Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[Brakelite]

My French ancestors came out of the French Protestant Reformation to the Americas in the 1600's, thank you. No need for you attempt to educate me. I see it as the other way around.

The Reformation era of 1600's Europe saw the RCC pope as the Biblical Antichrist, and even thought Jesus was returning in their day. It did not happen. So nor was the pope the Antichrist for the end of this world.

The result of the Protestant Reformation was a separation from the Catholic system, which the Church in Britain actually already was separate from the RCC. The British Church has a history that pre-dates the Catholic Church in Rome.

So what you are following with still believing the pope is the Antichrist, and that Rome is the Babylon Harlot is an old 16th century failed doctrine. And that begs the question of just WHO would want to keep pushing that failed doctrine today. It is not all Protestant Churches, because not all Protestant Churches are still pushing that old Reformation idea that the pope is the Antichrist.

You do the reformers a grave disservice. You seriously underestimate why they believed the Papacy was the Antichrist. Not just one pope at one time, but the entire succession of popes from the 6th century to this day. It is the system that is Antichrist. You could do some serious research into some Reformation writings, or you could ask me what Biblical evidence there is that the Papacy deliberately sought to replace Christ with a man-made system. Or you could ignore 1500 years or more of Christian history and make stuff up like so many other futurists and clairvoyants out there.

 

[Brakelite]

No future physical temple could possibly be the temple of God. God does not dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24) and "the temple of God" can only be a temple that belongs to God and that He dwells in, which is the case right now in relation to the spiritual temple of God (the church). He will never dwell in any future physical temple, so no future physical temple can be God's temple.

Agreed. Why can people not see that? Whereas the Antichrist (The Papacy) can most assuredly, and does, sit in the church, taking the place of Christ (the meaning of Antichrist) as the head of the church, the dispenser of salvation, and the king preparing to take His throne.

 

[ewq1938]

Agreed. Why can people not see that? Whereas the Antichrist (The Papacy) can most assuredly, and does, sit in the church, taking the place of Christ (the meaning of Antichrist) as the head of the church, the dispenser of salvation, and the king preparing to take His throne.

AC is used only one time in the bible in the singular and it is about one single man, not a series of men. It is not a reference to the Papacy or Popes. They certainly are a type/shadow of him but not whom was being spoken about.

This singular man is mentioned many times by other names and again, he is always one certain man not men holding an office etc.

 

[Brakelite]

1. deceived Jews in Jerusalem at the end who will setup the coming Antichrist as King over Israel will claim he is born of the tribe of Judah, the Jews. That one is born of the tribe of Judah and house of David to be King of Israel is a requirement God made, and the orthodox Jews abide by that.

I thought you said these were going to be Biblical.

2. the Antichrist will sit in a stone temple in Jerusalem (Paul's "temple of God") at the end of this world during the "great tribulation" time. He will proclaim himself as God.

As SI said above, no stone temple in the future unsanctioned by the holy Spirit could ever be the temple of God. We are God's temple...Christ in us, the hope of glory.

3. the Antichrist will place the "abomination of desolation" IDOL for false worship at the new temple in JERUSALEM, which is defined by Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11 about the "vile person". Jesus included that future event in His Olivet discourse SIGNS for the end of this world.

The abomination of desolation that surrounded Jerusalem in 70 AD were the Roman armies and the idolatrous standards placed in holy ground around the city. The spiritual parallel in prophecy is the church being surrounded by apostates worshiping the beast and his image and enforcing his mark.

4. the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 is given ABOUT the Jews and Jerusalem, NOT Christianity, nor a Christian Church or a pope.

The 70weeks were finished in 34AD.

5. per Paul in 2 Thess.2, Jesus returns to destroy the false one with the brightness of His coming. Zechariah 14 points to Jesus' future coming being a return to JERUSALEM, upon the MOUNT OF OLIVES, which will cause a great valley to be formed there on earth. That is where the Antichrist will be destroyed at.

I agree that the Antichrist will be destroyed at the Second Coming. But you are mixing up your events. There is a third coming at the end of the 1000 years, when the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descends from heaven and settles on that Mt of Olives you mentioned. 2 events, 1000 years distant from one another.

6. the orthodox unbelieving Jews are looking for the coming of MESSIAH, a Jewish MESSIAH, not a Christian pope. Trying to claim a Christian pope can be the Jew's Messiah is like comparing a piece of lead with a piece of gold.

True. The whole world will be deceived by a false Messiah. The Catholics by their pope, the Muslims looking for their Mahdi, the Hindus looking for Krishna, and millions looking for a rescue from space and worshipping an alien with demons masquerading as your dead relatives who tell you there is nothing to worry about. But that's a whole other story.

7. the Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:31 Scripture declares the orthodox Jews will startup old covenant worship with animal sacrifices again, in JERUSALEM.

Nonsense.

8. the placing of the "abomination of desolation" idol REQUIRES a standing... Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem, not the Vatican in Rome.

More futurist nonsense invented by Roman apologists to divert the accusing fingers of true Protestants away from the Papacy. A successful counter-reformation tactic you are chewing on hook, line, sinker, and boat.

