Search results

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  1. C

    Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

    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?
  2. C

    Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

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

    Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

    Just address history instead of ignoring it.
  4. C

    Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

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

    Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

    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...
  6. C

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

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

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

    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?
  8. C

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

    When?
  9. C

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

    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.
  10. C

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

    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.
  11. C

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

    The Heruli, followed by the Vandals and Ostrogoths.
  12. C

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

    Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into His body of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in His body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
  13. C

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

    If 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is referring to the physical temple of God, what physical temple of God is that? It can't be the temple of God in Jerusalem, because that temple was destroyed not many years after Paul wrote. It can't be the temple of God in Revelation, because that temple is in heaven...
  14. C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.
  18. C

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

    What does "letteth/let" mean?
  19. C

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

    The restrainer, imperial Rome, was removed. Then the man of sin, the apostate papacy, was revealed.
  20. C

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

    that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. then shall that Wicked be revealed
Top Bottom