Let no man deceive you by any means...2 Thessalonians 2:3

[claninja]

Since most Preterists are also Amils, though some of them are PostMils instead, I'm meaning Amils like them. And as to Preterism, from what I can tell, most of them see the temple involving Matthew 24:15 to be meaning the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving. If I were to guess, regardless what temple one thinks 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving, whether it be the 2nd temple, a rebuilt one in the future, or a temple in a non literal sense, the majority of interpreters, which includes both Preterists and Futurists, agree that it is meaning the same temple Matthew 24:15 is meaning. Those who might disagree, such as you, would be in the minority not the majority.

I believe the phrase “sitting in the temple claiming to be God” is analogous, or just another phrase for a false prophet/Christ. Whether that refers to zealot leaders that deceived the masses, with false prophets, into being locked inside Jerusalem and literal temple during the siege, OR the spirit of the antichrist which resulted in many leaving the body of Christ (spiritual temple) to return to the law, OR a combination of both.

Regardless of the identification of the man of sin, he or it existed in the first century, as he or it was being restrained in the first century.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe the phrase “sitting in the temple claiming to be God” is analogous, or just another phrase for a false prophet/Christ. Whether that refers to zealot leaders that deceived the masses, with false prophets, into being locked inside Jerusalem and literal temple during the siege, OR the spirit of the antichrist which resulted in many leaving the body of Christ (spiritual temple) to return to the law, OR a combination of both.

Regardless of the identification of the man of sin, he or it existed in the first century, as he or it was being restrained in the first century.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of this. When you indicated this as an option---OR the spirit of the antichrist which resulted in many leaving the body of Christ (spiritual temple) to return to the law---that is basically the way I view this except I don't necessarily see it as them returning to the law since my position is that this is mainly involving Gentiles that become Christians then eventually fall away from the faith.

As to the man of sin already existing in the first century, and that the man of sin was being restrained, I think I can agree with that. The way I reason it, right or wrong, the restraint is lifted once the following begins to occur, in order to reveal the man of sin.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full , a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

transgressors
pasha`
paw-shah'
a primitive root (identical with 'pasa`' (6585) through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), i.e. trespass, apostatize, quarrel:--offend, rebel, revolt, transgress(-ion, -or).

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

falling away
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
feminine of the same as apostasion - apostasion 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):--falling away, forsake.

So, IOW, I basically take a king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23 to be meaning the same one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. And that this makes sense to me, but maybe not to everyone else, based on the fact that I take the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 to be meaning Christ. Which means Christ has to be born first before any of these events can be fulfilled. And since a lot of interpreters take the little horn in Daniel 8 to be meaning Antiochus 4E, he can't be the one meant here because his time was before the birth of Christ, not after the birth of Christ. Those that might disagree Christ is meant, why would Christ have titles such as King of kings, Lord of lords, but not Prince of princes? Even in Daniel 9 it indicates that the Messiah is a prince.

 

[keras]

People who make any scripture mean something other than what it plainly states and can be literally fulfilled, are deceived.
They do it to promote a belief or doctrine that needs scriptures to be misinterpreted and misapplied.

The idea that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does not mean that a sinful man will push his way into the Temple of God and sit in the holy Place, declaring himself to be God; is a direct rejection of a Biblical truth.
It will happen, just as all the other Prophesies about the end times events, will.

Some Prophesies are allegories and metaphors for peoples and nations, but something as clearly stated as 2 Thess 2:4 is not. It does fit will many other end time Prophesies. Daniel 9:27, Revelation 13

 

[DavidPT]

People who make any scripture mean something other than what it plainly states and can be literally fulfilled, are deceived.
They do it to promote a belief or doctrine that needs scriptures to be misinterpreted and misapplied.

The idea that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does not mean that a sinful man will push his way into the Temple of God and sit in the holy Place, declaring himself to be God; is a direct rejection of a Biblical truth.
It will happen, just as all the other Prophesies about the end times events, will.

