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.

 

[PaulThomson]

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

Why are you arguing in the "Bible discussion forum"" about the meaning of a term that is not even in the Bible? "Counterfeit church"

 

[Lovette]

Why are you arguing in the "Bible discussion forum"" about the meaning of a term that is not even in the Bible? "Counterfeit church"

Neither is holy trinity, eschatology, total depravity, rapture or other theological terms in the bible, but are they true or not? are they relevant?

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

Because your responses are often loaded with unverified exclusivist claims couched in erudite language declaring your own sysyem correct and everyone else's therefpre insufficiently learned. I will bolden those points in the post I rescted to. You said -

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.

1. You are straw-manning my opinion when you infer I said, "sit in any Christian meeting and say wild things"

2. It is only your opinion that "it is cultic enthronement language anchored in Daniel’s desecration pattern," and therefore must be about desecrating a physical stone temple.

3. The Greek does not say that the man of sin "enthrones himself as God." The Greek could be saying, "to take a seat in the temple of God showing off himself to be a god" (εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός). Your absolute claim in erudite language is you imposing your system on the Greek. He may not be claiming to be the Almighty God. He could deny the existence of and Almighty God and still fulfil the prophecy, and simply claim to be the greater than all other gods.

4. The fact that the language "matches Daniel’s “abomination that makes desolate” in a sacred space" does not necessitate that Paul must be therefore a referring to physical stone temple.

5. You say, "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." Antiochus Epiphanes never claimed ti be the Creator. No Roman caesar ever claimed to be the Creator. Nor did any Babylonian or Greek or Persian ruler. Sowhy would the man of sin need to be claiming to be God to fulfil the type of the desolator in Daniel?

6. You claimed as absolutely true what you have not proven is the case. You say, "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." you use erudite language to sound learned and therefore authoritative, but without demonstrating why you must be correct. Your post was full of logical fallacies (straw-man, appeal to the stone, appeal to your own authority, and full of over-reaching unproven claims, OMC.

 

[Lovette]

Why are you arguing in the "Bible discussion forum"" about the meaning of a term that is not even in the Bible? "Counterfeit church"

And by all means, "counterfeit" is inherently encompassed in the suffix "anti". If Antichrist is not only in the bible, but also a prominent figure, then so is his act of counterfeit. And as long as the real Christ has a church, so does the counterfeit christ a counterfeit church.

 

[OMC]

Because your responses are often loaded with unverified exclusivist claims couched in erudite language declaring your own sysyem correct and everyone else's therefpre insufficiently learned. I will bolden those points in the post I rescted to. You said -


1. You are straw-manning my opinion when you infer I said, "sit in any Christian meeting and say wild things"

2. It is only your opinion that "it is cultic enthronement language anchored in Daniel’s desecration pattern," and therefore must be about desecrating a physical stone temple.

3. The Greek does not say that the man of sin "enthrones himself as God." The Greek could be saying, "to take a seat in the temple of God showing off himself to be a god" (εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός). Your absolute claim in erudite language is you imposing your system on the Greek. He may not be claiming to be the Almighty God. He could deny the existence of and Almighty God and still fulfil the prophecy, and simply claim to be the greater than all other gods.

4. The fact that the language "matches Daniel’s “abomination that makes desolate” in a sacred space" does not necessitate that Paul must be therefore a referring to physical stone temple.

5. You say, "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." Antiochus Epiphanes never claimed ti be the Creator. No Roman caesar ever claimed to be the Creator. Nor did any Babylonian or Greek or Persian ruler. Sowhy would the man of sin need to be claiming to be God to fulfil the type of the desolator in Daniel?

6. You claimed as absolutely true what you have not proven is the case. You say, "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." you use erudite language to sound learned and therefore authoritative, but without demonstrating why you must be correct. Your post was full of logical fallacies (straw-man, appeal to the stone, appeal to your own authority, and full of over-reaching unproven claims, OMC.

You can bold my sentences all day, but that doesn’t turn them into “appeals to authority”; I’m not saying, “I sound erudite, therefore I’m right,” I’m saying, “the text’s grammar and intertextual links constrain what it can mean.”

Straw‑man: I didn’t say your view was “any Christian meeting with wild things”; I said your reading functionally reduces Paul’s Danielic, cultic enthronement language to that level—no altar, no priestly system, no covenant‑center seized. That’s a critique of consequence, not a misquote.

“Only your opinion”: Saying 2 Thess 2 is anchored in Daniel’s desecration pattern is not arbitrary; Paul explicitly cites Danielic “abomination” language elsewhere and uses naos + kathisai + “showing himself that he is God” in a way that mirrors cultic usurpation, not generic blasphemy.

Greek: Yes, the Greek can be rendered “taking a seat in the temple of God, showing himself that he is god,” but that’s exactly the point—self‑presentation as divine in the sphere of worship is cultic enthronement, not merely “greater than all other gods” rhetoric. The issue isn’t whether he claims to be the Creator; it’s that he occupies the worship‑center as the object of worship.

Temple imagery: Matching Daniel’s desecration pattern doesn’t force a stone temple, but it does force a cultic, covenant‑centered desecration; your reading evacuates that structure and turns it into generic metaphor without explaining why Paul abandons his own Danielic frame.

Antiochus/Caesars: Exactly—none of them had to claim “I am the Creator” to fulfill the type; they had to usurp the worship‑sphere. That’s what Paul is describing: not mere blasphemy, but enthronement in the naos as the one to be worshiped.

“Logical fallacies”: Calling my claims “appeal to the stone” or “appeal to authority” doesn’t make them so; I’m grounding them in text, syntax, and intertextual usage. If you want to overturn that, you’ll need to show where Paul’s language cannot be Danielic cultic enthronement and must be your metaphorical reading, not just assert that my precision is overreach.

 

[mailmandan]

When it says that the Spirit is "removed", he isn't suggesting that the Spirit will be absent. Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit's role as "The Spirit of Truth." In his role, the Holy Spirit speaks for Christ and helps the Apostles convict the world of Sin, righteousness, and judgment. John 16:7-11 This has a restraining force on the hearts of people and guides everyone in the light of Christ's teaching. We all live under the light of Christ's teaching, whether we are followers of Christ or not. As John said, Jesus is the light of the world.

But at a point in recent history, some would call it the postmodern era, truth is redefined as whatever we agree on by consensus. Modern philosophers don't even know if an objective truth actually exists. If we all agree that a man can have a baby then a man can have a baby. If we decide that a boy can play in women's sports, then they will be allowed. Whatever we all decide as a culture and society is "true".

We are living that delusion right now and since the world is not convinced that an objective truth is possible, then it is harder for the Holy Spirit to convict everyone of sin, righteousness and judgment. In my view, the man of lawlessness is right at the door. Satan has cleared his path.

It's a sad day in America when you have to advocate for what should be common sense. I'm not surprised that democrats did not show up to the hearing.