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

[Davidpt]

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.

I'm not entirely certain whether you are correct about the the papacy or not. But pretty much everything else I tend to agree with you about. History is not one of my things. Therefore, I wouldn't have the insight you might have. Nothing wrong with knowing and studying history. I leave things like that up to the pros. I then mainly focus on other aspects.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Are you Amil or Premil? If you're Amil, I'm wondering if you see a connection between the binding of Satan and the restraint of lawlessness, considering that Paul relates "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception” with the loosing of the restraint of lawlessness. In other words, if you're Amil, I'm wondering if you see the time period that starts with the loosing of the restraint of lawlessness powered by "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception” with Satan's little season that is written about in Revelation 20?

 

[grafted branch]

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

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?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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?

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.

 

[claninja]

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.

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”

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

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).

 

[grafted branch]

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.

I think this turns into a OSAS vs NOSAS debate. 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. 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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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”

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think this turns into a OSAS vs NOSAS debate.

You may have noticed from other discussions I've had with others here that I'm not shy about taking part in that debate, but I don't think I feel like doing that in this thread at this time.

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.

They believed in their own version of what they thought the Messiah would be like, which was nothing like Jesus. So, I don't find this to be a valid argument.

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.

You can believe what you want about this. I don't feel like having this kind of debate on this forum right now. If you started a thread about this on the soteriology forum then I would take part in it.

 

[claninja]

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.

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

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.

 

[claninja]

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.

Apparently you didn’t read the post, which addresses vs 1.

If vs 1 is meant to be global, like meteorite destroying the entire planet, Paul’s prerequisites for not being deceived that it already happened don’t make any sense. However, if vs 1 is not meant to be global, like a meteorite only destroying a city, then Paul’s prerequisites for not being deceived that it already happen make much more logical and coherent sense.

It’s why preterims argues that vs 1 is not a global, cataclysmic event, but likely using the already established prophetic and apocalyptic language in the OT, that often describes national judgments.

 

[Davidpt]

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?

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.

Back in Paul's day there certainly couldn't have been. This is one of these cases where I feel I can meet you in the middle, so to speak. Rather than it can only be my way thus not your way. Or that it can only be your way thus not my way.

This is why I feel Daniel 8 could be relevant here. First we see this--And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full---thus when the falling away is come to full---a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up--thus possibly 2 Thessalonians 2:4. It's not like there is no connection between apostasy and transgressors.

Speaking of transgressors.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Wicked
anomoV
anomos an'-om-os from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and nomoV - nomos 3551; lawless, i.e. (negatively) not subject to (the Jewish) law; (by implication, a Gentile), or (positively) wicked:--without law, lawless, transgressor, unlawful, wicked.

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.

Granted, Christ still existed during A4E's day since God has no beginning. But not as the King of Kings, the Lord of lords and the Prince of princes, though. Those titles only make sense after He is born into the world first and became victorious over everything thrown at Him. Therefore, Daniel 8:25 demands that the little horn meant in Daniel 8 is an end-time figure, not A4E.

 

[grafted branch]

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.

I think that’s a fair assessment, with out getting into OSAS vs NOSAS debate, we all know that there are currently some people who at least claim to have accepted Christ at some point and now claim to no longer believe in Christ. It’s fair to say even today there are people “falling away” from the faith or new covenant. On the other hand if Jews are at some point going to turn to Christ then that would be a “falling away” from the old covenant and a great gathering to the new covenant.

I’m not sure how all that works for those who think Jews have to believe in Christ before His coming. I suppose the number of Jews that would turn to Christ has to be a much smaller number than the number of people who “fall away” else it would be considered a gathering into the faith not a falling away. I wonder why Paul didn’t just say that day will not come until the Jews turn to Christ?

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.

I’ll give you this, the book of Daniel is sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12:9). In Matthew 24:15 Jesus says whoso readeth, let him understand. Since the Daniel 8:23 king understands dark sentences, you could argue that “dark sentences” means understanding scripture and therefore A4E couldn’t be that king, that king would have to live after Jesus said let the reader understand.

Some time ago I heard someone argue that “dark sentences” <2420> refers to scripture, I can’t remember how he presented that argument but I looked that word up and here’s what Topical Lexicon says …



Nature of a “chidah”

חִידָה is employed in Scripture for an enigmatic statement, riddle, or dark saying that demands spiritual discernment. A chidah conceals truth in order to reveal it to those given understanding. It may appear in poetic parallelism, prophetic symbolism, court entertainment, or wisdom instruction, but in every setting it directs the hearer beyond surface meaning to the fear of the LORD, the beginning of wisdom.