Some Prophesies are allegories and metaphors for peoples and nations, but something as clearly stated as 2 Thess 2:4 is not. It does fit will many other end time Prophesies. Daniel 9:27, Revelation 13

Point out anywhere in the entire chapter of 2 Thessalonians 2 that it even mentions Jerusalem. If verse 4 is involving a literal temple in the literal city of Jerusalem, what other verse or verses in this same chapter supports that? What about verse 1 and the gathering together? Is one to believe that when that gathering takes place, everyone being gathered, they are all in the literal city of Jerusalem at the time, and that they are all being gathered from there rather than being gathered throughout the planet?

 

[keras]

Point out anywhere in the entire chapter of 2 Thessalonians 2 that it even mentions Jerusalem

Jerusalem, the holy city is the earthly focal point of Gods Plan. It is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible.
Prophesies do not have to and simply cannot provide every detail of what and where things will happen.

 

[claninja]

I don't necessarily disagree with some of this. When you indicated this as an option---OR the spirit of the antichrist which resulted in many leaving the body of Christ (spiritual temple) to return to the law---that is basically the way I view this except I don't necessarily see it as them returning to the law since my position is that this is mainly involving Gentiles that become Christians then eventually fall away from the faith.

As to the man of sin already existing in the first century, and that the man of sin was being restrained, I think I can agree with that. The way I reason it, right or wrong, the restraint is lifted once the following begins to occur, in order to reveal the man of sin.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full , a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

transgressors
pasha`
paw-shah'
a primitive root (identical with 'pasa`' (6585) through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), i.e. trespass, apostatize, quarrel:--offend, rebel, revolt, transgress(-ion, -or).

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

falling away
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
feminine of the same as apostasion - apostasion 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):--falling away, forsake.

So, IOW, I basically take a king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23 to be meaning the same one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. And that this makes sense to me, but maybe not to everyone else, based on the fact that I take the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 to be meaning Christ. Which means Christ has to be born first before any of these events can be fulfilled. And since a lot of interpreters take the little horn in Daniel 8 to be meaning Antiochus 4E, he can't be the one meant here because his time was before the birth of Christ, not after the birth of Christ. Those that might disagree Christ is meant, why would Christ have titles such as King of kings, Lord of lords, but not Prince of princes? Even in Daniel 9 it indicates that the Messiah is a prince.

i think we need to be clear here, the man of sin himself wasn’t being restrained, as lawlessness was already at work (2 Thessalonians 2:7a), it was his “revealing” that was being restrained. The restrainer was restraining the “revealing” of the man of sin. The restrainer was “presently” restraining the revealing, indicating the man of sin was existing in the first century.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the apostasy occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed.

2 Thessalonians 2:7b-8a but the one who now restrains will continue until he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed.

And IF this was related to John’s antichrist and the falling away, well, that was already first century too, as that is how THEY knew it was the last hour in 1 john 2:18-19.

The real question is still IF the Thessalonians understood that the day of the Lord entailed Christ descending from heaven for literally every eye to see, bodies of dead and alive believers literally flying into the air, and Christ setting up a literal earthly kingdom, how could they be deceived this already happened?

Why does Paul not correct the obvious and instead provide events that must first occur?

 

[Timtofly]

We (the church) are the temple of God, keras. Scripture is very clear about that. All you seem to be able to think about are earthly and physical things, but scripture talks about spiritual and heavenly things as well.

So you are willingly offering up your body, so Satan can sit in it just prior to the Second Coming? How magnanimous of you.

 

[DavidPT]

So you are willingly offering up your body, so Satan can sit in it just prior to the Second Coming? How magnanimous of you.

