agreement with the syriac manuscripts, that [one] should be inserted in vs 7 as well. In other words, it should be understood as:

“the mystery of the lawless [one] is already at work, only he who now restrains it [the mystery] until he might be out of the midst and then the lawless [one] will be revealed.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 7For the mystery of the lawlessness (genitive noun) is already at work. Only he who now restrains will do so until he is out of the way. 8And then the lawless (nominative noun) [one] one will be revealed,

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,.... Or "the mystery of that wicked one", as the Syriac; meaning either antichrist himself, and the spirit of antichrist, which were already in the world, 1 John 2:18, "mystery" being one of the names of antichrist, Revelation 17:5 and anciently this word was engraven on the mitres of the popes of Rome:” - John gill

The overall point is that the passage never says lawlessness was being restrained and the passage never says the arrival of the man of sin was future, regardless of your position on the 2nd advent.

So, this would mean that you also would still believe that the mass falling away Paul referenced was already occurring at that time? Please explain why Paul would talk about things that had to happen before the still future second coming of Christ if those things, like the falling away, were happening already around 2,000 years (or more) before He actually comes again?

Isn't it implied that he was talking about something that would happen shortly before the second coming and could be a sign that His coming was near? Assuming he was talking about Christ's yet future second coming, you would conclude that he indicated that a mass falling away that would last for at least around 2,000 years had to occur first?

Or would it be your view that the mass falling away already happened long ago and is not still ongoing today? If so, how would that make sense? It seems clear that Paul was indicating that the falling away would have to happen first before Christ's return and would be happening up until Christ's return.

If we are still arguing under the experimental assumption that I believe 2 Thessalonians 2 is about the 2nd advent then……..

John said a mass number had fallen away from the church, that is how they knew it was the last hour. So I would just pull the old “the last days have been occurring for the last 2,000 years” card. The mass falling away began in the first century and continues until this secret organization, which has already been at work, is finally revealed. Paul simply revealed 2 events near (in Gods time, not necessarily near in human understanding) to the 2nd advent.

I don't share that opinion. Obviously.

It’s an objective fact that you have provided zero passages from the gospels and/or epistles that clearly teach of Satan being locked up for thousands of years and then released to war against the church, outside of revelation 20.

Even you have admitted “not in those words”. If your belief doesn’t hinge solely upon revelation 20, pretend it doesn’t exist, and you should be able to provide clear and specific apostolic teaching on Satan being bound for thousands of years to then be released for a little time.

Where did John indicate that those antichrists had fallen away from the faith? It seems to me that in 1 John 2:18-19 he indicated that the ones who left never had faith to begin with. I don't believe that is the same context as what Paul was talking about. I believe Paul was talking about people who actually have faith and then they later lose their faith.

Paul said the wicked deception is specifically for those who “refused to love the truth and be saved”. so I’m not sure what you mean as far as different context compared to John.

2 Thessalonians 2 10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Can’t read an English Bible without a translator. Words have definitions and words have grammatical constructions that have meaning. I completely agree that you can’t just trust every fallible English translation. That’s why, when studying, I like to review multiple English translations, review commentaries, and study up on the “original” Greek of the passage to get the best picture. I can’t help that you don’t study Greek.

LOL! I do those same things and never said otherwise. The difference between you and me in this respect as that I acknowledge that, while I do reference Greek resources, I do not claim or act as if I'm a Greek expert like you do. Not that being a Greek expert guarantees you will interpret everything correctly. The translators of our English translations were all Greek experts but they didn't always agree on what some verses were saying, which explains why some verses are translated quite differently in one translation than they are in another.

let’s look over at 2 Thessalonians 2. The context: Paul is trying to correct a misunderstanding that the day of the Lord had already occurred or was currently happening in their day. To correct this misunderstanding, 2 things had to first occur prior to the day of the Lord - 1.) the apostasy and 2.) the revealing of the man of sin.

