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

[claninja]

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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!


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?

I didn’t make these rules up. I’m simply following lexical arguments by Biblical scholars. For example, The BDAG lexicon classifies “ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ” in 2 Thess 2:4 under the established usage of the Jerusalem temple, not under metaphorical temple language, indicating that the phrase naturally functions within the physical temple referent in Koine Greek.


“ναός, οῦ, ὁ ⟦naós⟧ (Hom.+; s. B-D-F §44, 1; Mlt-H. 71; 121) a place or structure specifically associated with or set apart for a deity, who is frequently perceived to be using it as a dwelling, temple. a of temples gener. (Diod S 5, 15, 2 θεῶν ναούς; Ar. 3:2; Just., A I, 9, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 26, 33) Ac 17:24. Specif. of temples: of replicas of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus 19:24 (Tat. 3:1); but here, near ἱερόν vs. 27 (cp. OGI 90, 34 [196 b.c.]; Sb 8745, 6 [pap 171/72 a.d.] ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ Σοκνοβραίσεως ναὸς ξύλινος περικεχρυσωμένος. Likew. 8747, 5; 3 Macc 1:10; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 139 ἱερὰ κ. ναοί, Decal. 7; Jos., Ant. 16, 106), ναός can be understood in the more restricted sense shrine, where the image of the goddess stood (so Hdt. et al.; Diod S 1, 97, 9; 20, 14, 3; UPZ 5, 27=6, 22 [163 b.c.], s. the editor’s note; BGU 1210, 191 ἐν παντὶ ἱερῷ, ὅπου ναός ἐστιν; 211; PErlang 21 [II a.d.]: APF 14, ’41, 100f, a shrine w. a ξόανον of Isis). b of the temple at Jerusalem (3 Km 6:5, 17 al.; Jos., Ant. 8, 62ff; Just., D. 36, 6 al; SibOr 3, 575; 657; 702; Stephan. Byz. s.v. Σόλυμα: ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις.— ναός [νεώς] of Herod’s temple: Philo, In Flacc. 46, Leg. ad Gai. 278 al.; Jos., Bell. 5, 185; 207; 215, Ant. 15, 380; Orig., C. Cels. 1, 47, 11; Did., Gen. 135, 17; 192, 23; also of the entire temple precinct: Jos., Bell. 6, 293, C. Ap. 2, 119) Mt 23:17, 35; 27:5, 40; Mk 14:58 (on this saying s. RHoffmann, Heinrici Festschr. 1914, 130–39 and MGoguel, Congr. d’Hist. du Christ. I 1928, 117–36. More generally DPlooij, Jes. and the Temple: ET 42, ’31, 36–39); 15:29; Lk 1:21f; J 2:20; Ac 7:48 v.l.; Rv 11:2; 1 Cl 41:2; 16:1ff; GPt 7:26. ὁ ν. καὶ ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραήλ 16:5; οἱ ἱερεῖς τ. ναοῦ 7:3. τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ the curtain of the temple that separated the Holy of Holies fr. the holy place Mt 27:51; Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45; τ. κ. τ. ναοῦ τῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ GPt 5:20. τὰ παθνώματα τοῦ ναοῦ the paneled ceiling of the temple GJs 24:3. An oath by the temple Mt 23:16, 21. More fully ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (as ParJer 4:4; Jos., Ant. 15, 380; cp. Artem. 