Unless SJ is planning on falling away, where I personally don't even see a hint of that happening to him as of yet, why would you think that might be applicable to him? That is being applied to those that fall away, not those that don't fall away. Which BTW, is another dangerous fact involving OSAS, that it denies that anyone that is saved, that they can fall away from salvation. IMO, OSAS is probably one of the most dangerous doctrines there is. Because, if it ends up that NOSAS is proven true instead once Christ has returned, this means that some who were lied to, that they can never lose their salvation for any reason, and that they fall away before they die, or before Christ returns, assuming they are still alive when Christ returns, will lose their salvation, regardless. OTOH, if it ends up that only OSAS is proven true once Christ has returned, no harm done since no one can lose their salvation no matter what, even if NOSAS says they can.

 

[Timtofly]

Unless SJ is planning on falling away, where I personally don't even see a hint of that happening to him as of yet, why would you think that might be applicable to him? That is being applied to those that fall away, not those that don't fall away. Which BTW, is another dangerous fact involving OSAS, that it denies that anyone that is saved, that they can fall away from salvation. IMO, OSAS is probably one of the most dangerous doctrines there is. Because, if it ends up that NOSAS is proven true instead once Christ has returned, this means that some who were lied to, that they can never lose their salvation for any reason, and that they fall away before they die, or before Christ returns, assuming they are still alive when Christ returns, will lose their salvation, regardless. OTOH, if it ends up that only OSAS is proven true once Christ has returned, no harm done since no one can lose their salvation no matter what, even if NOSAS says they can.

Because he was offering up the point it was a person's temple that Satan sits in. Which makes no sense as how will others see Satan revealed if Satan is hidden in a person's body.

Satan sitting in a bunch of believers bodies does not cut it. Satan sitting in the body of the church does not cut it.

For all the world to see, Satan is sitting in a physical place that can be seen by all humanity, not a select few.

Besides, Satan has already been outed. He has been declared as the deceiver of humanity. That many choose not to accept that is not the point. Satan is not going to hold a news conference, declaring himself revealed and God can now send Jesus for the Second Coming.

 

[DavidPT]

Because he was offering up the point it was a person's temple that Satan sits in. Which makes no sense as how will others see Satan revealed if Satan is hidden in a person's body.

Satan sitting in a bunch of believers bodies does not cut it. Satan sitting in the body of the church does not cut it.

For all the world to see, Satan is sitting in a physical place that can be seen by all humanity, not a select few.

Besides, Satan has already been outed. He has been declared as the deceiver of humanity. That many choose not to accept that is not the point. Satan is not going to hold a news conference, declaring himself revealed and God can now send Jesus for the Second Coming.

First of all, the one being revealed is not meaning satan, it is meaning the beast., and that the beast is not satan. Which means to me that once it is revealed it's 42 month reign follows, and not, that it is revealed after it's 42 month reign is fulfilled first. How can anyone be worshiping it or not worshiping it during it's 42 month reign unless it has been revealed first?

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

I'm not dogmatic about this, but I do tend to think the above could maybe be understood like such----only he who now letteth will let(meaning the beast is being restrained in the pit at the time)---until he be taken out of the way(meaning the beast has ascended out of the pit and is being revealed)

If one looks up 'taken' in the Greek and also compares to how that same Greek word is used elswehere, it doesn't mean 'taken' the way we take taken to mean in the English. For one, it means to come out in the open, and that 'way' in this same verse means 'midst' in the Greek, and not how we might understand 'way' in the English. IOW, no one is being taken out of the way. One is arriving on center stage instead, so to speak.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is a flat out denial of plainly stated scriptures.

No, it's a flat out denial of your wrong interpretation of scripture. Big difference.

We Christinas are the Spiritual Temple now, but that is for the Church age. Soon to end and a new Temple will be built in Jerusalem
There are many scriptures which prove this, but if you are incapable of understanding them correctly, then so be it.

You are incapable of providing any scripture to show what the purpose of the animal sacrifices would be that you believe will be performed at this supposed new temple.

Revelation 20:7-9 are plainly stated to happen after the thousand years are over.