Actually, Paul was warning them about not believing anyone who tried to tell them that the day of the Lord had already occurred or was currently occurring. It wasn't necessarily the case that any of them were believing that. Apparently, Paul had either heard some of them were believing that or he was concerned that some of them might believe that if anyone told them that. Anyway, I guess this is beside the point, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

So i think we can safely agree that Paul believed: 1.) the day of the Lord, 2.) the apostasy, and 3.) the revealing of the man of sin were all still future.

Yes, I think that is quite clear.

Please point out where it says wickedness was being restrained?

2 Thessalonians 2:7 7For the mystery (subject) of the lawlessness (genitive noun) is already at work. Only he (ho) who now is restraining (present active participle) until he is out of the way.


1.) The nominative noun, or subject of the sentence, of vs 7 is “mystery”. “Restraining” is a present active participle following the article (ho), which means it’s an attributive, or an adjective describing a person. In other words it should be understood as “the restraining one” or “one who restrains”. additionally, [it] is inserted into the passage by some, but not all translators. So IF the restrainer is restraining this inserted [it], what would be the antecedent? why are you understanding this inserted antecedent as lawlessness, when mystery is the actual subject of vs 7? in other words, it should be understood as:

“The mystery of the lawless is already at work, only he who is now restraining [the mystery]…….

So, this is a great example of what I mean when I say that you pretend to be a Greek expert. I'm fine that you're trying to apply Greek grammar rules and such to this passage, but how do you know you're applying them correctly? It seems that what you are actually doing is applying English grammar rules to the text as it was translated in the KJV? Is that correct?

Anyway, this is how the text reads in the NIV:

2 Thessalonians 2:7 (NIV): For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

As you can see here, the NIV translators, who understood Greek much better than you or I do (I hope you are humble enough to agree) translated the verse in such a way that it indicates that while the secret of lawlessness was already at work in Paul's day, it was still being held back and restrained to some extent and would continue to be restrained until "the one who now holds it back...is taken out of the way".

So, there you go. I hate when this kind of thing turns into an argument over which translation is better, but it is what it is. I believe the NIV translation of this verse is accurate. And, since Paul was talking about something that would occur during a time before the still future second coming of Christ, it also fits with what Jesus taught in Matthew 24 about how wickedness would increase just before His second coming at the end of the age. That implies that wickedness was previously restrained to some extent before it increased.

Even you must acknowledge that Jesus taught that wickedness was restrained for some period of time, at least, since He referenced a time when wickedness would increase and the low of most would grow cold (Matthew 24:12). So, why would you not think that the time period of increased wickedness (and the implied previous time of restrained wickedness) Jesus referenced would not have ever been referenced elsewhere in scripture as well?

2.) the noun for the lawless in vs 7 is the same as vs 8. The only difference would be that vs is genitive, and vs 8 is nominative. Additionally, [one] is not in the original Greek, it is inserted, but only in vs 8. I would argue, in agreement with the syriac manuscripts, that [one] should be inserted in vs 7 as well. In other words, it should be understood as:

“the mystery of the lawless [one] is already at work, only he who now restrains it [the mystery] until he might be out of the midst and then the lawless [one] will be revealed.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 7For the mystery of the lawlessness (genitive noun) is already at work. Only he who now restrains will do so until he is out of the way. 8And then the lawless (nominative noun) [one] one will be revealed,

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,.... Or "the mystery of that wicked one", as the Syriac; meaning either antichrist himself, and the spirit of antichrist, which were already in the world, 1 John 2:18, "mystery" being one of the names of antichrist, Revelation 17:5 and anciently this word was engraven on the mitres of the popes of Rome:” - John gill

The overall point is that the passage never says lawlessness was being restrained and the passage never says the arrival of the man of sin was future, regardless of your position on the 2nd advent.