2, 26 νεὼς θεοῦ) Mt 26:61; 2 Th 2:4 (on this s. WWrede, Die Echtheit des 2 Th 1903, 96ff); Rv 11:1 (on the prophecy of the rescue of the temple fr. the general destruction cp. Jos., Bell. 6, 285). ὁ ναὸς τοῦ κυρίου Lk 1:9; cp. 1 Cl 23:5 (Mal 3:1). ναὸς κυρίου GJs (16 times), also τῷ ν. αὐτοῦ 23:1. c of a heavenly sanctuary (cp. Ps 10:4; 17:7; Wsd 3:14 ν. κυρίου; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 66; TestLevi 5:1) of Rv: ὁ ναός 14:15; 15:6, 8ab; 16:1, 17. ὁ ναὸς αὐτοῦ (= τοῦ θεοῦ) 7:15; 11:19b. ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ 14:17. ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ 11:19a. ὁ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τ. μαρτυρίου ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ 15:5. S. also 3:12. Yet there will be no temple in the New Jerusalem 21:22a; God in person is the sanctuary of the eternal city vs. 22b. d of a human body or part thereof, in imagery (Philo, Op. M. 136f of the σῶμα as the νεὼς ἱερὸς ψυχῆς; Tat. 15, 2).—Of the spirit-filled body of Christians, which is said to be a habitation of God, therefore a temple (Iren. 5, 9, 4 [PJena]; Hippol., Ref. 5, 19, 15; cp. Sextus 35), which is not to be contaminated by sinful indulgence (on Greco-Roman purity regulations for entry into temples, s. for example SIG 983 and note 3): τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ν. τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (dwelling) within you 1 Cor 6:19. The habitation of the heart is a ν. ἅγιος τῷ κυρίῳ 6:15; cp. the development of this thought 16:6–10 (Pythagorean saying in HSchenkl, Wiener Stud 8, 1886, 273 no. 66 νεὼς θεοῦ σοφὸς νοῦς, ὸ̔ ν ἀεὶ χρὴ παρασκευάζειν κ. κατακοσμεῖν εἰς παραδοχὴν θεοῦ. Cp. Sextus 46a; Synes., Dio 9 p. 49c νεὼς οὗτος [i.e., the νοῦς οἰκεῖος θεῷ=the Νοῦς is the real temple of God]). Of spirit-filled Christians γίνεσθαι ν. τέλειον τῷ θεῷ 4:11. φυλάσσειν τὴν σάρκα ὡς ν. θεοῦ 2 Cl 9:3; τηρεῖν τὴν σάρκα ὡς ν. θεοῦ IPhld 7:2. Hence individual Christians are called αὐτοῦ (= θεοῦ) ναοί IEph 15:3. Of a Christian congregation 1 Cor 3:16, 17ab; 2 Cor 6:16ab. αξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν κυρίῳ Eph 2:21. The Christians are λίθοι ναοῦ πατρός stones for the Father’s temple IEph 9:1. To place great emphasis on the oneness of the Christian community (which permits no division) Christians are challenged thus: πάντες ὡς εἰς ἕνα ναὸν συντρέχετε θεοῦ come together, all of you, as to one temple of God IMg 7:2.—(Cp.: ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου ‘the entire world is God’s temple’ Orig., C. Cels. 7, 44, 38).—S. ἱερόν b.—KBaltzer, HTR 58, ’65, 263–77 (Luke); BGärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and in the NT ’65; RClements, God and Temple ’65 (OT). e The uses in J 2:19, 20, 21 call for special attention. Jesus, standing in Jersualem’s temple exclaims, λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισίν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it (vs. 19), which some persons in the narrative understand as a ref. to the physical structure (vs. 20), but the narrator interprets it as a reference to the ναὸς τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ temple of his body (vs. 21) (AMDubarle, Le signe du Temple [J 2:19]: RB 48, ’39, 21–44; OCullmann, TZ 4, ’48, 367). Cp. the description of Christ’s body δικαιοσύνης”

