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

CTK said:

For what it is worth:

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul carefully distinguishes between the mystery of lawlessness, the man of lawlessness, and the satanic manner in which this lawless power operates.

First, Paul says, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). This means lawlessness was already active in Paul’s day, but not yet fully revealed. It was present in seed form — hidden, developing, and restrained. This lawlessness was not merely ordinary sin in the world. It was a religious rebellion against God’s truth, already moving within the professed sphere of faith, but not yet matured into its final visible form.

The term “lawlessness” itself requires something to be violated. There can be no lawlessness unless there is a law, command, truth, or divine order being rejected. In Paul’s context, this lawlessness is not simply rebellion against civil law, but rebellion against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth delivered through the apostles. This means that even in Paul’s day, there were already people teaching, receiving, or following a distorted form of the Gospel. They may have appeared to belong within the growing Christian movement, but their teaching and spirit were not in harmony with the true Gospel of Jesus.

As the Christian church grew over the next few centuries, this mystery of lawlessness would also grow within it. What began in seed form during the apostolic age would slowly develop through compromise, false teaching, and the increasing adoption of Roman and pagan patterns. By the time of Constantine, the church had moved from persecution to imperial acceptance, but with that acceptance came serious danger. Pagan practices, images, altered worship patterns, and Roman structures of hierarchy began to find a place within the visible church. The lawlessness that Paul said was already working did not disappear; it matured.

Second, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness who would later be revealed. This shows that the hidden mystery would eventually take shape in an identifiable power. The man of lawlessness is the visible embodiment of the mystery that had already begun. He exalts himself, sits in the temple of God, and claims authority that belongs only to God. In this sense, the man of lawlessness corresponds closely with Daniel’s little horn — a religious-political power arising from the Roman world, corrupting truth, opposing God’s authority, and placing itself within the visible church.

This is why the papacy fits Paul’s description so strongly. After the demise of pagan Rome in 476 AD, the strongest bishop within the Christian church — the bishop of Rome — would rise into the vacuum left by the fallen Western Empire. In Daniel’s language, the little horn rises from within the fourth beast kingdom. In Paul’s language, the man of lawlessness takes his seat in the temple of God. These are not two unrelated ideas. They describe the same kind of power: a religious authority arising from within the Roman world, claiming a place within God’s church, and assuming authority that belongs only to Christ. The hidden lawlessness had now become exceedingly great in visible form.

Finally, Paul says the coming of this lawless one is “according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception” (2 Thessalonians 2:9–10). This does not mean Satan himself is the man of lawlessness. Satan is the power behind the deception, but he is not the visible earthly office or system Paul is identifying. The lawless one follows Satan’s pattern by using counterfeit spiritual authority, religious deception, false signs, and a rejection of the love of the truth.

So the sequence is important: the mystery of lawlessness is the hidden principle already working; the man of lawlessness is the later revealed system; and the working of Satan describes the deceptive power behind that system. Satan is the source and energizing force, but the lawless one revealed in history is the papal system that rose within the church, claimed divine authority, and cast truth to the ground.

Click to expand...

CTK said:

For what it is worth:

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul carefully distinguishes between the mystery of lawlessness, the man of lawlessness, and the satanic manner in which this lawless power operates.

First, Paul says, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). This means lawlessness was already active in Paul’s day, but not yet fully revealed. It was present in seed form — hidden, developing, and restrained. This lawlessness was not merely ordinary sin in the world. It was a religious rebellion against God’s truth, already moving within the professed sphere of faith, but not yet matured into its final visible form.

The term “lawlessness” itself requires something to be violated. There can be no lawlessness unless there is a law, command, truth, or divine order being rejected. In Paul’s context, this lawlessness is not simply rebellion against civil law, but rebellion against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth delivered through the apostles. This means that even in Paul’s day, there were already people teaching, receiving, or following a distorted form of the Gospel. They may have appeared to belong within the growing Christian movement, but their teaching and spirit were not in harmony with the true Gospel of Jesus.

As the Christian church grew over the next few centuries, this mystery of lawlessness would also grow within it. What began in seed form during the apostolic age would slowly develop through compromise, false teaching, and the increasing adoption of Roman and pagan patterns. By the time of Constantine, the church had moved from persecution to imperial acceptance, but with that acceptance came serious danger. Pagan practices, images, altered worship patterns, and Roman structures of hierarchy began to find a place within the visible church. The lawlessness that Paul said was already working did not disappear; it matured.

Second, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness who would later be revealed. This shows that the hidden mystery would eventually take shape in an identifiable power. The man of lawlessness is the visible embodiment of the mystery that had already begun. He exalts himself, sits in the temple of God, and claims authority that belongs only to God. In this sense, the man of lawlessness corresponds closely with Daniel’s little horn — a religious-political power arising from the Roman world, corrupting truth, opposing God’s authority, and placing itself within the visible church.