 

[Davidpt]

Show me anything in scripture which supports your claim here about how prophecy is supposedly supposed to work. Where does scripture itself demand that when a certain place is referenced in relation to a prophecy, it must still be known by the same name as it was when the prophecy was given? Nowhere. That is just a rule that you made up. Why should any of us care about your man-made rules for interpreting prophecies in scripture? I sure don't. Jesus was saying when they saw the abomination of desolation stand in what was the holy place at that time He was speaking, then those in Judea would need to flee to the mountains. There is nothing that Jesus said which would demand that what was considered the holy place while He was giving the prophecy would still have to be called the holy place when the prophecy was fulfilled.

Let's say there was a church in your city called The Holy Place Church. If I told you that it was prophesied that someone was going to destroy The Holy Place Church some time before the end of the year. Let's say the church then changed its name to The Unholy Place Church and the church was later destroyed before the end of the year just as was prophesied, does that mean the prophecy wasn't fulfilled because the church was no longer called The Holy Place Church when it was destroyed?

You are confusing a mere human proper noun with an objective theological reality decreed by God. Your clever church analogy completely fails because Jesus didn't say the place called holy--- He said the holy place.

There is a massive difference between a street address or a label on a map and an objective status determined by God's presence and covenant. You challenge me to show where Scripture demands a place must fit its theological description at the moment of fulfillment, but that is exactly how God handles desecration.



Forr example. In Ezekiel 8-11, God gives a prophecy regarding the destruction of the 1st temple. Before the Babylonians ever strike it, God takes Ezekiel inside in a vision to show him an abomination taking place inside the temple sanctuary. Why?

Because for an abomination to cause desolation, it must actively violate and defile something that is presently sacred to God.

If the physical temple was already a spiritually abandoned, unholy house in 70 AD, then the Roman standards entering it didn't desecrate anything. You cannot defile a landfill. For Jesus’ words to carry any actual covenantal weight, the space being violated must possess objective, active sanctity at the exact moment the enemy steps into it.


Imagine a king decrees a specific building is legally The Royal Treasury, and anyone who robs it faces execution for high treason. Years later, the king officially strips that building of its status, moves all the gold out, and turns it into a public trash dump. It is no longer legally or factually the Royal Treasury. If a thief walks into that trash dump later and steals an old tin can, can the king execute him for robbing the Royal Treasury? No. The building no longer holds that legal status. The crime is impossible because the status is gone.

By your logic, when the veil tore at the crucifixion, God officially stripped the 2nd temple of its status. It became a theological trash dump. Therefore, when the Romans marched into it in 70 AD, they were not standing in the holy place. They were standing in an old, abandoned monument. If Jesus meant 70 AD, He used an outdated, legally invalid definition.


Furthermore, your reading breaks the explicit grammar Jesus uses. In Matthew 24:23, Jesus says---Then (Tote) if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ..." You insist that verse 23 has zero to do with verses 15-21, but Tote is a temporal adverb meaning at that time or consequently.

The deception in verse 23 happens during and because of the intense pressure of the Great Tribulation in verses 15-21. You only separate them because you want verses 15-21 to be past history (70 AD) and verses 23-30 to be involving the future 2nd coming at some point. But Jesus' grammar forbids your split--- it keeps the Discourse as one unified, future timeline beginning with verse 15 in Matthew 24.



Your entire 70 AD reading forces you into a massive interpretive double standard. When Jesus says---When you see the abomination---almost none of the disciples sitting on that mountain were even alive in 70 AD. James was martyred in 44 AD, Peter was martyred around 64-67 AD, and Andrew was dead or in Greece. John was the lone survivor and he was thousands of miles away in Ephesus.

To solve this, you immediately pivot to a corporate, representative definition of "you"---arguing that "you" means the future generation of the Church. Yet, in the exact same sentence, you refuse to let the holy place be corporate or future. You want a flexible, future definition for the audience, but a rigid, historical definition for the location.

Paul harmonizes Jesus' words in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 by showing us exactly what the future, true holy place is. He tells us the AOD(the man of sin) takes his seat in the temple (naos) of God. Paul specifically uses naos--the inner sanctuary and dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Peter repeatedly define the New Covenant naos as the corporate Church.

My view requires no covenantal gymnastics or double standards.

The audience ("you") is the final generation of the Church.

The location (the holy place / naos) is the corporate Church, which is actively and continuously holy right up until the final apostasy.

The event is an internal, spiritual infiltration and deception by the enemy, perfectly matching the exact chronological sequence Jesus and Paul both laid out leading straight to the literal Second Coming.