If You Open This Seal You're Dead !

[Solo]

.....Matthew adds parables with the apparent theme of the Parousia's delay--Matthew 24:44 "Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour." 24:50: "...the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know." 25:5..."As the bridegroom was delayed..." 13 "Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour." 19 "After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them"--and Luke discourages eschatological speculation (Acts 1:6-7).

Curious about this: the logia above seem to derive from Pauline saying in the First Thessalonians:

1 Th 5:2 For you yourselves know perfectly (autoi gar akribos oidate) that the day of the Lord so (houtos) comes (erchetai - 3rd person sing. present middle) as a thief in the night (NKJV)

Many translators prefer to render "erchetai" in the sentence as "will come", obviously in the belief that Paul was referring only to the second coming. But that can hardly be the case if you examine the text around the strange description of the Lord's day. First, and foremost, the statement relates to something Paul's "afflicted saints" in Thessalonia know "themselves perfectly well": i.e. something that does not relate to what they were taught by Paul but something they have already been through on their own.

Can you wade through the apparent gibberish of Paul and tell me what on earth is he talking about ?

While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.

You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.

So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self‑controlled.

For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night.

But since we belong to the day, let us be self‑controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.

For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is it some sort of experience of a hugely destructive nature that Paul and his friends were through, and survived - climbed out of, so to speak - that informs this passage ? What do you think ? Could it be that they are the "conquerors" who Rev 2:11 assures us shall not be hurt by the second death ?

Hmmmm..... I have the answer here but you may not open this seal ( http://www.answers.com/topic/annihilation-anxieties?cat=health), for it will surely kiil you !

Jiri

[Clivedurdle]

apparent gibberish It is very clear to me - it is what believing in salvation means - everyone else will be lost - drowned, overwhelmed by earthquake, volcano, armegeddon birthpangs whatever but those that believe on the Lord, who watch their lights safely through the night will be safe in the bosom of Jesus.

Sometimes it puzzles me on this site how ignorant people seem of the basic emotions of xianity!

Has no one else heard a myriad sermons on these themes?

[ashurbanipal]

Paul is talking about a particular magical secret that has to do with how to create a soul--a Ruach, if you will--that survives the dispersive forces encountered after death. This secret is the central secret of Christianity (and of many other religions, in fact). Paul's discussion of it in public lent itself to the sorts of exoteric interpretations that morphed quickly into the doctrines of Christianity we see today.

The "second coming of Christ" originally referred to something that would happen internally--within the adherant to the mystery and (this is important) the practicioner of the secret. It was this that guaranteed salvation--i.e. that when the disembodied soul encountered the forces of dispersion after death, they would not be powerful enough to blow that soul apart.

I suggest intense study of John's First Epistle, Chapter 5, along with the first Chapter of his Gospel and the first five chapters of the book of Genesis, for an explanation of that secret in the most publically accessible form available in any of the Christian Canon. It is stated a little more explicitly in the opening books of the Zohar. You can see it in the myth of Eurynome. You can also find it layed out with some clarity in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I recommend the Wasserman edition. Really, it's all over the place in ancient myth; you just have to piece it together.

And that is all I will say...

[Civil1z@tion]

Hmmmm..... I have the answer here but you may not open this seal ( http://www.answers.com/topic/annihilation-anxieties?cat=health), for it will surely kiil you !

Jiri

Oh thanks a lot for that temptation. I opened the seal and died. Even worst, I came back as a zombie. Thanks a lot...

[Solo]

apparent gibberish It is very clear to me - it is what believing in salvation means - everyone else will be lost - drowned, overwhelmed by earthquake, volcano, armegeddon birthpangs whatever but those that believe on the Lord, who watch their lights safely through the night will be safe in the bosom of Jesus.

Sometimes it puzzles me on this site how ignorant people seem of the basic emotions of xianity!

Has no one else heard a myriad sermons on these themes?

May not be the same thing, Clive. At any rate, who would come up with an idea like Armaggeddon, and where would it not be laughed off as a crazy cuckoo theory? Jehovah's Witnesses today have an everchanging schedule for the final collapse of the world, but that's a ritualized, secondary adaptation, carried on by tradition. But this stuff seems to have originated at a certain point in history in a certain culture. How did it get punched through ? Who were the ones who believed it first ?

What did Paul mean by "destruction will come upon them suddenly" ? or "stealthily" like a thief ? What would be the experiential material for that ?

