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.
logicallyfallacious.com
scribbr.com