 

[Brakelite]

AC is used only one time in the bible in the singular and it is about one single man, not a series of men. It is not a reference to the Papacy or Popes. They certainly are a type/shadow of him but not whom was being spoken about.

This singular man is mentioned many times by other names and again, he is always one certain man not men holding an office etc.

To come to that conclusion, one must set aside 500 years at least of serious Biblical scholarship. The Reformers did not come to their conclusions based on hearsay, experience, or personal angst.

 

[Brakelite]

AC is used only one time in the bible in the singular and it is about one single man, not a series of men. It is not a reference to the Papacy or Popes. They certainly are a type/shadow of him but not whom was being spoken about.

This singular man is mentioned many times by other names and again, he is always one certain man not men holding an office etc.

That so-called "one singular man" grew out of the church in the 6th century and is to be destroyed at the second coming. That's a heck of a life.

 

[MatthewG]

Agreed. Why can people not see that? Whereas the Antichrist (The Papacy) can most assuredly, and does, sit in the church, taking the place of Christ (the meaning of Antichrist) as the head of the church, the dispenser of salvation, and the king preparing to take His throne.

I think the antichrist was a jewish person within the walls of Israel in that day in age.

but then again there was already many antichrist walking around in that day according to some account in the bible... but I believe there was one single that would raise up and claim to be God or something long those lines.

I believe God used Rome to take care of Israel though when the Wrath of God was poured upon them for their disobedience.

 

[Brakelite]

I think the antichrist was a jewish person within the walls of Israel in that day in age.

but then again there was already many antichrist walking around in that day according to some account in the bible... but I believe there was one single that would raise up and claim to be God or something long those lines.

I believe God used Rome to take care of Israel though when the Wrath of God was poured upon them for their disobedience.

The "Little Horn" of Daniel 7 didn't come to power until the restrainer was removed in the 6th century. He grew from among the ten horns
and subdued 3 of them. He then grew to such power that a powerful and tyrannical institution formed around him, subverting truth and replacing Christ with itself as the sole Mediator. This same power was the great apostasy spoken of by Paul, and will be destroyed at the second coming.

 

[MatthewG]

The "Little Horn" of Daniel 7 didn't come to power until the restrainer was removed in the 6th century. He grew from among the ten horns
and subdued 3 of them. He then grew to such power that a powerful and tyrannical institution formed around him, subverting truth and replacing Christ with itself as the sole Mediator. This same power was the great apostasy spoken of by Paul, and will be destroyed at the second coming.

Sir. I didn't even say anything about that. So what do you really say to my thoughts?

They are bogus? Just say something worthwhile towards my own thoughts. Or tell me they are just terrible can't say stuff like that.

 

[MatthewG]

2 Thessalonians was a letter written by Paul to the people in Thessalonica... The second letter that has been kept in the bible which talk to a specific people in a specific area of time... and age.

Paul talks about the things they would see... not what we would see.

 

[claninja]

I agree that it would be absurd if someone claimed the final visible return of Christ had already happened in its fullest sense and the Thessalonians somehow missed it. If Christ had already appeared in final glory, the resurrection and gathering had occurred, and the wicked had been judged, no letter would be needed to tell them it had not happened. But that is exactly why I do not think the deception was, “Jesus visibly returned and you missed it.” The deception seems more likely to have been that the day of the Lord was already present, already underway, or immediately upon them. Their persecution could have made that claim believable. Paul is not saying, “You should have noticed if the world ended.” He is saying, “Do not be shaken; the prophetic sequence has not yet unfolded.”

That is why Paul answers with sequence: the falling away must come first, the man of lawlessness must be revealed, the restraint must be removed, and then Christ destroys that lawless power at His coming. So yes, Paul is correcting deception about the day of the Lord. But the correction itself shows the issue was timing and prophetic sequence, not that they had literally missed the final visible return of Christ.

Honestly, your argument doesn’t really make any sense nor address the main overall issue. Paul is NOT solely correcting the prophetic sequence, he’s providing a prophetic sequence to prove “something” has not yet occurred. But what that “something” is, is the very hinge on what the prophetic sequence proves.

Paul defines the day of the Lord in vs 1 - the coming of Christ and the gathering.

Paul then provides a potential deception - don’t be alarmed that the day of the Lord already occurred - the verb “already occurred” being perfect tense = past completed action with results being felt in the present.

The very reason Paul provides the prophetic sequence of the apostasy and man of sin, is SO THAT the Thessalonians might not be deceived that the coming of Christ/gathering had already occurred.

The main questions are: how could the Thessalonians be deceived the coming/gathering already occurred IF those events were understood as cosmic and global? How does providing a prophetic sequence help prevent the deception that an obvious global cosmic event had not already occurred?

 

[Davy]

I thought you said these were going to be Biblical.

What I said is... Biblical.

Gen 49:10
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
KJV

"Shiloh" is put for Lord Jesus Christ. And that "sceptre" means a rod that kings are given to represent their reign. Christ Jesus is to inherit David's throne, an earthly throne, which will only happen at His future 2nd coming.