What does he mean by "those who sleep, sleep at night" ? Why would one want to stay awake at night ? To do what ? To put a breastplate of love and helmet of salvation ? Funny costumes instead of sex ? (At any rate: not much night life in the Mediteranean antiquity, I am told).

See what I am getting at ?

Jiri

[Ben C Smith]

Many translators prefer to render "erchetai" in the sentence as "will come", obviously in the belief that Paul was referring only to the second coming.

In Greek, as in English, the present tense of verbs of coming or going can function as a future. Try is coming (the Greek has no special form for the present progressive as English does) in this verse and the event sounds future (it is coming, but has not arrived yet).

A clear example is the LXX of Zechariah 2.14: I am coming (present tense) and will tabernacle (a true future tense) among you.

It is my view that the day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5.2 is, from context, the resurrection event discussed in 4.16. This would be a singular, future event, not an ongoing process. By far the closest and densest parallels to 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 are in the Olivet discourse in Matthew (there are also parallels with Mark and Luke, but the Matthean parallels swallow the Marcan parallels whole and greatly outnumber the Lucan parallels (http://www.textexcavation.com/olivetpaul.html)).

First, and foremost, the statement relates to something Paul's "afflicted saints" in Thessalonia know "themselves perfectly well": i.e. something that does not relate to what they were taught by Paul but something they have already been through on their own.

I think Paul had already instructed the Thessalonians on the advent of Jesus, the son (1.10), but had not dealt with the matter of the dead (4.13). The parts of his discussion that fall into chapter 4, then, are the new stuff (I do not want you to be ignorant); the parts that fall into chapter 5 are the old (you know perfectly well, since I told you when I founded the church in the first place).

Ben.

[Solo]

Many translators prefer to render "erchetai" in the sentence as "will come", obviously in the belief that Paul was referring only to the second coming.

In Greek, as in English, the present tense of verbs of coming or going can function as a future. Try is coming (the Greek has no special form for the present progressive as English does) in this verse and the event sounds future (it is coming, but has not arrived yet).

A clear example is the LXX of Zechariah 2.14: I am coming (present tense) and will tabernacle (a true future tense) among you.


I understand that, Ben. I know it can be read that way - and will be read that way. But I agree with those translators who use the present tense and suspect that they are mindful of the two intesifiers "you yourselves" and "so comes". I believe those indicate strongly the repetitive nature of the experience interpreted as the future "coming".


It is my view that the day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5.2 is, from context, the resurrection event discussed in 4.16. This would be a singular, future event, not an ongoing process.


The experiences are not really ongoing but repetitve. Accept for a while that Paul interprets his recurring ecstatic highs as elaborations on the coming day of the Lord - God gives them to Paul to interpret for his churches, and the saints in them who come down similarly "afflicted" after their highs. Now, one thing I have noticed about this early Paul letter - the use of the first person plural when speaking of the gospel. He uses it at times in his letters that follow but what makes 1 Thess special is the lack of exclusionist posture which he adopts later. The 'we' of the first epistle cross-references to common properties of the group he speaks for (kardias in 2:4, psychas in 2:8).


By far the closest and densest parallels to 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 are in the Olivet discourse in Matthew (there are also parallels with Mark and Luke, but the Matthean parallels swallow the Marcan parallels whole and greatly outnumber the Lucan parallels (http://www.textexcavation.com/olivetpaul.html)).


No problem with that Ben and you will have no problem with that either if you revert (partially) to your previous Wells' mythicist view It really does look like a literary dependency of the gospels on Paul. But these are texts that adapted Paul's toolbox for the gospel function in the later communities. They have the Jesus stamp on them which profoundly obscures how the conceptual implements were deployed in the earliest gatherings around Paul.

First, and foremost, the statement relates to something Paul's "afflicted saints" in Thessalonia know "themselves perfectly well": i.e. something that does not relate to what they were taught by Paul but something they have already been through on their own.

I think Paul had already instructed the Thessalonians on the advent of Jesus, the son (1.10), but had not dealt with the matter of the dead (4.13). The parts of his discussion that fall into chapter 4, then, are the new stuff (I do not want you to be ignorant); the parts that fall into chapter 5 are the old (you know perfectly well, since I told you when I founded the church in the first place).

The thing to keep in mind, this is still the "early" Paul much of whose theology comes in crude and unfinished. In 1 Thess re relies much on the the commonality of his experience with that of the saints. It's the pneuma itself that teaches. The saints themselves still have direct access to God without Paul's agency - you noticed that ? It's God through the Holy Spirit that commands Paul's flock. You yourselves have been taught by God to love another (4:9). The same phrasing as in the "thief in the night" (5:9).

