The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[Spiritual Israelite]

From a grammatical standpoint, lawlessness is already working in mystery. and there is no mention of lawlessness getting worse when the restrainer is removed. The only thing mentioned when the restrainer is removed is that the lawless one is revealed.

You are missing that it's talking about lawlessness being restrained. You understand what the word restrained means, right? Lawlessness being restrained doesn't mean there is no lawlessness at all, it just means that there isn't complete lawlessness without any restraints. Paul indicated that a time would come when lawlessness is no longer restrained and that will result in the mass apostasy that he talked about and the signs and wonders done according to the power and working of Satan that he talked about. I think people miss that Paul is talking there about Satan's power no longer being restrained at that point. I relate that to Satan being loosed for his little season that Revelation 20:7-9 talks about.

 

[CTK]

The book of Daniel contains multiple references to a desolation of the physical temple building: Daniel 8, Daniel 9, Daniel 11, Daniel 12. In Matthew 24, Jesus alludes to the Daniel’s desolation of the temple with regards to the destruction of the physical temple. So I think I would respectfully disagree with your take on Daniel and that the desolations of the temple by this figure are not related to the physical temple.

What Paul could be doing is spiritualizing the physical prophecies about Antiochus in Daniel, and instead applying type (Antiochus and the physical temple) to an anti type (man of sin and the church). The problem is that Paul doesn’t qualify that he spiritualizing in this manner. Additionally, the olivet discourse makes no mention of a man of sin - being restrained, then being revealed, and sitting in a spiritual temple of God - as being one of the signs prior to Christs coming. This is why I’m hesitant to argue that Paul is spiritualizing “temple of God” within the context of 2 Thessalonians and the OD.

Thank you for your response! Daniel is such a difficult book to interpret and, as you know, there is absolutely no consensus of opinion within the scholarly community.

And this also makes for a really nice opportunity to discuss and learn how others interpret the many prophetic verses in Daniel.

If you do not mind, would you like to discuss if or how the verses in Daniel might be speaking of a physical or spiritual temple?

I have noticed your comment on “desolation, temple, Epiphanies, and the Olivet Discourse… there is so much information / understanding / interpretations that surrounds each of them - if I were to give you a certain response to even one of the above it would bring with it many other interpretations not yet discussed.

So, I will gladly follow your lead: would you want to start on the physical v. Spiritual desolation terms in Daniel?

You mentioned Daniel 8,9,11 and 12. Maybe start with chapter 7 and discuss how it may be interpreted? Thanks so much and I look forward to your thoughts. Clearly, you have spent much time in the Book of Daniel.

 

[CTK]

I said that you are using the OT to shine light on the NT, so I assume you mean you're not using the OT to shine light on the NT.


This sure seems like you are using OT scripture from Daniel to shine light on the NT scriptures. But, whatever. We just don't take the same approach to understanding these things, obviously.

Thanks and you are indeed correct, we do not see scripture the same way. But I do nit know anyone that does.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The book of Daniel contains multiple references to a desolation of the physical temple building: Daniel 8, Daniel 9, Daniel 11, Daniel 12. In Matthew 24, Jesus alludes to the Daniel’s desolation of the temple with regards to the destruction of the physical temple. So I think I would respectfully disagree with your take on Daniel and that the desolations of the temple by this figure are not related to the physical temple.

What Paul could be doing is spiritualizing the physical prophecies about Antiochus in Daniel, and instead applying type (Antiochus and the physical temple) to an anti type (man of sin and the church). The problem is that Paul doesn’t qualify that he spiritualizing in this manner. Additionally, the olivet discourse makes no mention of a man of sin - being restrained, then being revealed, and sitting in a spiritual temple of God - as being one of the signs prior to Christs coming. This is why I’m hesitant to argue that Paul is spiritualizing “temple of God” within the context of 2 Thessalonians and the OD.

It's unfortunate that your preterist beliefs are causing 2 Thessalonians 2 to be confusing to you. The temple of God that Paul references is one that would exist up until the time that Jesus comes again and we are gathered to Him. So, he can't possibly be referring to a physical temple there. We both know there will be no third physical temple of God, so the only temple of God that Paul could be referring to in relation to the future second coming of Christ was either individual bodies or the corporate body of Christ (the church).