I believe it does say that lawlessness was being restrained. You have chosen to trust one source or set of sources over another. It just so happens that the manuscripts and our English translations are not all in agreement on this verse, so we are left to spiritually discern what Paul was saying there. You made valid points based on the particular manuscripts and English translation you have decided to agree with, but the fact is that what you're showing is not the only original Greek manuscript and not the only English translation of the verse.

If we are still arguing under the experimental assumption that I believe 2 Thessalonians 2 is about the 2nd advent then……..

John said a mass number had fallen away from the church, that is how they knew it was the last hour. So I would just pull the old “the last days have been occurring for the last 2,000 years” card. The mass falling away began in the first century and continues until this secret organization, which has already been at work, is finally revealed. Paul simply revealed 2 events near (in Gods time, not necessarily near in human understanding) to the 2nd advent.

A mass falling away lasting for at least 2,000 years or so? You really think it would make sense to conclude that Paul was talking about something that had to occur first before the second coming and that thing was something that would begin at least 2,000 years or so before the second coming? I certainly can't make any sense of that.

It’s an objective fact that you have provided zero passages from the gospels and/or epistles that clearly teach of Satan being locked up for thousands of years and then released to war against the church, outside of revelation 20.

Not clear to you, anyway. But, what I have provided to back up my view surely is much more reasonable than just claiming that Revelation 20 is an allegory. Since when would an allegory have the kind of detail that we see in Revelation 20 in terms of speaking of a time period with a beginning and an end while also referring to a short time period following the end of the longer time period? Can you think of any other parable or allegory in all of scripture that would be similar in that sense? I sure can't. I do not believe that a parable or allegory would contain details like that. Only in reality would it make sense to refer to a time period with a beginning and an ending and to a short time period following that.

What does a long period of time with a beginning and ending and a shorter time period following that even mean in an allegorical sense? Can you even answer that question? Based on your previous comments on Revelation 20, I think you probably can't. Yet, you completely dismiss my view just because I can't prove the timing of Satan's binding and loosing clearly enough to satisfy you. How is your view any clearer than mine when it comes to what Revelation 20 means?

Even you have admitted “not in those words”. If your belief doesn’t hinge solely upon revelation 20, pretend it doesn’t exist, and you should be able to provide clear and specific apostolic teaching on Satan being bound for thousands of years to then be released for a little time.

I believe I can. I can't help it that you disagree with my interpretations of scripture. To me, passages like Matthew 24:10-12 and 2 Thess 2:1-12 clearly speak of a time of increased wickedness before Christ's yet future return at the end of the age which implies that wickedness is restrained before that time. In the 2 Thess 2 passage, Paul indicates that the increase in wickedness and revealing of the man of sin is in conjunction with Satan's power being loosed and unrestrained during that time. I say that since it refers to the powerful deception taking place through lying signs and wonders is according to Satan's works. The deceptive power comes from Satan, in other words, and appears to not be restrained at that point since it talks about it coming "with all power and signs and lying wonders". It seems that even if it was already at work before that it wasn't at work with "all power and signs and lying wonders".

Paul said the wicked deception is specifically for those who “refused to love the truth and be saved”. so I’m not sure what you mean as far as different context compared to John.

2 Thessalonians 2 10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

That isn't talking about those who fall away unless he was talking in terms of people who refused to continue loving the truth and so be saved in the end. People who would fit the context of what he warned about in Hebrews 3:12-14, in other words. Otherwise, he would be talking particularly about those who are deceived and don't get saved and don't fall away there. You're not recognizing that the ones referenced in 1 John 2:18-19 did not fall away. How could it be said of those who were never "of us", as in were never Christians, to fall away? That's not my understanding of what the Greek word "apostasia" is referring to in 2 Thess 2.

It's also a different context from what John wrote in the sense that Paul was talking about something that would occur just before the still yet future second coming of Christ and John was not. But, you already said that if you determined that I'm correct that 2 Thess 2 relates to the still future second coming of Christ, you would still somehow think that the falling away already began almost 2,000 years ago. Again, I can't make any sense of that, but whatever.