Jiri

[Ben C Smith]

But I agree with those translators who use the present tense and suspect that they are mindful of the two intesifiers "you yourselves" and "so comes". I believe those indicate strongly the repetitive nature of the experience interpreted as the future "coming".

....

You yourselves have been taught by God to love another (4:9). The same phrasing as in the "thief in the night" (5:9).

The translation has you yourselves only because the pronoun you (υμεις, unnecessary in Greek grammar) is present; this, presumably, is the intensifier you are referring to. But surely the intensifying pronoun υμεις is far too common in Paul to indicate what you are trying to get out of it. You yourselves are taught by God? Fine. But in 2.10 you yourselves (υμεις) are witnesses of how Paul and company acted toward you; in 2.14 (if genuine) you yourselves (υμεις) became imitators of Judean churches; in 2.20 you yourselves are the glory and joy of your founding apostle. In 5.2, the verse in question (you yourselves know), the intensifier is not even υμεις; it is αυτοι. What does that mean? Probably nothing, just like the rest of the many instances of υμεις in Paul in general and in 1 Thessalonians in particular.

The 'we' of the first epistle cross-references to common properties of the group he speaks for (kardias in 2:4, psychas in 2:8).

I fear I do not understand this. In 2.4 we are entrusted with the gospel, pleasing not men but the God who examines our hearts. I think this we is Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. In 2.8 we imparted to you, not only the gospel, but even our own souls. I am sure this we is Paul and his fellow missionaries.

No problem with that Ben and you will have no problem with that either if you revert (partially) to your previous Wells' mythicist view It really does look like a literary dependency of the gospels on Paul.

I would be interested in arguments (not necessarily on this thread) specifically for a Matthean dependence on Paul.

Ben.

[Solo]

But I agree with those translators who use the present tense and suspect that they are mindful of the two intesifiers "you yourselves" and "so comes". I believe those indicate strongly the repetitive nature of the experience interpreted as the future "coming".

....

You yourselves have been taught by God to love another (4:9). The same phrasing as in the "thief in the night" (5:9).

The translation has you yourselves only because the pronoun you (υμεις, unnecessary in Greek grammar) is present; this, presumably, is the intensifier you are referring to. But surely the intensifying pronoun υμεις is far too common in Paul to indicate what you are trying to get out of it. You yourselves are taught by God? Fine. But in 2.10 you yourselves (υμεις) are witnesses of how Paul and company acted toward you; in 2.14 (if genuine) you yourselves (υμεις) became imitators of Judean churches; in 2.20 you yourselves are the glory and joy of your founding apostle. In 5.2, the verse in question (you yourselves know), the intensifier is not even υμεις; it is αυτοι. What does that mean? Probably nothing, just like the rest of the many instances of υμεις in Paul in general and in 1 Thessalonians in particular.


I was referring to 'autoi' as the one of the 'intensifiers'. You have taken me to a grand tour about 'humeis' but forgot to tell me what the second intensifier ('hotous' - 'so, thus, in this manner') does in the sentence in which the event likened to as "thief in the night" lies wholly in the future and has no other point of reference than Paul's teaching.



I fear I do not understand this. In 2.4 we are entrusted with the gospel, pleasing not men but the God who examines our hearts. I think this we is Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. In 2.8 we imparted to you, not only the gospel, but even our own souls. I am sure this we is Paul and his fellow missionaries.


That could very well be; I think you are right. I don't understand your fear.
All I am saying is that there is an experiential event for the "thief in the night" that is lodged in the apostolic collective, which matches the "afflicted" church members at Thessalonia.

I am testing whether the historical and contemporary descriptions of epileptics, TL-psychosis sufferers (eg. certain kind of bi-polars) and NDE-subjects verbalizing the internal effects of complex TL partial seizures (and auras) matches the allegorical cipher of the "thief".

The event in question is often described by a sudden, unexpected luminosity, either seemingly localized in the body, or , as it were, instantly "filling" the body frame, or dissolving it into another 'ethereal' substnace. The subject is not unconscious but in a state of motor paralysis (or loss of motor control during convulsions), which state is internally received as immensely calming and rewarding. In contrast, in the moments immediately preceding the pseudo-photic phase, the aura announces itself by a hugely visceral fear and panic, which often triggers violent convulsions. Often a number of false auras are presented before the actual seizure.