 

[CTK]

The book of Daniel contains multiple references to a desolation of the physical temple building: Daniel 8, Daniel 9, Daniel 11, Daniel 12. In Matthew 24, Jesus alludes to the Daniel’s desolation of the temple with regards to the destruction of the physical temple. So I think I would respectfully disagree with your take on Daniel and that the desolations of the temple by this figure are not related to the physical temple.

What Paul could be doing is spiritualizing the physical prophecies about Antiochus in Daniel, and instead applying type (Antiochus and the physical temple) to an anti type (man of sin and the church). The problem is that Paul doesn’t qualify that he spiritualizing in this manner. Additionally, the olivet discourse makes no mention of a man of sin - being restrained, then being revealed, and sitting in a spiritual temple of God - as being one of the signs prior to Christs coming. This is why I’m hesitant to argue that Paul is spiritualizing “temple of God” within the context of 2 Thessalonians and the OD.

I may have misunderstood what you were posting.... I think you may be connecting Matthew, the destruction of the physical temple as well as the "desolation" that would occur altogether? If so, this would certainly be a nice discussion if you want to share yours? Thanks.

 

[claninja]

I simply do not believe for a second that Paul would refer to the temple that Jesus declared to be spiritually desolate as "the temple of God". And, the fact that every other time he used the word "naos", it referred to a spiritual temple (a person's body or the corporate body/church). So, it's hard for me to believe that isn't enough to convince you, but....whatever.

Jesus declared it desolate and then just a little while later, referred to it as the Holy place. Additionally, Jewish Christians continued to worship in the temple decades after the cross, as evidenced by the book of Acts.

With that in mind. I think audience relevance is important. 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written to Christian Jews and gentiles prior to the destruction of the temple. The phrase “temple of God” would no doubt bring to mine the temple in Jerusalem, UNLESS there was qualifying language explaining it to mean something else.

That's fair. If he's saying they never received the love of the truth at any point, then they are not the ones who he earlier talked about in relation to falling away from the faith.

I could see that being possible.

So what? Why do you expect that Jesus would have covered every possible detail regarding His second coming? That would have made it so that Paul would have had no reason to say anything about the second coming except just to say "Read the Olivet Discourse if you want to know about that. I have nothing to add that Jesus didn't already talk about.".

Paul spends an entire chapter talking about the eschatological “man of sin sitting in the temple of God” as one of two the things that must occur prior to the coming of Christ. If this is one of the main events that must occur prior to the coming, at least according to Paul, and is to be understood as the spiritual temple (church), THEN I would absolutely expect Jesus to have mentioned it when asked by his disciples about signs of the coming and end of the age.

, taking into account the spiritual status of the physical temple at that point is not something you take into consideration? And the fact that what Paul was talking in 2 Thess 2 related to the time before the second coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him is not something you take into consideration?

I would consider the spiritual significance of the temple from a first century mindset - the temple still stood and many Jewish Christians still worshipped in the temple.

Let’s say I’m a first century gentile living in thessalonica. The temple is still standing and Jewish Christians are still worshipping there. How would I know Paul is talking about a spiritual temple without contextual language indicating so?

 

[claninja]

You are missing that it's talking about lawlessness being restrained. You understand what the word restrained means, right? Lawlessness being restrained doesn't mean there is no lawlessness at all, it just means that there isn't complete lawlessness without any restraints. Paul indicated that a time would come when lawlessness is no longer restrained and that will result in the mass apostasy that he talked about and the signs and wonders done according to the power and working of Satan that he talked about. I think people miss that Paul is talking there about Satan's power no longer being restrained at that point. I relate that to Satan being loosed for his little season that Revelation 20:7-9 talks about.

Maybe you misunderstood me? Grammatically In the Greek, literally nothing says that lawlessness is being restrained. The mystery of Lawlessness is not a direct object nor indirect object of the participle restraining. We know this because mystery lawlessness is not accusative nor dative.