As SI said above, no stone temple in the future unsanctioned by the holy Spirit could ever be the temple of God. We are God's temple...Christ in us, the hope of glory.

The temple in Jerusalem that Israel worshiped in per Ezekiel 8 & 16 that fell in IDOL worship was supposed to be a temple God had originally approved. This 3rd coming stone temple in Jerusalem to be built by the unbelieving Jews, they will claim also is sanctioned by God. They are following the Zechariah 6 prophecy about The "BRANCH" (Jesus) Who is to build the temple when He comes. Their problem is, they don't know the first Messiah coming will be a fake.

I'll not argue Rome and pope, etc., with you. The Bible is not pointing to those about the end.

 

[Davy]

You do the reformers a grave disservice.

Nah... not at all. I instead do the reformers who had wisdom a service, because if they were still living today, they would admit that a pope is not the Antichrist, and that they tried to apply the end time prophecies too early, for they did not happen in their day in the 1600's.

Thus there must be 'another reason' why some Christian branches still push those old Reformer's doctrines, and I think the reason is simple. The false Jews of the "synagogue of Satan" have latched on it, as they are against anything Christian, even if it's just got the label Christian on it. They likely are behind the false theories pointing to European nations going up against Israel also, when God's Word points to specific nations outside... the Western Christian nations. They attack those European nations because they historically are Christian nations.

 

[Davy]

The "man of lawlessness" represents christendom's false teachers, the clergy. (See Matt.7:21-23) Among other things, they've supported the warfare of the nations, condoning brothers killing brothers, due only to political geography....although Jesus told His followers to "love one another" & be 'no part of the world.'

That which "acts as a restraint" but gets removed, were the Apostles... when they had all died -- that last one to die was the Apostle John c. 100 C.E.-- there was really no restraint against the foretold apostasy

Un-Biblical.

 

[ewq1938]

That so-called "one singular man" grew out of the church in the 6th century and is to be destroyed at the second coming. That's a heck of a life.

No, that singular man has not risen to power as of yet. Any past people could be types and shadows of him at best.

 

[covenantee]

Nah... not at all. I instead do the reformers who had wisdom a service, because if they were still living today, they would admit that a pope is not the Antichrist, and that they tried to apply the end time prophecies too early, for they did not happen in their day in the 1600's.

Thus there must be 'another reason' why some Christian branches still push those old Reformer's doctrines, and I think the reason is simple. The false Jews of the "synagogue of Satan" have latched on it, as they are against anything Christian, even if it's just got the label Christian on it. They likely are behind the false theories pointing to European nations going up against Israel also, when God's Word points to specific nations outside... the Western Christian nations. They attack those European nations because they historically are Christian nations.

The pope is more than pleased with Francisco Ribera's success in deceiving you.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[covenantee]

No, that singular man has not risen to power as of yet. Any past people could be types and shadows of him at best.

Thankfully the Reformers were not deceived by Francisco Ribera.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[CTK]

Honestly, your argument doesn’t really make any sense nor address the main overall issue. Paul is NOT solely correcting the prophetic sequence, he’s providing a prophetic sequence to prove “something” has not yet occurred. But what that “something” is, is the very hinge on what the prophetic sequence proves.

Paul defines the day of the Lord in vs 1 - the coming of Christ and the gathering.

Paul then provides a potential deception - don’t be alarmed that the day of the Lord already occurred - the verb “already occurred” being perfect tense = past completed action with results being felt in the present.

The very reason Paul provides the prophetic sequence of the apostasy and man of sin, is SO THAT the Thessalonians might not be deceived that the coming of Christ/gathering had already occurred.

The main questions are: how could the Thessalonians be deceived the coming/gathering already occurred IF those events were understood as cosmic and global? How does providing a prophetic sequence help prevent the deception that an obvious global cosmic event had not already occurred?

Paul’s sequence proves the day had not arrived, not because the Thessalonians could miss the final visible return, but because they could be deceived into thinking the day of the Lord was already present due to their suffering.

 

[claninja]

Paul’s sequence proves the day had not arrived, not because the Thessalonians could miss the final visible return, but because they could be deceived into thinking the day of the Lord was already present due to their suffering.

Paul’s sequence proved a cosmic and global event hadn’t Happened yet?

They could be deceived a global cosmic event already Happened because they were still suffering?

I honestly have no idea what you are arguing here. It doesn’t make any logical sense.

 

[CTK]

Paul’s sequence proved a cosmic and global event hadn’t Happened yet?

They could be deceived a global cosmic event already Happened because they were still suffering?

I honestly have no idea what you are arguing here. It doesn’t make any logical sense.

I am not arguing that they thought the full visible return, resurrection, gathering, and final judgment had already happened and that they missed it. I agree that would be absurd. I am saying that they may have been told the day of the Lord had arrived, had begun, or was now present. That is different from saying every event connected with that day had already been completed. Their persecution could have made that claim believable. Paul corrects it by saying the prophetic sequence had not yet unfolded: the falling away had not come, the man of lawlessness had not been revealed, and the restraint had not been removed. So Paul’s sequence proves the day was not present. It does not mean they thought they missed the completed Second Coming.