I don't know if this helps but Teresa of Avila spoke of her experiences of the Lord as 'seeing nothing'. 'Since you see nothing', asked her confessor incredulously, 'how do you know it is Our Lord' ? She replied simply that she saw no face, that she knew it was Our Lord and it was not an illusion....'one sees nothing, wiithin or without...but while seeing nothing the soul understands what it is and where it is more clearly than if you saw him....The soul hears no word, either within or without, but understands quite clearly who it is and where he is and sometimes even what he means to tell. How and by what means [the soul] understands, it does not know, but so it is; and while this is happening it cannot fail to know it' (in M.Rodinson, Mohammed, Pelican. p.74). Teresa was an epileptic.

Jiri

[Ben C Smith]

I was referring to 'autoi' as the one of the 'intensifiers'. You have taken me to a grand tour about 'humeis' but forgot to tell me what the second intensifier ('hotous' - 'so, thus, in this manner') does in the sentence in which the event likened to as "thief in the night" lies wholly in the future and has no other point of reference than Paul's teaching.

The adverb ουτως is not an intensifier; it just coordinates with ως. The effect may be a little formal, but I do not think it is more intense than a simple ως. Here is Ezekiel 36.38 (LXX):

As [ως] the flock for sacrifices, as [ως] the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so [ουτως] will the waste cities be filled with flocks of men.

Compare 1 Thessalonians 5.2:

For you yourselves know full well that, as [ως] a thief in the night, so [ουτως] will the day of the Lord come.


I fear I do not understand this. In 2.4 we are entrusted with the gospel, pleasing not men but the God who examines our hearts. I think this we is Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. In 2.8 we imparted to you, not only the gospel, but even our own souls. I am sure this we is Paul and his fellow missionaries.

That could very well be; I think you are right. I don't understand your fear.

You may not understand it, but you immediately turn around and reinforce it:

All I am saying is that there is an experiential event for the "thief in the night" that is lodged in the apostolic collective, which matches the "afflicted" church members at Thessalonia.

I am testing whether the historical and contemporary descriptions of epileptics, TL-psychosis sufferers (eg. certain kind of bi-polars) and NDE-subjects verbalizing the internal effects of complex TL partial seizures (and auras) matches the allegorical cipher of the "thief".

Right over my head. I am not smart enough to put this all together cogently. Sorry.

The event in question is often described by a sudden, unexpected luminosity, either seemingly localized in the body, or , as it were, instantly "filling" the body frame, or dissolving it into another 'ethereal' substnace. The subject is not unconscious but in a state of motor paralysis (or loss of motor control during convulsions), which state is internally received as immensely calming and rewarding. In contrast, in the moments immediately preceding the pseudo-photic phase, the aura announces itself by a hugely visceral fear and panic, which often triggers violent convulsions. Often a number of false auras are presented before the actual seizure.

I don't know if this helps but Teresa of Avila spoke of her experiences of the Lord as 'seeing nothing'. 'Since you see nothing', asked her confessor incredulously, 'how do you know it is Our Lord' ? She replied simply that she saw no face, that she knew it was Our Lord and it was not an illusion....'one sees nothing, wiithin or without...but while seeing nothing the soul understands what it is and where it is more clearly than if you saw him....The soul hears no word, either within or without, but understands quite clearly who it is and where he is and sometimes even what he means to tell. How and by what means [the soul] understands, it does not know, but so it is; and while this is happening it cannot fail to know it' (in M.Rodinson, Mohammed, Pelican. p.74). Teresa was an epileptic.

I am no stranger to the mystical literature, though I admit I am weak on Teresa of Avila. But I do not know what these deep mystical experiences have directly to do with the day of the Lord, an event repeatedly prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures and here said by Paul, with this thief metaphor, to be a sudden or unexpected event for those who are not ready for it; for his fellow Thessalonian brethren he does not expect it to come as a thief (5.4).

Ben.

[Clivedurdle]

Possibly three directions to explore that interacted here.

Personal visions possibly due to some illness, but remember everything is always interpreted by the brain, so it is not direct.

Gnostic, mystery religion ideas of the secret revealed at the appointed time

Astrological - end of age ideas - end of world beliefs are ubiquitous and may be to do with our fear of death.

This xian stuff has some impressive magick!

[Solo]

I was referring to 'autoi' as the one of the 'intensifiers'. You have taken me to a grand tour about 'humeis' but forgot to tell me what the second intensifier ('hotous' - 'so, thus, in this manner') does in the sentence in which the event likened to as "thief in the night" lies wholly in the future and has no other point of reference than Paul's teaching.