In otherwords, The Greek never makes “mystery of lawlessness” the object of the restraining participle; it appears only in a separate clause as the subject of “is already working,” and is not grammatically linked to the restraint structure.

What does Paul say happens when the restrainer is taken out of the way?

 

[covenantee]

What does Paul say happens when the restrainer is taken out of the way?

that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

then shall that Wicked be revealed

 

[claninja]

that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

then shall that Wicked be revealed

Absolutely Agree, when the restrainer is removed, the man of sin is revealed.

 

[covenantee]

Absolutely Agree, when the when the restrainer is removed, the man of sin is revealed.

The restrainer, imperial Rome, was removed.

Then the man of sin, the apostate papacy, was revealed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus declared it desolate and then just a little while later, referred to it as the Holy place. Additionally, Jewish Christians continued to worship in the temple decades after the cross, as evidenced by the book of Acts.

With that in mind. I think audience relevance is important. 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written to Christian Jews and gentiles prior to the destruction of the temple. The phrase “temple of God” would no doubt bring to mine the temple in Jerusalem, UNLESS there was qualifying language explaining it to mean something else.

Why do you think that is the case when in his other letters to Christians in other cities he always spoke of the temple (naos) of God as a spiritual temple? Do you think Paul would not have talked to them about the church as the temple of God when he was with the Thessalonians in person? I'm sure he must have. So, I disagree that they would have assumed he was talking about the physical temple. He said he had talked to them about the things he was writing to them before, so I'm sure they knew exactly which temple he was talking about based on his discussions with them in person.

Paul spends an entire chapter talking about the eschatological “man of sin sitting in the temple of God” as one of two the things that must occur prior to the coming of Christ. If this is one of the main events that must occur prior to the coming, at least according to Paul, and is to be understood as the spiritual temple (church) I would absolutely expect Jesus to have mentioned it when asked by his disciples signs of the coming and end of the age.

That's you. Thankfully, you are not the one to decide what Jesus should have mentioned in the Olivet Discourse. You think He should have given literally every detail relating to His second coming in the OD while leaving no details at all for Paul and the other NT authors to add. I don't agree with that kind of thinking. Both Jesus and Paul referred to the very same event, namely second coming of Christ, so are you trying to claim otherwise?

I would consider the spiritual significance of the temple from a first century mindset - the temple still stood and may Jewish. Christians still worshipped in the temple.

Everywhere else in his letters, when Paul referenced the temple (Greek: naos), it was a reference to the spiritual temple of God and not the physical temple of God. For some reason you seem to be trying to downplay that, as if that isn't strong evidence to show that he was referring to a spiritual temple of God. But, it is. Also, this is all related to the second coming of Christ when we are gathered to Him, which hasn't occurred yet. So, the only temple of God that will exist in the time before He returns at this point is the spiritual temple of God. As I said in another post, you preterist beliefs are the reason you are confused about what Paul was writing about in 2 Thessalonians 2. It's not possible that he was talking about things related to the destruction of the physical temple because he was talking about things relating to a time before the still future second coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him in the air.

Let’s say I’m a first century gentile living in thessalonica. The temple is still standing and Jewish Christians are still worshipping there. How would I know Paul is talking about a spiritual temple without contextual language indicating so?

Did you forget that he told them about the same things he was writing to them about in person previously, as he indicated in 2 Thessalonians 2:5? Do you think he didn't explain what he was talking about when he talked to them about those things in person? I'm sure he did. So, they would have known whether he was talking about the physical temple or a spiritual temple since it's safe to assume he would have made that clear when he talked to them about this in person. If he wasn't clear about it, I'm sure someone would have asked him about it and he would have clarified it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe you misunderstood me? Grammatically In the Greek, literally nothing says that lawlessness is being restrained.

I'm not going to trust that you actually have a strong grasp of Greek grammar. I don't believe that.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

This indicates that before the coming of the lawless one (man of sin), "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is not occurring, but then it is occurring after the coming of the lawless one. So, what is being restrained is "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception". Lawlessness, in other words. If lawlessness is not what was being restrained, then why does Paul speak of a mass falling away occurring in the future? Why wouldn't there be a mass falling away from the faith even while Paul was writing the letter if lawlessness was not being restrained at that time?

