andrewcriddle

2 Thessalonians 2:4 speaking of the 'man of sin' says: If 'temple of God' here means the temple in Jerusalem, then this seems to imply that the Jerusalem Temple has not yet become a heap of rubble.

I agree that the general obscurity of the passage, and the doubts raised by a number of scholars as to whether 2 Thessalonians is a genuine Pauline epistle, may weaken this argument.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

If Paul was writing after the fall of Jerusalem he could indeed have said something like, "As the Jerusalem priests used to be supported by the people, so nowadays should Christian ministers be supported by their congregations."

However he doesn't put it like that.

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

And if 'temple of God' here -is NOT- the Temple in Jerusalem....

In what other 'Temple' could 'the man of sin' who opposes and exalts himself take his seat? :devil1:

andrewcriddle

In theory 'temple of God' here could mean heavenly temple but I have difficulties making sense of the 'man of sin' taking his seat in the heavenly temple.

Paul refers to local Christian communities as temples but this doesn't seem relevant here. Nor does the idea of a Christian's body as a temple.

Unless 'temple of God' is intended here as a rather peculiar metaphor I think it must mean the temple at Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

So, you MUST first establish when 2 Thessalonians was written Before you attempt to make implications about 'temple of God' in 2 Thes. 2.4.

aa5874

You have already stated that it has not been establish when 2 Thessalonians was written so what you say is NOT logical.

First establish when 2 Thessalonians was written BEFORE you say what it MUST mean.

It has been found out AFTER hundreds of years that the Church and apologetic sources claimed Pauline sources were early but that has been found to be erroneous.

You very well know that NO Pauline writer or apologetic source of antiquity has admitted that there were letters written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

It is NOT expected that those who want to deceive would EXPOSE their deception.

Although the Pauline writer claimed he was a Pharisee, and a Hebrew of Hebrews he NEVER wrote that he went to the Jewish Temple at the Passover.

The Passover was an EXTREMELY significant for the Jews yet Paul did NOT write about going to the Temple at the Passover at all.

Sheshbazzar

New Testament looks at the 'temple' in a different aspect than simply a structure made out of stone and wood, or even an untouchable vision in heaven;
Yes, I have seen that you have already dismissed the idea of that 'temple' not being the Believers body.

There is a little technical problem there. What if the early Believers were not 'Christians'? and never were the 'Christians'?

What if the 'Christians' were those that rebelled, and set up a false 'god' in their temples, a lie masquerading under another name, with them proclaiming this idol in their minds, to be their god?

One with a extremely well known, and very popular name that is now known world-wide?
A name that has now become instantly identified world-wide to both believer and unbeliever by the 'mark' † of his name?
(Rev 13:17, 14:11, & 15:2)

Simon and Garfunkel really did have it right; 'And the people bowed and prayed To the neon god they made.....'

To me it is quite clear, that old John really did foresee this day.

aa5874

We have the Short-Ending gMark.

We have the Long-Ending gMark.

We have gMatthew.

We can see physically with our eyes that the author of the Long -Ending gMark used virtually 100% of the Short-Ending gMark, almost Word-for-Word, with added 12 verses and did NOT use the Pauline writings at all.

We can physically see with our eyes that the author of gMatthew used virtually 100% of gMark, almost Word-for-Word, with added details about the conception and post resurrection of Jesus and did NOT use any details at all from the Pauline writings.

The EARLIEST Gospels show ZERO awareness of Paul and the Pauline letters to churches.

It is MOST fascinating that although Paul should have been Well-Known by the supposed Apostles and around the Roman Empire and in Major cities, supposedly making at least TWO tours of Corinth and Thessalonica and having been to Rome, Ephesus, Philippi, Galatia and Colosse that the Canonised Gospel writers did NOT know of the Paulkine revealed teachings and their stories were NOT derived from the Pauline writer.

There is ZERO evidence that any Gospel writer attended a Pauline Church even though it has been deduced that all the Gospels were written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

In the very Pauline Epistles, the Pauline character gave the Impression that he preached Christ crucified and Resurrected for at least 17 years from the time of King Aretas.

Galatians 1.18Galatians 2 Paul seems to know about characters in the Gospels and Acts but the authors of the Gospels don't know him and his revealations from the resurrected Jesus.

There is NOT one thing known about the author of the Short-Ending gMark yet the UNKNOWN author's gMark was Canonised.

And then another UNKNOWN author of another version of gMark Copied ALL of the gMark and his writings were Canonised.

And, incredibly, yet another UNKNOWN author of gMatthew Copied the UNKNOWN gMark and those writings were Canonised.

If The Unknown authors wrote immediately After the Fall of the Temple then they should have been contemporaries of Paul the Well-KNOWN evangelist.

It is clear that it was the Pauline writings that were UNKNOWN when the Gospels were written.

The UNKNOWN authors of the Gospels did NOT know the Pauline revealed teachings of the resurrected Jesus but the Pauline writer knows the Jesus story found in the Gospels and wrote about the characters like Peter, James and John, claimed he persecuted Christians and that he spake in tongues which are found in Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writings are LAST in the Canon.

Even the supposed Apostle John had Revelations BEFORE Paul.

Remember John was supposedly an apostle.

ALL the Apostles SAW the resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

See 1 Cor.15. The Revelations of Apostle John are BEFORE those of Paul.

Paul is a fraud and lived in some other century under some other name and gave the False impression that he evangelised the Roman Empire Before the Fall of the Temple.

Solo

Well, would it weaken the argument ? If 2 Thess is deutero-Pauline, (and I am persuaded it is), then 2:4 may well be an exhibit of the writer's awareness that Paul's career falls into the Temple period.

Best,
Jiri

outhouse

why would they??


different circles in different places.


pauline epistles were not common knowledge for a while. It took time for them to become popular.

paul used the oral tradition floating a round as did the author/author's of gmark