Paul’s use of “temple of God” in other contexts is irrelevant, if it doesn’t share context or qualifying language. If Paul is describing a central, identifiable eschatological event, I would expect at least conceptual overlap with Jesus’ teaching, not necessarily identical wording, but the same kind of event.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn’t make these rules up. I’m simply following lexical arguments by Biblical scholars. For example, The BDAG lexicon classifies “ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ” in 2 Thess 2:4 under the established usage of the Jerusalem temple, not under metaphorical temple language, indicating that the phrase naturally functions within the physical temple referent in Koine Greek.

The point is that you're going by man-made rules, which I'm not interested in. I'm interested in looking at the scriptures for myself and allowing the Holy Spirit to show me what they mean. Isn't that what you want to do? It seems that, instead, you want biblical scholars to tell you what to believe. As if they somehow have more spiritual discernment than any of us. Even though spiritual discernment is not dependent on being Greek experts.

How about addressing what I said about 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 instead of wasting time posting the opinions of other people that I'm not interested in? How many times do I need to post my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 in relation to the discussion we've been having before you will address it? Or do you just not want to address it for some reason?

 

[covenantee]

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.

Yes. But you said, "Nothing here says lawlessness gets worse or is restrained."

So something is restrained.

History exegetes the identity.

And history confirms the Scriptural lexical arguments by Tertullian et al.

 

[claninja]

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?

I never said the Greek was clear, in fact this chapter is super ambiguous, and difficult to understand.

My point was that It’s a fact, that there is no direct object in vs 7, and it’s also a fact that lawlessness is not a direct object because it’s not in the accusative state. Some translations acknowledge that, and some add words in order to interpret.

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.

I said implied. Again, not interested in your bid to drum up the “spiritual discernment” argument.

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:

My point was that it doesn’t grammatically say lawlessness is restrained. You appealing to to 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 doesn’t address my point.

 

[claninja]

Yes. But you said, "Nothing here says lawlessness gets worse or is restrained."

So something is restrained.

History exegetes the identity.

And history confirms the Scriptural lexical arguments by Tertullian et al.

Correct. It doesn’t grammatically say lawlessness is restrained. I would argue the “revealing” of the man of sin is what is restrained, due to that when the restrainer is taken out of the way, the man of sin is revealed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never said the Greek was clear, in fact this chapter is super ambiguous, and difficult to understand.

Okay.

My point was that It’s a fact, that there is no direct object in vs 7, and it’s also a fact that lawlessness is not a direct object because it’s not in the accusative state. Some translations acknowledge that, and some add words in order to interpret.

That's meaningless since you acknowledge that the Greek is "super ambiguous, and difficult to understand". So, we can't rely on our or anyone else's understanding of the Greek in verse 7 to understand what Paul was saying.

2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

If this is only saying that he who now withholds the revealing of the man of sin will continue to withhold the man of sin's revealing until he is taken out of the way, as it seems you believe, then who do you think it is that withholds the revealing of the man of sin and why would he need to be taken out of the way in order for the man of sin to be revealed?

I said implied. Again, not interested in your bid to drum up the “spiritual discernment” argument.

You think I'm arguing that I have more spiritual discernment than you. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we need spiritual discernment in order to understand this difficult passage since referencing Greek resources alone isn't enough. Do you disagree?

My point was that it doesn’t grammatically say lawlessness is restrained. You appealing to to 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 doesn’t address my point.

Yes, it does. Does context mean anything to you? I'm referencing 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 to help show the context of what is being restrained. Do you believe that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is already occurring before the coming/revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness or after the man of sin/lawlessness comes (is revealed)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct. It doesn’t grammatically say lawlessness is restrained. I would argue the “revealing” of the man of sin is what is restrained, due to that when the restrainer is taken out of the way, the man of sin is revealed.

This is why I bring up 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10, which you don't seem willing to address. I am saying that it's not the revealing or coming of the man of sin that is being restrained, but rather what happens when the man of sin/lawlessness comes and is revealed is what is being restrained.

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.

Before "the coming of the lawless one" (that wicked, man of sin, man of lawlessness), "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is not occurring. It's being restrained. But, after the coming/revealing of the man of sin, then "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is no longer restrained. Do you see my point? I think I'm being pretty clear here.

 

[covenantee]

Correct. It doesn’t grammatically say lawlessness is restrained. I would argue the “revealing” of the man of sin is what is restrained, due to that when the restrainer is taken out of the way, the man of sin is revealed.

True. Verse 6 confirms that the withholder was withholding the revelation of the man of sin.

 

[claninja]

Okay.


That's meaningless since you acknowledge that the Greek is "super ambiguous, and difficult to understand". So, we can't rely on our or anyone else's understanding of the Greek in verse 7 to understand what Paul was saying.

2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

If this is only saying that he who now withholds the revealing of the man of sin will continue to withhold the man of sin's revealing until he is taken out of the way, as it seems you believe, then who do you think it is that withholds the revealing of the man of sin and why would he need to be taken out of the way in order for the man of sin to be revealed?


You think I'm arguing that I have more spiritual discernment than you. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we need spiritual discernment in order to understand this difficult passage since referencing Greek resources alone isn't enough. Do you disagree?


Yes, it does. Does context mean anything to you? I'm referencing 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 to help show the context of what is being restrained. Do you believe that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is already occurring before the coming/revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness or after the man of sin/lawlessness comes (is revealed)?