The mystery of Lawlessness is not a direct object nor indirect object of the participle restraining. We know this because mystery lawlessness is not accusative nor dative.

In otherwords, The Greek never makes “mystery of lawlessness” the object of the restraining participle; it appears only in a separate clause as the subject of “is already working,” and is not grammatically linked to the restraint structure.

LOL. Why do you pretend to be a Greek expert? You're fluent in Greek, are you? I don't believe you are. Does scripture itself tell us that the key to understanding it is to have a strong understanding of the Greek language? Or does it say that we need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-16)? It's the latter. Even if we were Greek experts, we would need help from the Holy Spirit to understand most of the things that we talk about on this forum. Yet, you act as if we just knew Greek as well as you think you do, we'd have this all figured out.

What does Paul say happens when the restrainer is taken out of the way?

This:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

You think it's the revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness that is being restrained. No, it's what happens at the coming/revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness that is restrained, and that is described in verses 9 and 10.

 

[CTK]

I'm not going to trust that you actually have a strong grasp of Greek grammar. I don't believe that.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

This indicates that before the coming of the lawless one (man of sin), "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is not occurring, but then it is occurring after the coming of the lawless one. So, what is being restrained is "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception". Lawlessness, in other words. If lawlessness is not what was being restrained, then why does Paul speak of a mass falling away occurring in the future? Why wouldn't there be a mass falling away from the faith even while Paul was writing the letter if lawlessness was not being restrained at that time?

Because the papal system (little horn of Daniel 7,8 and 11), did not exist in the 1st century. As I mentioned to another poster earlier, there were those that preached a different gospel even within the Apostolic period. But the lawless one would COME OUT of the 4th kingdom much later.

The mass falling away after a Paul’s time and the little horn would not come to full power until the early 6th century. Then, they would indeed preach a very different gospel.

Can you possibly imagine anyone claiming the following;

1) salvation is only through their church,
2) must obey pope,
3) he represents God on earth,
4) he claims equality with God,
5) he can forgive sins,
6) must obey their sacraments,
7) Mary as co-mediator or worse,
8) pray to saints and Mary,
9) ability to change God’s 10 commandments,
10) change the Sabbath day - the only holy day He created,
11) perhaps a hundred other teachings, practices, ceremonies, etc., that Jesus never would allow or call out.

Everyone is seriously looking for and expecting a real boogeyman (Satan himself), but that is not what is in the Scriptures. Satan will indeed be seen but ONLY at the very end when God pulls him out of the abyss and destroys him, his followers and all mankind who were also brought out of their graves who rejected the Messiah. That is the end. Satan is doing his evil and has been for 6000 years, and God is certainly no going to allow him to come forth at the end. He is and has been doing his thing within the constraints set by God for the past 6000 years.

The 7 year tribulation, the end time coming of a Satan like figure, etc., is not in scripture. All of this began with the counter reformation practices of the Jesuits in the 16th century, and they have continued to promote this till today. Its beginnings came from their need to remove the label of the “little horn” from the papacy.

Is there any person / organization / religious group / etc., that has done more against the Kingdom of God? Who could possibly accept one that claims equality with God? Is there anything more blasphemous than that?

LOL. Why do you pretend to be a Greek expert? You're fluent in Greek, are you? I don't believe you are. Does scripture itself tell us that the key to understanding it is to have a strong understanding of the Greek language? Or does it say that we need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-16)? It's the latter. Even if we were Greek experts, we would need help from the Holy Spirit to understand most of the things that we talk about on this forum. Yet, you act as if we just knew Greek as well as you think you do, we'd have this all figured out.


This:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

You think it's the revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness that is being restrained. No, it's what happens at the coming/revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness that is restrained, and that is described in verses 9 and 10.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because the papal system (little horn of Daniel 7,8 and 11), did not exist in the 1st century. As I mentioned to another poster earlier, there were those that preached a different gospel even within the Apostolic period. But the lawless one would COME OUT of the 4th kingdom much later.

