Search results

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

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...

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...

I would say it’s his consistency in providing a qualifying explanation with naos, whereas a qualifying explanation is notably absent in 2 Thessalonians 2. This in combination with the absence “the man of sin” sitting in a “spiritual temple” in the OD discourse as one of the signs leading up to...

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...

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.

To clarify “hieron” would help, but If Paul wanted to say the man of sin sits in the physical temple’s sanctuary, he wouldn’t use “hieron”, he would use “naos”. Hieron is the complex, naos is the sanctuary. So If I was a first century century Jew or gentile, prior to the temples destruction...

Agreed, he definitely does. My rule of thumb is that I typically I need to understand its use within the context first before I applying outside uses. I don’t want over harmonize things that shouldn’t be harmonized, as I’ve definitely, myself, over harmonized In the past and don’t want to make...

I’m mean, I agree. If Paul wanted to really nail down he was talking about the complex, why didn’t he just use “hieron” instead of “naos”? “Sits himself in the temple complex” would definitely clarify beyond down a shadow of doubt. But here are the issues I have with 2 Thessalonians 2. 1.)...

Devils advocate - he is very consistent with his distinction between the different temples. But, he is also very consistent with qualifying explanations when he is talking about them. Unfortunately, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn’t contain a qualifying explanation of the “temple of God”. In fact, 2...

I agree that there are no absolutely clear contextual indicators, specifically within 2 Thessalonians, telling us that the temple is either physical or spiritual, like there is in Matthew 24. Additionally, I can’t find any Greek lexicons that strictly define it as either spiritual or physical...

Totally agreed. So let’s stir/muddy the waters for a moment with one I still struggle with - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - The man of sin sits in the “temple of God”. Are there any clear grammatical, contextual, or lexical indicators WITHIN the letters to the Thessalonians that indicate Paul was...

Agreed. Though, Jesus does not explain the spiritual meaning as to why the physical temple was to fall, in Matthew 24. That can potentially be deduced elsewhere in the Matthew account, such as the parable of the wicked tenants or the parable of the wedding feast

I wasn’t referring to the scripture you quoted. I was referring to your personal interpretation of Matthew 24 - turning the literal temple into a spiritual temple, when there is no lexical, grammatical, or contextual reason to do so. Simply it being your opinion doesn’t mean your opinion is...

Scripture is authoritative. Personal interpretation is not authoritative. 1 Corinthians 10:4 is an authoritative spiritual take on the rock during the time of Moses. Isaiah 40:2 is simply a case of metonymy, which was common in the ancient near east, even outside of the Bible, and is common...