There are hundreds of different interpretations on this site alone. Whose “spiritual discernment” is the right one? Spiritual discernment doesn’t mean you automatically get to ignore grammar and claim you know what Paul talked about in secret meetings outside of the letters.

The Greek is super ambiguous in regards to identity - it doesn’t identify anything - who the man of sin is, what the temple is, who the restrainer is, what the mystery of lawless is, etc…

The grammar of vs 7 is clear in that the nouns mystery and lawless are not direct objects to the action of the restrainer. What is also made clear is that lawlessness was presently at work in Paul’s day, but when the restrainer is to be out of the way, the lawless one is revealed.

In regards to vs 9-10, Those who are perishing are described as people who have rejected the truth. The lawless one appears and deceives them, and within that context of judgment, God gives them over to a strong delusion so that they believe the lie. Paul doesn’t mention the man of sin being able to deceive anyone else.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are hundreds of different interpretations on this site alone. Whose “spiritual discernment” is the right one? Spiritual discernment doesn’t mean you automatically get to ignore grammar and claim you know what Paul talked about in secret meetings outside of the letters.

I didn't say that. You just don't get it. I'm not saying we shouldn't consult Greek resources for help, but this is a case where they don't really help much. So, should we just assume that we can't understand the text then? It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is meant to be understood. So, how else can we understand this passage if we don't have the help of the Holy Spirit? All I'm trying to get you to do is acknowledge that we need the Holy Spirit's help to understand the passage. Is that too hard for you to acknowledge?

But, we also need to look at 2 Thessalonians 2 as a whole. If something is being restrained, why would it be the revealing of the man of sin? For what reason would that need to be restrained? Isn't rather what happens after the man of sin comes and is revealed that has to be restrained, as is described in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10? That's what I'm trying to get you to address, but you act as if it's not relevant. It most certainly is relevant is we want to determine what exactly is being restrained.

The Greek is super ambiguous in regards to identity - it doesn’t identify anything - who the man of sin is, what the temple is, who the restrainer is, what the mystery of lawless is, etc…

Right. So, is it then hopeless for us to understand the text or is the Holy Spirit capable of helping us to understand it regardless of these barriers you mentioned?

The grammar of vs 7 is clear in that the nouns mystery and lawless are not direct objects to the action of the restrainer. What is also made clear is that lawlessness was presently at work in Paul’s day, but when the restrainer is to be out of the way, the lawless one is revealed.

Tell me why the restrainer would need to be taken out of the way in order for the lawless one to be revealed. If that's the conclusion you're going to come to then you need to be able to explain why that would be the case.

In regards to vs 9-10, Those who are perishing are described as people who have rejected the truth. The lawless one appears and deceives them, and within that context of judgment, God gives them over to a strong delusion so that they believe the lie. Paul doesn’t mention the man of sin being able to deceive anyone else.

Can you please address what I said regarding verses 9 and 10? Please answer this question. Do you believe that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" is occurring even before the coming/revealing of the man of sin or is it something that occurs after the coming/revealing of the man of sin? If you answer that it only occurs after the coming/revealing of the man of sin, then don't you think it's reasonable to conclude that what is being restrained is "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish"?

Beyond all this, what started this discussion about 2 Thessalonians 2 is you questioning what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and you're wondering if he is talking about the physical temple standing at that time or a spiritual temple of God, such as our bodies or the corporate church body. That question is actually very simple to answer if you understand that Paul was talking about things that would happen before the still yet future coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him. In that case, he can't have possibly been talking about a physical temple. So, what are your thoughts about that? We have been sidetracked by other verses in the chapter, but the reason it was brought up in the first place was to determine whether the temple of God that Paul mentioned is physical or spiritual.

 

[claninja]

I didn't say that. You just don't get it. I'm not saying we shouldn't consult Greek resources for help, but this is a case where they don't really help much. So, should we just assume that we can't understand the text then? It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is meant to be understood. So, how else can we understand this passage if we don't have the help of the Holy Spirit? All I'm trying to get you to do is acknowledge that we need the Holy Spirit's help to understand the passage. Is that too hard for you to acknowledge?

