Search results

Paul doesn't use the "little season" expression, so he didn't tell us when it would begin.

It was my turn for the question. Answer mine, then I'll answer yours.

So we have a claim of deification of a man. That's sin. And we have the ascriptions of divine attributes belonging exclusively to the Father and the Son; to a man. The ascriptions are sins. The man is responsible for what are described in verses 8 and 9. They are sins. To me, these...

It has been going on since the apostate papacy. Your turn.

Who and what is this describing? “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils)...

It refers to a Church in which is found both true faith and apostasy. Thankfully, God has always preserved the former despite the latter. Isaiah 59:19. Thus God in His time raised up His standard through the Reformers, to liberate His true faithful Church from spiritual darkness and oppression.

I'll defer to @CTK for that.

He/they didn't sit in the Church.

Paul is consistent in his identification of and distinction between the different temples. Paul's "naos" temples refer exclusively to NT believers; collectively, the NT Church. In which the man of sin takes up residence and arrogates what belongs to the Son and the Father exclusively. E.g...

AIfers abhor history. :D

You ignored the man of sin. A manifestation of Satan's little season. 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,8-10 Why did you ignore it?

I ignore any arguments which ignore history. So far, you're ignoring history.

Just address history instead of ignoring it.

For some reason, you're ignoring history. Why?

I think that both @CTK and myself are confident that the ECF's and early apologists foresaw this correctly. History confirms it. I don't believe that 2 Thessalonians 2 can be correctly understood without taking that foresight and history into account. Here are their testimonies again. The...

No prob. The Heruli were first overthrown by the Ostrogoths in 493 AD, by what was known as the Ostrogothic Papacy.

Is there any Scriptural or other record of a man of sin, sitting in the physical temple, shewing himself that he is God; between the time when Paul wrote and 70 AD?

When?

Not possible. It was destroyed in 70 AD. There is no confirming Scripture in which the "naos" temple of God is "basically a symbolic seat of divinity (not literal physical temple nor the church)". Nor is it in the BDAG. There's only one remaining alternative which makes any sense. The Church.

If Paul had been referring to a physical temple, what physical temple would that have been? It couldn't have been the temple in Jerusalem, or in Revelation.