The mass falling away after a Paul’s time and the little horn would not come to full power until the early 6th century. Then, they would indeed preach a very different gospel.

Can you possibly imagine anyone claiming the following;

1) salvation is only through their church,
2) must obey pope,
3) he represents God on earth,
4) he claims equality with God,
5) he can forgive sins,
6) must obey their sacraments,
7) Mary as co-mediator or worse,
8) pray to saints and Mary,
9) ability to change God’s 10 commandments,
10) change the Sabbath day - the only holy day He created,
11) perhaps a hundred other teachings, practices, ceremonies, etc., that Jesus never would allow or call out.

Everyone is seriously looking for and expecting a real boogeyman (Satan himself), but that is not what is in the Scriptures. Satan will indeed be seen but ONLY at the very end when God pulls him out of the abyss and destroys him, his followers and all mankind who were also brought out of their graves who rejected the Messiah. That is the end. Satan is doing his evil and has been for 6000 years, and God is certainly no going to allow him to come forth at the end. He is and has been doing his thing within the constraints set by God for the past 6000 years.

The 7 year tribulation, the end time coming of a Satan like figure, etc., is not in scripture. All of this began with the counter reformation practices of the Jesuits in the 16th century, and they have continued to promote this till today. Its beginnings came from their need to remove the label of the “little horn” from the papacy.

Is there any person / organization / religious group / etc., that has done more against the Kingdom of God? Who could possibly accept one that claims equality with God? Is there anything more blasphemous than that?

Who are you talking to here? You replied to me, but you're saying a bunch of things that don't apply to what I believe. I'm not "looking for and expecting a real boogeyman (Satan himself)". I don't believe in a "7 year tribulation" or in "the end time coming of a Satan like figure". If your post was intended to be a response to what I believe, then it seems that you are not reading my posts very carefully. If that wasn't your intention, then why did you post this in response to my post?

 

[claninja]

Why do you think that is the case when in his other letters to Christians in other cities he always spoke of the temple (naos) of God as a spiritual temple? Do you think Paul would not have talked to them about the church as the temple of God when he was with the Thessalonians in person? I'm sure he must have. So, I disagree that they would have assumed he was talking about the physical temple. He said he had talked to them about the things he was writing to them before, so I'm sure they knew exactly which temple he was talking about based on his discussions with them in person.


That's you. Thankfully, you are not the one to decide what Jesus should have mentioned in the Olivet Discourse. You think He should have given literally every detail relating to His second coming in the OD while leaving no details at all for Paul and the other NT authors to add. I don't agree with that kind of thinking. Both Jesus and Paul referred to the very same event, namely second coming of Christ, so are you trying to claim otherwise?


Everywhere else in his letters, when Paul referenced the temple (Greek: naos), it was a reference to the spiritual temple of God and not the physical temple of God. For some reason you seem to be trying to downplay that, as if that isn't strong evidence to show that he was referring to a spiritual temple of God. But, it is. Also, this is all related to the second coming of Christ when we are gathered to Him, which hasn't occurred yet. So, the only temple of God that will exist in the time before He returns at this point is the spiritual temple of God. As I said in another post, you preterist beliefs are the reason you are confused about what Paul was writing about in 2 Thessalonians 2. It's not possible that he was talking about things related to the destruction of the physical temple because he was talking about things relating to a time before the still future second coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him in the air.


Did you forget that he told them about the same things he was writing to them about in person previously, as he indicated in 2 Thessalonians 2:5? Do you think he didn't explain what he was talking about when he talked to them about those things in person? I'm sure he did. So, they would have known whether he was talking about the physical temple or a spiritual temple since it's safe to assume he would have made that clear when he talked to them about this in person. If he wasn't clear about it, I'm sure someone would have asked him about it and he would have clarified it.