But, we also need to look at 2 Thessalonians 2 as a whole. If something is being restrained, why would it be the revealing of the man of sin? For what reason would that need to be restrained? Isn't rather what happens after the man of sin comes and is revealed that has to be restrained, as is described in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10? That's what I'm trying to get you to address, but you act as if it's not relevant. It most certainly is relevant is we want to determine what exactly is being restrained.


Right. So, is it then hopeless for us to understand the text or is the Holy Spirit capable of helping us to understand it regardless of these barriers you mentioned?


Tell me why the restrainer would need to be taken out of the way in order for the lawless one to be revealed. If that's the conclusion you're going to come to then you need to be able to explain why that would be the case.


Can you please address what I said regarding verses 9 and 10? Please answer this question. Do you believe that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" is occurring even before the coming/revealing of the man of sin or is it something that occurs after the coming/revealing of the man of sin? If you answer that it only occurs after the coming/revealing of the man of sin, then don't you think it's reasonable to conclude that what is being restrained is "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish"?

Beyond all this, what started this discussion about 2 Thessalonians 2 is you questioning what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and you're wondering if he is talking about the physical temple standing at that time or a spiritual temple of God, such as our bodies or the corporate church body. That question is actually very simple to answer if you understand that Paul was talking about things that would happen before the still yet future coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him. In that case, he can't have possibly been talking about a physical temple. So, what are your thoughts about that? We have been sidetracked by other verses in the chapter, but the reason it was brought up in the first place was to determine whether the temple of God that Paul mentioned is physical or spiritual.

We have a different understanding as to what “spiritual discernment” means. as I’ve explained in the past - I don’t think it has to do with God magically giving someone insight into unknown conversations 2000 years ago. But this does have me thinking- if the private convo with the Thessalonians explains the ambiguous parts solely to a first century audience. Maybe its relevance is to them and not us 2000 year later.

As to vs 10-12. Lawlessness is already at work in secret. While the passage does describe a restrainer, what is being restrained is not the existence of lawlessness itself, but the full revelation of the lawless one. When he is revealed in Satan’s power, what was already operating in secret becomes open and embodied in public.

I would liken this to a corrupt government or movement operating in secrecy. When its figure head is exposed, it’s out in public.

As to the temple, A.) I provided the BDAG lexicon which lists 2 Thessalonians 2:4 use of naos under uses consistent with the physical temple. B.) Paul never qualifies the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2, like he does literally every other time. C.) In the OD, lawlessness, a falling away, the, false prophets and messiah, and the AOD are mentioned as occurring prior to the coming Christ. I would argue, Paul is simply using different language to describe what Jesus already has.

 

[marks]

There are hundreds of different interpretations on this site alone. Whose “spiritual discernment” is the right one? Spiritual discernment doesn’t mean you automatically get to ignore grammar and claim you know what Paul talked about in secret meetings outside of the letters.

Exactly!

In my understanding, "spiritual discernment" enables you to understand the words written. Otherwise the human mind glosses over things, ignores parts, the Holy Spirit reveals the exact truth written, not changes what was written.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly!

In my understanding, "spiritual discernment" enables you to understand the words written.

Right. And the spiritual discernment comes from the Holy Spirit, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

Otherwise the human mind glosses over things, ignores parts, the Holy Spirit reveals the exact truth written, not changes what was written.

Right. I didn't say otherwise, but @claninja just doesn't get that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We have a different understanding as to what “spiritual discernment” means. as I’ve explained in the past - I don’t think it has to do with God magically giving someone insight into unknown conversations 2000 years ago.

So, what do you think spiritual discernment means then? Do you think it relates to the understanding of "the deeper things of God" in scripture that the Holy Spirit gives to us? That's how I see it. I think that is made pretty clear by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

But this does have me thinking- if the private convo with the Thessalonians explains the ambiguous parts solely to a first century audience. Maybe its relevance is to them and not us 2000 year later.

That would require you to believe that Jesus already came and that His people have already been gathered to Him. Because the context of what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 relates to things that occur up until the second coming of Christ when we are gathered to Him. And, anyone not affected by doctrinal bias should immediately think of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 when Paul talks about a coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him. We will be gathered to Him "in the air". That clearly has not yet happened.

As to vs 10-12. Lawlessness is already at work in secret.

