A (Lord willing) better job of interpreting 2Thessalonians 2

[George Antonios]

I welcome your criticisms, but please make sure your watch it first.
If you can shoot a (legitimate) hole in it, I want to know.

 

[Revmitchell]

"shoot a legitimate hole in it"

Yes well given your perimeters let's all jump on that!

 

[atpollard]

I believe that you may have a “begging the question” fallacy in your argument.

For example, you start out presenting a list of verses where the “day of the Lord” IS the second coming; then claim that the phrase “day of the Lord” does not mean the Second Coming in every case; and present only one example in which you claim it “CANNOT” mean the second coming ... unfortunately, your only supporting example is the very verse you are attempting to prove does not mean the second coming. Your argument can, therefore, be summarized as “The proof that the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians does not mean the second coming of Jesus, is because it cannot mean the second coming of Jesus.” That is the definition of “begging the question”.

You have begun from the position that it must mean something, therefore you are forcing it to mean what you have presupposed it to mean.

• Why could the day of the Lord not be the day of his return and the day that the dead in Christ rise first, then we who are alive will be caught up with them to meet Him (Jesus) in the air?
• What in 2 Thessalonians precludes the obvious conclusion that it simply means exactly what it says ... that we should not allow people to trick us into thinking that we have missed the return of the Lord and “these things” must precede that day?

(PS. I admit to only investing 10 minutes in your monologue. If it takes 45 minutes to make your point, you do not really have a point to make. It should only take 5 minutes to lay out your premise and then develop your logical points supporting it. ... Classic Rhetoric: Ethos, Logos, Pathos.)

 

[George Antonios]

For example, you start out presenting a list of verses where the “day of the Lord” IS the second coming; then claim that the phrase “day of the Lord” does not mean the Second Coming in every case; and present only one example in which you claim it “CANNOT” mean the second coming ...

I did the exact opposite. I presented a list of verses where "the day of Christ" (and variations) are the rapture of the church/judgment seat of Christ [not the 2nd coming], and then 2 verses where it is the second advent to earth.
That "the day of the Lord" has multiple applications is a generally recognized fact. I'm not sure what the issue is here.
And I presented one (actually two) examples saying that it IS the 2nd coming. Again, I did the very opposite of what you understood. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but you understood the opposite of what I said.

(PS. I admit to only investing 10 minutes in your monologue. If it takes 45 minutes to make your point, you do not really have a point to make. It should only take 5 minutes to lay out your premise and then develop your logical points supporting it. ... Classic Rhetoric: Ethos, Logos, Pathos.)

I'm sure I can study to be a better teacher, but it wasn't 45 minutes to 1 point; it was 45 minutes to expound 8 verses.

And how exactly did I presuppose anything? Just because I don't spend an hour preparing the ground for every required point doesn't mean I am presupposing. I guess one tends to pre-suppose when one watches but a part of something.

 

[George Antonios]

"shoot a legitimate hole in it"

Yes well given your perimeters let's all jump on that!

Yes well every one has such parameters, they just don't usually say it. I've had replies where people didn't even listen to the video. And I've had replies to which I said "good point". So now, feel free to jump on that