This is why the papacy fits Paul’s description so strongly. After the demise of pagan Rome in 476 AD, the strongest bishop within the Christian church — the bishop of Rome — would rise into the vacuum left by the fallen Western Empire. In Daniel’s language, the little horn rises from within the fourth beast kingdom. In Paul’s language, the man of lawlessness takes his seat in the temple of God. These are not two unrelated ideas. They describe the same kind of power: a religious authority arising from within the Roman world, claiming a place within God’s church, and assuming authority that belongs only to Christ. The hidden lawlessness had now become exceedingly great in visible form.

Finally, Paul says the coming of this lawless one is “according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception” (2 Thessalonians 2:9–10). This does not mean Satan himself is the man of lawlessness. Satan is the power behind the deception, but he is not the visible earthly office or system Paul is identifying. The lawless one follows Satan’s pattern by using counterfeit spiritual authority, religious deception, false signs, and a rejection of the love of the truth.

So the sequence is important: the mystery of lawlessness is the hidden principle already working; the man of lawlessness is the later revealed system; and the working of Satan describes the deceptive power behind that system. Satan is the source and energizing force, but the lawless one revealed in history is the papal system that rose within the church, claimed divine authority, and cast truth to the ground.

Click to expand...

Davidpt said:

A falling away---apostasy---must happen first, and the man of sin, the antichrist, will be revealed. This immediately tells us who Paul is talking about people who turn away from the truth they once knew.


They have 'all deceivableness of unrighteousness'---open to lies and deception. They 'received not the love of the truth'---they rejected truth voluntarily. Notice--- these aren’t people who never knew the truth. They are those who once knew it and turned from it.


God sends them strong delusion--- He doesn’t need to make someone already lost believe a lie---they’re already rejecting truth to begin with. The delusion is God allowing their rejection to run its course, strengthening their deception.


Their belief in lies is the direct result of their own rejection. It demonstrates the consequences of not loving the truth and stands in stark contrast to those who are saved, who embrace and love it.

Bottom line---this isn’t about all the lost in general. It’s about apostates---the ones described in verse 3 who fall away. Any other interpretation---saying God sends strong delusion to everyone who never believed---doesn’t make sense. He isn’t making the already lost loster--He’s confirming the choices of those who rejected Him after having known the truth first.

2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

This makes zero sense, if for example, this is including atheists, or say unbelieving Jews. Why would God need to send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie? Why would it take strong delusion in order for them to believe a lie when they already believe a lie to begin with? After all, they are atheists, are they not? They are unbelieving Jews, are they not. Neither of those examples = this---that they believe the truth. Right?

Therefore, in context, not out of context, the ones meant in verse 10 and 11 are clearly meaning the ones meant in verse 3 that fall away. None of this has anything to do with a literal brick and mortar temple in any way shape or form. Therefore, not meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed nor meaning a rebuilt one in the future. Yet verse 4 is clearly involving a temple. What other options are there if the temple can't mean a literal brick and mortar temple, nor a temple not made with hands(according to some interpreters)?

I, therefore, disagree that there is not enough context to determine which temple is meant. Obviously, the context that is present, none of it supports a literal brick and mortar temple. What should that be telling us? Assuming we set aside any doctrinal bias' and simply be objective about it? echo @claninja

Click to expand...

grafted branch said:

You mentioned atheists and unbelieving Jews can’t be who 2 Thessalonians 2 is referring to. I agree, but it could be referring to Jews who believed and were zealous for the law (Acts 21:20). Those folks could’ve decided to stop believing Jesus was the Messiah and just stick with the law.

John knew it was the last hour because they went out from us but they were not of us (1 John 2:18-19). To me it sounds like the falling away happened at that time and John recognized it and knew it was the last hour. Why should we be looking for another falling away?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Israelite said:

I would assume because there were things that were supposed to happen even before the day of the Lord comes, so it seems that he was saying that the day of the Lord couldn't have come yet when the things that are supposed to happen even before the day of the Lord haven't happened yet. I think you're making this more complicated than it is.

I can ask you a similar question about the preterist view of this. What do you think are the things that happen on the actual day of the Lord itself if it refers to what happened in 70 AD? If the day of the Lord was referring to what happened in 70 AD then I suppose you would say the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings by the Roman armies happened on that day, right? Why would Paul not have told them something like: "The temple is still here and the city hasn't been destroyed, so don't believe anyone trying to say that the day of the Lord has already come since the temple and city will be destroyed on the day of the Lord and that obviously hasn't happened yet.". But, instead of referring to things that happen on the day of the Lord as having not happened yet as evidence that the day of the Lord has not yet come, he referred to things that occur before the day of the Lord as evidence that it hadn't happened yet. If that's a problem for my view, then that would be a problem for the preterist view, also. But, it's not a problem at all.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Israelite said:

Don't you think that falling away (apostasy) relates to people who have faith at one point, but then later decide they no longer believe and fall away? That's not what John is describing in 1 John 2:18-19. He is describing people who never had faith in the first place and they then left John's circle of believers because they denied Christ and were exposed as being antichrists. John was confident that if they had been true believers, then they wouldn't have left. So, they did not fall away from the faith since they never had faith in the first place.