But, not without any restraint. In verses 9 and 10 Paul talked about the coming of the lawless one being related directly to "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". Do you claim that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" was already at work when Paul wrote the letter? If so, then why did he speak of the revealing and coming of the lawless one in the context of something that was going to happen at some point in the future?

While the passage does describe a restrainer, what is being restrained is not the existence of lawlessness itself, but the full revelation of the lawless one. When he is revealed in Satan’s power, what was already operating in secret becomes open and embodied in public.

So, you don't think that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" was being restrained at all at the time Paul wrote the letter? Paul indicated that the coming of the lawless one would result in "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". He didn't indicate that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" would already be occurring before the coming of the lawless one, which he indicated would be future to the time he was writing the letter.

I would liken this to a corrupt government or movement operating in secrecy. When its figure head is exposed, it’s out in public.

As to the temple, A.) I provided the BDAG lexicon which lists 2 Thessalonians 2:4 use of naos under uses consistent with the physical temple. B.) Paul never qualifies the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2, like he does literally every other time. C.) In the OD, lawlessness, a falling away, the, false prophets and messiah, and the AOD are mentioned as occurring prior to the coming Christ. I would argue, Paul is simply using different language to describe what Jesus already has.

The biggest problem here is that you don't acknowledge that the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him is a yet future event (still in our future as of today). So, that clouds your understanding of what Paul was writing about. Preterism is a false doctrinal system that you should reject.

 

[covenantee]

We have a different understanding as to what “spiritual discernment” means. as I’ve explained in the past - I don’t think it has to do with God magically giving someone insight into unknown conversations 2000 years ago. But this does have me thinking- if the private convo with the Thessalonians explains the ambiguous parts solely to a first century audience. Maybe its relevance is to them and not us 2000 year later.

As to vs 10-12. Lawlessness is already at work in secret. While the passage does describe a restrainer, what is being restrained is not the existence of lawlessness itself, but the full revelation of the lawless one. When he is revealed in Satan’s power, what was already operating in secret becomes open and embodied in public.

I would liken this to a corrupt government or movement operating in secrecy. When its figure head is exposed, it’s out in public.

As to the temple, A.) I provided the BDAG lexicon which lists 2 Thessalonians 2:4 use of naos under uses consistent with the physical temple. B.) Paul never qualifies the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2, like he does literally every other time. C.) In the OD, lawlessness, a falling away, the, false prophets and messiah, and the AOD are mentioned as occurring prior to the coming Christ. I would argue, Paul is simply using different language to describe what Jesus already has.

Historically, when imperial Rome was "taken out of the way", what was then revealed?

 

[claninja]

Exactly!

In my understanding, "spiritual discernment" enables you to understand the words written. Otherwise the human mind glosses over things, ignores parts, the Holy Spirit reveals the exact truth written, not changes what was written.

Much love!

I would argue it doesn’t enable you to understand the words written. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, and it took many linguistics experts and scholars to get the Bible to where it is today.

Can you point to any figure, who had zero background in Hebrew or Greek that was able to help understand it in its original languages, solely via the Holy Spirit?

And this leads to bigger problems - lexicon and concordances. Many of us English-only speakers rely on English translations to read the Bible, but then either reject the very tools provided for proper linguistic studies or improperly use them in order to get scripture to fit our pre conceived theological frameworks.

My position on spiritual discernment is simply that the kingdom is not of this world, we are to love God and our neighbors (no restrictions on who are neighbors are), to love and pray for our enemies, to turn the other cheek, etc…things often contrary to the carnal mindset.

 

[claninja]

So, what do you think spiritual discernment means then? Do you think it relates to the understanding of "the deeper things of God" in scripture that the Holy Spirit gives to us? That's how I see it. I think that is made pretty clear by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

I think it means turning the other cheek, understanding the kingdom is not of this world, loving your enemies, feeding the poor, healing the sick, clothing the naked, fruits of the spirit, etc… basically things contrary to the carnal man.

I don’t believe it means revealing secret timelines or predictive frameworks to eschatological questions. if that was the case there has been zero truly spiritual discerned people since the time of Christ.

That would require you to believe that Jesus already came and that His people have already been gathered to Him. Because the context of what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 relates to things that occur up until the second coming of Christ when we are gathered to Him. And, anyone not affected by doctrinal bias should immediately think of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 when Paul talks about a coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him. We will be gathered to Him "in the air". That clearly has not yet happened.