The examples of church being the Temple of God are written to different audiences, with different contexts. As I wouldn’t apply John 2:19-21 to Matthew 24, I’m not just going to apply the likes of 1 corinthians 3:16 to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 WITHOUT qualifying language. This risks the over harmonizing fallacy. I’m not arguing that Paul can’t use temple in a spiritual sense, I’m arguing that he consistently tells his audience when he uses in a spiritual sense. He doesn’t use any qualifying language in 2 Thessalonians 2, like he does in literally every other instance, and using 2 Thessalonians 2:5 is moot, unless you can pull up that dialogue where Paul explained the man of sin sits in the body of Christ. You’re asking me to replace what the text actually says with what you assume Paul must have meant based on other letters and unrecorded conversations. If 2 thessalonians 2 is about the coming of Christ, why are you using other passages, which are not about the coming of Christ, to determine what Paul meant about the temple? Why wouldn't you attempt to harmonize 2 thessalonians with the olivet discourse (which is about the coming of christ) instead?

 

[claninja]

I'm not going to trust that you actually have a strong grasp of Greek grammar. I don't believe that.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

This indicates that before the coming of the lawless one (man of sin), "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is not occurring, but then it is occurring after the coming of the lawless one. So, what is being restrained is "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception". Lawlessness, in other words. If lawlessness is not what was being restrained, then why does Paul speak of a mass falling away occurring in the future? Why wouldn't there be a mass falling away from the faith even while Paul was writing the letter if lawlessness was not being restrained at that time?


LOL. Why do you pretend to be a Greek expert? You're fluent in Greek, are you? I don't believe you are. Does scripture itself tell us that the key to understanding it is to have a strong understanding of the Greek language? Or does it say that we need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-16)? It's the latter. Even if we were Greek experts, we would need help from the Holy Spirit to understand most of the things that we talk about on this forum. Yet, you act as if we just knew Greek as well as you think you do, we'd have this all figured out.

I don't expect you to trust my understanding, any more than I trust yours. This is a debate forum. We test each others claims about scripture with evidence.

In school, you learn about grammar, at least I did. I learned that a direct object is a noun that receives the action of a verb.

From simply using blue letter bible's tools, you can see that greek nouns in the accusative state are direct objects.

From blue letter Bible: Greek Grammar - Accusative Case

Accusative Case​

The main idea of the accusative case is that of being the object of the verb; i.e., it is the end point of which and at which the action portrayed in the verb is aimed.

1. Accusative of Direct Object
   This is the basic meaning and use of the accusative case; i.e., the object of the action of the verb.
   τότε οὖν ἔλαβεν ὁ Πιλᾶτος τὸν (Ἰησοῦν) καὶ ἐμαστίγωσεν
   (Tote oun elaben ho Pilatos ton [Iēsoun] kai emastigōsen)
   "Then, therefore, Pilate took and scourged Jesus" (John 19:1).
   The noun "Jesus" is the accusative of direct object of both the actions of taking and scourging.

So if you could, please notice that the nouns "mystery of lawlessness" are not accusative. In fact there is no accusative noun (direct object) in vs 7 . See blue letter bible 2 thessalonians 2:7 greek tools: 2 Thessalonians 2 :: King James Version (KJV)

It's why you will find that english translations differ on how to translate this passage. Some keep a word for word translation, others will interpret the passage.

Additionally, I'm not interested in your implied superior spiritual discernment argument, especially considering how you treat many on these forums, often with eye for an eye tactics.

I


This:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

You think it's the revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness that is being restrained. No, it's what happens at the coming/revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness that is restrained, and that is described in verses 9 and 10.

Nothing here says lawlessness gets worse or is restrained.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The examples of church being the Temple of God are written to different audiences, with different contexts. As I wouldn’t apply John 2:19-21 to Matthew 24, I’m not just going to apply the likes of 1 corinthians 3:16 to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 WITHOUT qualifying language.

You make up your own man-made rules that scripture must go by. I don't get that. I'm not obligated to go along with your man-made rules. It's not a requirement that every single time Paul mentioned the spiritual temple of God that he had to spell that out.

This risks the over harmonizing fallacy. I’m not arguing that Paul can’t use temple in a spiritual sense, I’m arguing that he consistently tells his audience when he uses in a spiritual sense.