Click to expand...

claninja said:

If both Paul and the Thessalonians understood the “Day of the Lord” as a clearly recognizable, cosmic, global event, then Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is a strangely indirect way to reassure them they haven’t missed it. Why not just provide the obvious in this hypothetical- “look around you”

Click to expand...

claninja said:

However, if the “Day of the Lord” is understood as something that can be misidentified, misapplied, or perceived as already underway, and not necessarily a global cosmic event, then Paul’s strategy of listing prerequisite events becomes much more coherent

Click to expand...

claninja said:

so for your counter pretetist argument - why didn’t Paul just mention that the temple is still standing? Technically he mentioned a temple still standing that would be desolated (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

Click to expand...

grafted branch said:

I think this turns into a OSAS vs NOSAS debate.

Click to expand...

grafted branch said:

Personally I think all the verses that point to NOSAS are talking about Jews who believed in the coming Messiah and had that faith but when He came they ended up rejecting Him at some point.

Click to expand...

grafted branch said:

So it appears as if they were saved but when they commit to rejecting Jesus as the Messiah they fall away and are not saved.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Israelite said:

I've already addressed this multiple times and you just ask the same question again. If you don't agree with my explanation, so be it. But, why ask this question as if I haven't already addressed it?

Also, my main evidence in favor of my view is that the day of the Lord, which refers to the day that Jesus will return and we are gathered to Him in the air, has not yet occurred. If you can come up with an explanation for how that could have possibly already occurred, then I might take your view more seriously.


If they remembered what Paul taught about the day of the Lord, including what happens on the day of the Lord itself, then it would not be possible to think it had already occurred. That's why Paul was warning them not to believe anyone who told them that the day of the Lord had already come. That was impossible for multiple reasons. Including the fact that the things that were supposed to happen before the day of the Lord had not even happened yet.


Again, I've already addressed this. How many times do you want me to answer the same question? Just agree to disagree with the answer I've already given instead of wanting me to continue answering the same question over and over again for some reason.

Click to expand...

claninja said:

You didn’t really address the hypothetical as presented by Paul in a way that makes sense, and then presented a counter argument to preterism, In a similar manner that I presented. So I was addressing that counter argument - ie, why didn’t Paul mention a standing temple? Well he did mention a temple that was still standing in vs 4.

Lets say: If a meteor were going to strike the entire planet and wipe out all life, it would make little sense to write a letter saying, “Don’t be deceived into thinking it has already happened,” because if it had happened, the reality would be unmistakable and no clarification would be needed. But if a meteor were going to destroy a distant city, then confusion would be possible, and it would make sense to say, “Don’t believe it has already happened” since the event wouldn’t be universally obvious and could be misreported or misunderstood, just like Paul’s reasoning in Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2.

So my point was that If a global, world-ending event had already happened, you wouldn’t need a checklist of prerequisites to prove it, you could just point to reality. But if it’s an event that isn’t universally obvious, then listing what must happen first is exactly how you prevent deception.

The preterist position is that the New Testament uses established Old Testament prophetic and apocalyptic language, such as cosmic disturbances and God coming on the clouds, to describe historical acts of divine judgment, just as those same expressions are used in the Old Testament for judgments on nations.

What you are interpreting as literal in the NT, I’m counter arguing that it is the same type language used in the OT to describe national judgements, and therefore, when Paul gives prerequisites as to why it hasn’t happened (man of sin, apostasy), instead of saying “look around you”, it makes more sense in that context.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Israelite said:

If I was you and was bent on being a preterist no matter what, I would ignore the context of 2 Thess 2 overall that is established in the first verse and not want to talk about that, either.

Click to expand...

grafted branch said:

You mentioned atheists and unbelieving Jews can’t be who 2 Thessalonians 2 is referring to. I agree, but it could be referring to Jews who believed and were zealous for the law (Acts 21:20). Those folks could’ve decided to stop believing Jesus was the Messiah and just stick with the law.

John knew it was the last hour because they went out from us but they were not of us (1 John 2:18-19). To me it sounds like the falling away happened at that time and John recognized it and knew it was the last hour. Why should we be looking for another falling away?

Click to expand...

Davidpt said:

I don't think we need to look for another falling away in the future. I think it begins exactly like you said. Except as Christianity becomes global, thus more are saved, the falling away intensifies. Now instead of it only being possible to fall away per a local scale, it's now possible to fall away on a global scale. Now it involves billions that this can affect as opposed to how many this could effect in Paul's day. Assuming there are eventually at any given time, billions of Christians living upon the earth.

Click to expand...

Davidpt said:

Except a good majority of interpreters want the little horn in Daniel 8 to be all about A4E, regardless that the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 is clearly meaning Christ, and no way did A4E stand up against Christ. Christ hadn't even been born into the world yet.

Click to expand...