To be clear, it hasn’t happened according to your theological framework. It has according to the preterist framework.

But, not without any restraint. In verses 9 and 10 Paul talked about the coming of the lawless one being related directly to "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". Do you claim that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" was already at work when Paul wrote the letter? If so, then why did he speak of the revealing and coming of the lawless one in the context of something that was going to happen at some point in the future?

Nothing in the text says lawlessness was being restrained. The mystery of lawlessness was already at work. Once the restrainer was out of the way, the lawlesss one was revealed to deceive those that rejected the truth.

So, you don't think that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" was being restrained at all at the time Paul wrote the letter? Paul indicated that the coming of the lawless one would result in "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". He didn't indicate that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" would already be occurring before the coming of the lawless one, which he indicated would be future to the time he was writing the letter.

Like I said, I think the revealing is what was being restrained. The passage already says the “mystery of lawlessness is at work,” so the issue doesn’t seem to be whether lawlessness exists or increases, but whether it becomes fully unveiled in a concentrated, identifiable form.

So the question is what Paul means by “revealed” whether he’s talking about a new level of evil appearing, or the public manifestation of something that was already operating in a hidden way?

The biggest problem here is that you don't acknowledge that the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him is a yet future event (still in our future as of today). So, that clouds your understanding of what Paul was writing about. Preterism is a false doctrinal system that you should reject.

Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur”.

 

[claninja]

Historically, when imperial Rome was "taken out of the way", what was then revealed?

I’ll admit im not totally familiar with dates. When did imperial Rome fall and when did papal Rome rise ?

 

[covenantee]

I’ll admit im not totally familiar with dates. When did imperial Rome fall and when did papal Rome rise ?

Imperial Rome fell in 476 AD/CE, and papal Rome "subdued" the first of the three kings of Daniel 7:24 in 493 CE.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think it means turning the other cheek, understanding the kingdom is not of this world, loving your enemies, feeding the poor, healing the sick, clothing the naked, fruits of the spirit, etc… basically things contrary to the carnal man.

And these things are revealed by the Holy Spirit, right? Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 that the things that he spoke, which are also things that he has written, are "not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.". So, what do you think he meant by that?

I don’t believe it means revealing secret timelines or predictive frameworks to eschatological questions.

I don't even know what you mean by that, so I can't comment on it.

if that was the case there has been zero truly spiritual discerned people since the time of Christ.

Do you believe that spiritual discernment involves having the help of the Holy Spirit to understand what scripture is teaching?

To be clear, it hasn’t happened according to your theological framework. It has according to the preterist framework.

The preterist framework is a joke. In no way, shape or form has Jesus yet returned while having His people gathered to Him "in the air". If you did away with that ridiculous framework then you would understand that the temple of God that Paul references in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 could not possibly be a physical temple.

Nothing in the text says lawlessness was being restrained. The mystery of lawlessness was already at work. Once the restrainer was out of the way, the lawlesss one was revealed to deceive those that rejected the truth.

So, are you then saying that "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" was already at work when Paul wrote the letter? That's not what he indicated. He indicated that ""the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish" is something that would occur once the man of sin came and was revealed, which had not happened yet when he wrote the letter.

Like I said, I think the revealing is what was being restrained. The passage already says the “mystery of lawlessness is at work,” so the issue doesn’t seem to be whether lawlessness exists or increases, but whether it becomes fully unveiled in a concentrated, identifiable form.

Yeah, I know what you think. But, do you understand that something being restrained can mean that something is already happening to some extent, but just not to the full extent?

So the question is what Paul means by “revealed” whether he’s talking about a new level of evil appearing, or the public manifestation of something that was already operating in a hidden way?

These questions are not an issue for me at all because I understand that Paul was talking about things in relation to a time before the future coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him in the air. These questions arise for you only because you believe in the false doctrinal framework of preterism.

Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur”.

Yes, He did say that. You are correct. But, of course, I don't believe you know what He meant by that. He also said right after that, heaven and earth would pass away. He implied that this generation will pass away when heaven and earth pass away and heaven and earth have not yet passed away. The same generation He described a verse earlier during which people would see the things that would indicate that His second coming is near, will not pass away until those things are fulfilled.