There can't ever be exceptions to the general rule? Of course there can.

He doesn’t use any qualifying language in 2 Thessalonians 2, like he does in literally every other instance,

So what? Again, he made it clear that he had already talked about those things to them in person. So, he likely already made it clear as to whether he was talking about the spiritual or physical temple when he talked to them about it in person. So, why would he need to clarify that in his letter to them in that case? He wouldn't.

and using 2 Thessalonians 2:5 is moot, unless you can pull up that dialogue where Paul explained the man of sin sits in the body of Christ.

Good grief. This is why it's a waste of time to discuss things with you. You just dismiss valid arguments when they don't align with your beliefs.

You’re asking me to replace what the text actually says with what you assume Paul must have meant based on other letters and unrecorded conversations.

I'm not asking you to do anything, but to take that into consideration. Why would you not at least do that? Why are you so rigid? You're so afraid to ever believe something unless it is explicitly spelled out to you. That's very weird to me.

If 2 thessalonians 2 is about the coming of Christ, why are you using other passages, which are not about the coming of Christ, to determine what Paul meant about the temple?

LOL. What a ridiculous question. We're trying to determine whether he was talking about a spiritual or physical temple. So, I shouldn't look at other verses where Paul referenced the "naos" to see which temple he referred to in those cases to help determine which temple he was referring to in 2 Thess 2:4? Nonsense!

Why wouldn't you attempt to harmonize 2 thessalonians with the olivet discourse (which is about the coming of christ) instead?

I can compare the two, but I'm not going to be like you and assume that Jesus should have covered every single detail related to His second coming in the Olivet Discourse, leaving no details for Paul and the other NT authors to add in relation to His second coming, thereby making all of their writings in relation to the second coming pointless because everything was supposedly already covered in the Olivet Discourse.

Why would you not consider that the temple of God that Paul was referring to would be one that exists when Jesus comes in the future and gathers us to Himself? That is a huge weakness in your view that you seem to not even take that into consideration. Or do you claim that the coming of Christ when His people are gathered to Him that Paul referenced in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 already occurred in 70 AD?

 

[covenantee]

I don't expect you to trust my understanding, any more than I trust yours. This is a debate forum. We test each others claims about scripture with evidence.

In school, you learn about grammar, at least I did. I learned that a direct object is a noun that receives the action of a verb.

From simply using blue letter bible's tools, you can see that greek nouns in the accusative state are direct objects.

From blue letter Bible: Greek Grammar - Accusative Case

Accusative Case​

The main idea of the accusative case is that of being the object of the verb; i.e., it is the end point of which and at which the action portrayed in the verb is aimed.

1. Accusative of Direct Object
   This is the basic meaning and use of the accusative case; i.e., the object of the action of the verb.
   τότε οὖν ἔλαβεν ὁ Πιλᾶτος τὸν (Ἰησοῦν) καὶ ἐμαστίγωσεν
   (Tote oun elaben ho Pilatos ton [Iēsoun] kai emastigōsen)
   "Then, therefore, Pilate took and scourged Jesus" (John 19:1).
   The noun "Jesus" is the accusative of direct object of both the actions of taking and scourging.

So if you could, please notice that the nouns "mystery of lawlessness" are not accusative. In fact there is no accusative noun (direct object) in vs 7 . See blue letter bible 2 thessalonians 2:7 greek tools: 2 Thessalonians 2 :: King James Version (KJV)

It's why you will find that english translations differ on how to translate this passage. Some keep a word for word translation, others will interpret the passage.

Additionally, I'm not interested in your implied superior spiritual discernment argument, especially considering how you treat many on these forums, often with eye for an eye tactics.


Nothing here says lawlessness gets worse or is restrained.

What does "letteth/let" mean?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't expect you to trust my understanding, any more than I trust yours. This is a debate forum. We test each others claims about scripture with evidence.

In school, you learn about grammar, at least I did. I learned that a direct object is a noun that receives the action of a verb.

From simply using blue letter bible's tools, you can see that greek nouns in the accusative state are direct objects.

