I don't know why you keep repeating, redundantly, that the false info is already present and already here and already in existence, a perfect indicative, meaning began and continues? Why don't you just say what the Scriptures say, that the false info said a certain condition exists that is wrong and needs correction?
The statement is simpler than you want to make it. Christians believed that the day of Christ's coming for his Church had already happened. They believed Christ may have already appeared on earth to a gathering of believers, and had begun to manifest the Kingdom of God and its victory over Satan.
And this isn't hard to believe because we have movements just like that today! As I said, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are a manifestation of God's Kingdom now on the earth.
And even regular Christians have formed the Kingdom Now movement, which basically sees the Kingdom expanding now and presently defeating and overthrowing Satan. These are the things Paul wrote his letter to oppose.
Our victory over Satan does begin with our Salvation in Christ, but it is to end with the coming of the Kingdom, which is not yet, but is coming. To say it has already come in some sense is false teaching, and it is this that Paul tried to expose.
Paul used the eschatological "day" 3 times in the letter:
1.10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.
2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
All of these days apply to the literal 24-hour day in which Christ will come for his Church. They do not apply to an era, or a time period.
That's just it. Paul had already communicated biblical eschatology to the Thessalonians. They just got confused because of the manifestation of a "False Christ" movement. It called into question whether they had understood Paul's teaching correctly. And so, Paul let them know exactly what he had meant.
None of this teaching in 2 Thes. was different from what he had taught in 1 Thes. It was the same day of Christ's coming, and the same Rapture of the Church that Paul was now warning could not come unless Antichrist appears 1st, and then is destroyed.
Paul was clarifying that he had indeed meant that Christ must only come to destroy the Antichrist, just as Dan 7 indicated. They had apparently gotten confused, thinking that AntiChristianity already existed and that Christ had already shown up and revealed himself to some particular movement within the Church.
It was this false "movement" that Paul was opposing and exposing. He was not giving them any new eschatology, which he had already taught them in 1 Thes 4, and which was already apparent in Dan 7. They knew antiChristianity preceded the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, and then knew the Son of Man was coming to his Church. They just thought that these things had already taken place. This was not new eschatology!
As I said, Paul is not "switching gears" and now saying something different from what he said in 1 Thes 4! You are saying that, but I am not. Your argument against me is predicated on believing that I am giving 2 different messages, from 1 Thes 4 to 2 Thes 2, and I am not doing that!
Plainly, the coming of Christ for his Church is in 1 Thes 4 and also in 2 Thes 2. They are both the same. It's just that Paul explains that the current experience of tribulation is not the full manifestation of the person of the Man of Sin. And unless he appears 1st, then Christ cannot come for his Church.
In 1 Thes 4, Paul references the same kind of paraphernalia associated with Christ's coming as Christ himself used in the Olivet Discourse, the coming as the Son of Man with the clouds of heaven, the blowing of trumpets, the angels gathering God's people. It's all there in 1 Thes 4.
And that is the same event Paul is saying cannot happen yet, unless the tribulation they are already experiencing becomes something more advanced with the appearance of the Man of Sin. You therefore reject my position because you don't understand it. Both 1 Thes 4 and 2 Thes 2 refer to the exact same day of Christ's coming for his Church.
Paul just needed to explain that as they were experiencing tribulation, false Christ movements would appear and begin to declare they had Kingdom authority to defeat the devil now. But this cannot happen until Christ himself appears from heaven to destroy the Man of Sin, who has not yet even appeared.
That has to happen is what Paul was explicitly teaching. And no, it's not difficult to read. It's only difficult to read when you give 12 different versions of "is present."
The statement is simpler than you want to make it. Christians believed that the day of Christ's coming for his Church had already happened. They believed Christ may have already appeared on earth to a gathering of believers, and had begun to manifest the Kingdom of God and its victory over Satan.
And this isn't hard to believe because we have movements just like that today! As I said, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are a manifestation of God's Kingdom now on the earth.
And even regular Christians have formed the Kingdom Now movement, which basically sees the Kingdom expanding now and presently defeating and overthrowing Satan. These are the things Paul wrote his letter to oppose.
Our victory over Satan does begin with our Salvation in Christ, but it is to end with the coming of the Kingdom, which is not yet, but is coming. To say it has already come in some sense is false teaching, and it is this that Paul tried to expose.
Paul used the eschatological "day" 3 times in the letter:
1.10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.
2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
All of these days apply to the literal 24-hour day in which Christ will come for his Church. They do not apply to an era, or a time period.
That's just it. Paul had already communicated biblical eschatology to the Thessalonians. They just got confused because of the manifestation of a "False Christ" movement. It called into question whether they had understood Paul's teaching correctly. And so, Paul let them know exactly what he had meant.
None of this teaching in 2 Thes. was different from what he had taught in 1 Thes. It was the same day of Christ's coming, and the same Rapture of the Church that Paul was now warning could not come unless Antichrist appears 1st, and then is destroyed.
Paul was clarifying that he had indeed meant that Christ must only come to destroy the Antichrist, just as Dan 7 indicated. They had apparently gotten confused, thinking that AntiChristianity already existed and that Christ had already shown up and revealed himself to some particular movement within the Church.
It was this false "movement" that Paul was opposing and exposing. He was not giving them any new eschatology, which he had already taught them in 1 Thes 4, and which was already apparent in Dan 7. They knew antiChristianity preceded the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, and then knew the Son of Man was coming to his Church. They just thought that these things had already taken place. This was not new eschatology!
That makes absolutely no sense to me, and makes it seem y'all are grasping at straws merely in order to retain your idea that Paul is CONVEYING a "post-trib Rapture" in this text/context... and by switching the word "FIRST" to a completely different clause (from where it actually is), one can seemingly "get away with it". 
Plainly, the coming of Christ for his Church is in 1 Thes 4 and also in 2 Thes 2. They are both the same. It's just that Paul explains that the current experience of tribulation is not the full manifestation of the person of the Man of Sin. And unless he appears 1st, then Christ cannot come for his Church.
In 1 Thes 4, Paul references the same kind of paraphernalia associated with Christ's coming as Christ himself used in the Olivet Discourse, the coming as the Son of Man with the clouds of heaven, the blowing of trumpets, the angels gathering God's people. It's all there in 1 Thes 4.
And that is the same event Paul is saying cannot happen yet, unless the tribulation they are already experiencing becomes something more advanced with the appearance of the Man of Sin. You therefore reject my position because you don't understand it. Both 1 Thes 4 and 2 Thes 2 refer to the exact same day of Christ's coming for his Church.
Paul just needed to explain that as they were experiencing tribulation, false Christ movements would appear and begin to declare they had Kingdom authority to defeat the devil now. But this cannot happen until Christ himself appears from heaven to destroy the Man of Sin, who has not yet even appeared.
That has to happen is what Paul was explicitly teaching. And no, it's not difficult to read. It's only difficult to read when you give 12 different versions of "is present."
