Talk:Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

Untitled

It seems to me that the passage

"Apparently the first letter was misunderstood, especially regarding the second advent of Christ. The Thessalonians had embraced the idea that Paul had taught that "the day of Christ was at hand", that Christ's coming was about to occur. This error is corrected (2:1-12), and the apostle announces what first must take place before the end times."

has more to do with 1 Thessalonians and should be moved there. freestylefrappe 03:25, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

This passage should be in the 1 Thes. entry as well as here as it is a statement which links the two and a valid point from the traditional view. omricon 23:15, 14 Aug 2007

Content?

Could someone please summarise what is actually in this epistle? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• A fellow did; and I did something to clean it: removing first person voice and things that seem out of place. But the quotes need to be converted into an article. Somehow the third chapter and and bibliography have disappeared, I'll see if I can fix that. Jonathan48 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They reappeared, not sure what I did. Jonathan48 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I must make a major complaint against this article. Using research from 1908 is unacceptable, especially for an opinion that only a small minority of scholars hold today. Very few scholars today still argue that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians and the claim that the church would not have accepted a phony begs countless questions and not only contradicts our understanding of the early church, but also our understanding of the concept of intellectual property in the first the second century. Of course, if I have the spare time, I'll find better sources and fix it myself, but that might not be for weeks. No user account 9:08 24 October, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.143.136 (talk)

Composite epistle

"Admitting that there are stylistic problems between Second Thessalonians and First Thessalonians, he argues that part of the problem is due to the composite nature of First Thessalonians (Murphy-O'Connor is only one of many scholars who argue that the current text of Second Thessalonians is the product of merging two or more authentic letters of Paul.)" Which letter is the composite? The two sentences quoted seem to be in contradiction. The first sentence stating that it is 1Th that is a composite, the second that it is 2Th. Could someone check the sources and correct this? --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2 Thessalonians 2:11

What about the controversy of 2 Thessalonians 2:11, which makes God out to be a liar and deceiver, who makes people believe a working of error (which could in turn be the entire Bible itself)? Torquemama007 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008200729/http://www.wlsessays.net/Scripture/thes-phil.html to http://www.wlsessays.net/Scripture/thes-phil.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)