The adverb ουτως is not an intensifier; it just coordinates with ως. The effect may be a little formal, but I do not think it is more intense than a simple ως. Here is Ezekiel 36.38 (LXX):

As [ως] the flock for sacrifices, as [ως] the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so [ουτως] will the waste cities be filled with flocks of men.
Compare 1 Thessalonians 5.2:

For you yourselves know full well that, as [ως] a thief in the night, so [ουτως] will the day of the Lord come.


...or as I read it, 'so does the day of the Lord come'. The cognitive issues here are: how does Paul know, a) that the judgment day will come (soon), and b) in what manner it is to come. What the cognitive referent would be is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Only one question is of interest here: 'when was Paul informed'. I dare say that Paul references something that he has been through repeatedly in the past (comp 1 Th 1:5 w. 1 Cr 2:4). I also infer from 1 Thessalonians that his experience (or vision) of risen Christ is based on the same agency of Holy Spirit that enables the group to discern God's ways without Paul's teaching (they are θεοδιδακτοι 4:8, 'taught by God').

So I feel quite comfortable with my position.



Quote:
I fear I do not understand this. In 2.4 we are entrusted with the gospel, pleasing not men but the God who examines our hearts. I think this we is Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. In 2.8 we imparted to you, not only the gospel, but even our own souls. I am sure this we is Paul and his fellow missionaries.

Quote:
That could very well be; I think you are right. I don't understand your fear.

You may not understand it, but you immediately turn around and reinforce it:


Consider it possible, Ben, that any discomfort that you might feel on account of what I am saying, is self-inflicted.



All I am saying is that there is an experiential event for the "thief in the night" that is lodged in the apostolic collective, which matches the "afflicted" church members at Thessalonia.

I am testing whether the historical and contemporary descriptions of epileptics, TL-psychosis sufferers (eg. certain kind of bi-polars) and NDE-subjects verbalizing the internal effects of complex TL partial seizures (and auras) matches the allegorical cipher of the "thief".

Right over my head. I am not smart enough to put this all together cogently. Sorry.


I think you just playing mind-games, Ben. You are smart enough to understand what I have written. 'The thief' metaphor in my perspective is best understood in terms of the sudden, unexpected, dramatic loss of "self" during a seizure.



Quote:
The event in question is often described by a sudden, unexpected luminosity, either seemingly localized in the body, or , as it were, instantly "filling" the body frame, or dissolving it into another 'ethereal' substnace. The subject is not unconscious but in a state of motor paralysis (or loss of motor control during convulsions), which state is internally received as immensely calming and rewarding. In contrast, in the moments immediately preceding the pseudo-photic phase, the aura announces itself by a hugely visceral fear and panic, which often triggers violent convulsions. Often a number of false auras are presented before the actual seizure.

I don't know if this helps but Teresa of Avila spoke of her experiences of the Lord as 'seeing nothing'. 'Since you see nothing', asked her confessor incredulously, 'how do you know it is Our Lord' ? She replied simply that she saw no face, that she knew it was Our Lord and it was not an illusion....'one sees nothing, wiithin or without...but while seeing nothing the soul understands what it is and where it is more clearly than if you saw him....The soul hears no word, either within or without, but understands quite clearly who it is and where he is and sometimes even what he means to tell. How and by what means [the soul] understands, it does not know, but so it is; and while this is happening it cannot fail to know it' (in M.Rodinson, Mohammed, Pelican. p.74). Teresa was an epileptic.

I am no stranger to the mystical literature, though I admit I am weak on Teresa of Avila. But I do not know what these deep mystical experiences have directly to do with the day of the Lord, an event repeatedly prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures and here said by Paul, with this thief metaphor, to be a sudden or unexpected event for those who are not ready for it; for his fellow Thessalonian brethren he does not expect it to come as a thief (5.4).


The "thief" metaphor does not come from Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, or Daniel, so where does it come from, if not from inside of Paul's head ? And what a strange idea it is ! Lord like a thief ? Unless of course you want to tell me that Paul was aware of Jesus saying liking himself to a "robber" during his night arrest in Gethsemane. If not, how come it was understood and accepted into the lore ?

Jiri

[Chili]

[! Lord like a thief ? Unless of course you want to tell me that Paul was aware of Jesus saying liking himself to a "robber" during his night arrest in Gethsemane. If not, how come it was understood and accepted into the lore ?

Jiri

"Comes like a thief" is not the same as "Lord is a thief" but it is most unlike and opposite to the commotion that stirs an evangelical rally where virgins are sacrified at the altar.