Who is the restrainer?

[PaulThomson]

Mystery babylon, the conglamorate of all false religions. You can argue that it's symbolization, but the significance of it is real. It's like the resurgence of the tower of babel that requires divine intervention.

I don’t see “counterfeit church” there, @Lovette . A counterfeit dollar, looks just like a dollar, but is not one.

Does "mystery Babylon" look just like true Christianity. The impression I get of mystery Babylon is that it is an alternative to Christianity that looks nothing like true Christianity.

 

[OMC]

OMC, you say, “… but nothing in that passage resembles the cultic enthronement act of 2 Thess 2:4, where the man of sin sits (kathisai) and proclaims himself God, an act that only makes sense in a sacred space patterned after Daniel’s temple_desecration_pattern, not in the metaphorical “living stones” temple of the church."

If someone sits in the midst of a gathering of Christians and declares himself "a god", and says. “I am Christ returned,” why would he not be "sitting in the temple of God, showing off himself to be a god (2 thess.2:4 ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός)?”

Because in Paul’s eschatological frame “sit in the temple of God” is not “sit in any Christian meeting and say wild things,” it is cultic enthronement language anchored in Daniel’s desecration pattern. In 2 Thess 2:4 the man of sin enthrones himself (kathisai) “as God” in the naos of God, which matches Daniel’s “abomination that makes desolate” in a sacred space—an act of usurping divine prerogative in the sphere where God’s worship is formally centered. A false teacher standing up in a church service and claiming “I am Christ” is blasphemous, but it is not the Danielic, cultic enthronement Paul describes; there is no altar, no priestly system, no covenant‑center being seized. Paul can call the church God’s temple metaphorically (1 Cor 3; Eph 2), but in 2 Thess 2 he is using prophetic temple imagery, not the “living stones” metaphor—he’s talking about a public, cultic desecration, not just a man grandstanding in a congregation.

 

[Lovette]

I don’t see “counterfeit church” there, @Lovette . A counterfeit dollar, looks just like a dollar, but is not one.

Does "mystery Babylon" look just like true Christianity. The impression I get of mystery Babylon is that it is an alternative to Christianity that looks nothing like true Christianity.

Then that's the coutnerfeit. Antichrist means not just "against Christ", but "in place of Christian", and just like a king is not a king without a kingdom, an Antichrist is not an Antichrist without a counterfeit church.

 

[PaulThomson]

Then that's the coutnerfeit. Antichrist means not just "against Christ", but "in place of Christian", and just like a king is not a king without a kingdom, an Antichrist is not an Antichrist without a counterfeit church.

That would make every worldview that isn’t Christian into a counterfeit Christianity. I think you are misusing the word counterfeit.

 

[PaulThomson]

Because in Paul’s eschatological frame “sit in the temple of God” is not “sit in any Christian meeting and say wild things,” it is cultic enthronement language anchored in Daniel’s desecration pattern. In 2 Thess 2:4 the man of sin enthrones himself (kathisai) “as God” in the naos of God, which matches Daniel’s “abomination that makes desolate” in a sacred space—an act of usurping divine prerogative in the sphere where God’s worship is formally centered. A false teacher standing up in a church service and claiming “I am Christ” is blasphemous, but it is not the Danielic, cultic enthronement Paul describes; there is no altar, no priestly system, no covenant‑center being seized. Paul can call the church God’s temple metaphorically (1 Cor 3; Eph 2), but in 2 Thess 2 he is using prophetic temple imagery, not the “living stones” metaphor—he’s talking about a public, cultic desecration, not just a man grandstanding in a congregation.

I asked DuckDuckGo "What is the logical fallacy of using erudite language to create an impression of reliable expertise"
Search Assist



The logical fallacy you're referring to is often called the "appeal to authority" fallacy, where someone uses complex or sophisticated language to give the impression of expertise without providing actual evidence or valid reasoning. This can mislead others into accepting their argument as credible based solely on the language used.

logicallyfallacious.com scribbr.com

 

[OMC]

I asked DuckDuckGo "What is the logical fallacy of using erudite language to create an impression of reliable expertise"
Search Assist



The logical fallacy you're referring to is often called the "appeal to authority" fallacy, where someone uses complex or sophisticated language to give the impression of expertise without providing actual evidence or valid reasoning. This can mislead others into accepting their argument as credible based solely on the language used.

logicallyfallacious.com scribbr.com

Calling my explanation a “logical fallacy” because it uses precise language doesn’t touch the argument; erudite phrasing isn’t an appeal to authority, it’s just accuracy.

 

[Lovette]

That would make every worldview that isn’t Christian into a counterfeit Christianity. I think you are misusing the word counterfeit.

No, that only makes the "synagogue of Satan" counterfeit church, the "prosperity gospel" counterfeit gospel, and those who preach a false christ counterfeit Christianity.