From blue letter Bible: Greek Grammar - Accusative Case

Accusative Case​

The main idea of the accusative case is that of being the object of the verb; i.e., it is the end point of which and at which the action portrayed in the verb is aimed.

1. Accusative of Direct Object
   This is the basic meaning and use of the accusative case; i.e., the object of the action of the verb.
   τότε οὖν ἔλαβεν ὁ Πιλᾶτος τὸν (Ἰησοῦν) καὶ ἐμαστίγωσεν
   (Tote oun elaben ho Pilatos ton [Iēsoun] kai emastigōsen)
   "Then, therefore, Pilate took and scourged Jesus" (John 19:1).
   The noun "Jesus" is the accusative of direct object of both the actions of taking and scourging.

So if you could, please notice that the nouns "mystery of lawlessness" are not accusative. In fact there is no accusative noun (direct object) in vs 7 . See blue letter bible 2 thessalonians 2:7 greek tools: 2 Thessalonians 2 :: King James Version (KJV)

It's why you will find that english translations differ on how to translate this passage. Some keep a word for word translation, others will interpret the passage.

So, the fact that English translations differ shows that we can't determine the truth about this just from the Greek itself since there's no consensus on how the Greek should be translated into English. Yet, that is what you are trying to claim. You're making it as if the Greek is clear to everyone and there's no disagreement on what it means. Even with a perfect understanding of Greek, we still need help from the Holy Spirit to understand this. Do you acknowledge that?

Additionally, I'm not interested in your implied superior spiritual discernment argument, especially considering how you treat many on these forums, often with eye for an eye tactics.

I said nothing about having superior spiritual discernment. I'm saying we all need spiritual discernment to understand what Paul was talking about. Do you deny that? Even Peter said that some of the things Paul wrote are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16), so Paul sometimes did not make it clear as to what he was talking about. This is obviously one of those times. So, relying on your understanding of Greek grammar is not enough to understand what he was talking about in this case.

Nothing here says lawlessness gets worse or is restrained.

Why did you not address what I said about the passage? You said this is a debate forum, but you're not willing to debate.

Here is what I said:

2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

This indicates that before the coming of the lawless one (man of sin), "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is not occurring, but then it is occurring after the coming of the lawless one. So, what is being restrained is "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception". Lawlessness, in other words. If lawlessness is not what was being restrained, then why does Paul speak of a mass falling away occurring in the future? Why wouldn't there be a mass falling away from the faith even while Paul was writing the letter if lawlessness was not being restrained at that time?

Can you please address what I said above instead of just dismissing it and saying there's nothing in the passage that says lawlessness gets worse or is restrained. Do you acknowledge that Paul is saying in that passage that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is something that is not occurring until the coming/revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness? If so, doesn't the description of "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" describe lawlessness? Do you think there's no difference in the overall behavior of people apart from "the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" compared to when ""the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is occurring?

 

[claninja]

What does "letteth/let" mean?

From the bdag lexicon:

“14f. τὸ κατέχον (Themistocl., Ep. 13, 4) 2 Th 2:6 and ὁ κατέχων vs. 7 mean that

which restrains and one who restrains, i.e. what prevents God’s adversary fr. coming out in open opposition to God, for the time being.

In an effortto define κ. more specifically here, many interpreters have followed the
exegesis of the ancient church (Tertullian) and taken τὸ κ. to be the Roman
Empire and ὁ κ. the Emperor (OBetz, NTS 9, ’63, 276–91).

An alternative view, as old as Theodore of Mops., but without sustained acceptance, would make τὸ κ. the preaching of Christian missionaries and ὁ κ. the apostle Paul (so OCullmann, Dodd Festschr. ’56, 409–21).

These and other attempts to limit more precisely the mng. of these terms in 2 Th invite skepticism because of insufficient textual data (vs. 5 appears to imply in-house information). “


So it means this : which restrains and one who restrains, i.e. what prevents God’s adversary fr. coming out in open opposition to God, for the time being.

Many have attempted to exegete an identity but there is insufficient textual data as vs 5 implies in house information.