Well, no kidding. We all believe that.

The control of the world by Satan, is before Jesus Returns. Revelation 13:1-16

And this control of the world by Satan is different than what is portrayed in Revelation 20:7-9 how?

But what 1 Peter 4:12 prophesies, is the great test of our faith by fire from the Lord.
Anyway, just how much persecution do we Christians in the Western nations, have to endure? None.

Some do, but do we represent the entire world? Of course not.

It's an insult to the MANY Christians in the world who have suffered persecution over the past almost 2,000 years to suggest that we need to start preparing ourselves to be tested in the future. Tell that to the Christians in China, Africa, India, Muslim controlled Arab countries and other places and they will laugh in your face because they are going through it NOW.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Above, shows You had previously said Paul warned them about being deceived into thinking the day of the Lord was something that its not. I simply disagreed with that “as” Paul never corrects them on what the day of the Lord is in 2 Thessalonians 2. That was my reasoning for disagreeing with your statement, not a claim of what you did or didn’t say.

Again, there is no correction or warning on being deceived about what the Day of the Lord entails in 2 Thessalonians 2.
The only correction or warning provided to the Thessalonians, was that it had not yet happened.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if Paul corrected a misunderstanding of what the day of the Lord entails in 2 Thessalonians 2. But as it stands, he did not.

IF they understood the day of the Lord as the destruction of Jerusalem, it’s more plausible that they (those living far away in thessalonia) could be deceived it had already occurred. IF they understood the day of the Lord as the destruction of the literal heavens and earth, then it seems less plausible to be deceived that it already happened.

Again, my argument is that Paul doesn’t correct the Thessalonians understanding of what the day of the Lord entails in 2 Thessalonians 2. His warning is that it hasn’t happened yet because the apostasy and “revealing” of man of sin haven’t happened yet.

Again, Paul doesn’t mention a correction or warning as to what the Day of the Lord entails. He’s correcting or warning about the false belief that it has already occurred by providing events that must first occur: apostasy, revealing of man of sin.



I disagree the The destruction of Jerusalem and apostate Israel would not directly affect them.


1.) the Thessalonians were being persecuted by Apostate Jews, and Paul stated they would receive relief from this as the coming of Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1)

2.) the Thessalonian church was made up of Jews and gentiles. Many Christian Jews were still zealous for the law. The removal of the old obsolete covenant would directly impact many Christian Jews that were still zealous for the law.

Again...again....again...again. Obviously, we're just repeating ourselves here. I have no interest in continuing to do so. Thanks for the discussion but it's time to agree to disagree. I have nothing to add to what I've already said and nothing you've said here changes anything since you obviously just stated what you had previously stated "again".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So you are willingly offering up your body, so Satan can sit in it just prior to the Second Coming? How magnanimous of you.

What is wrong with you? Why in the world would I do something insane like that? That is not at all what I was saying. You interpret what people say about as well as you interpret scripture.

 

[grafted branch]

First of all, the one being revealed is not meaning satan, it is meaning the beast., and that the beast is not satan.

The coming (parousia) is in them that perish.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 whose coming is … in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Is the beast a spirit that is inside of those that perish ?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because he was offering up the point it was a person's temple that Satan sits in.

No, I didn't. You are making a fool of yourself here by completely misrepresenting what I said. I don't appreciate it at all.

Which makes no sense as how will others see Satan revealed if Satan is hidden in a person's body.

Satan sitting in a bunch of believers bodies does not cut it. Satan sitting in the body of the church does not cut it.

For all the world to see, Satan is sitting in a physical place that can be seen by all humanity, not a select few.

Besides, Satan has already been outed. He has been declared as the deceiver of humanity. That many choose not to accept that is not the point. Satan is not going to hold a news conference, declaring himself revealed and God can now send Jesus for the Second Coming.

Why are you equating "the man of sin" with Satan? That's ridiculous.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

People who make any scripture mean something other than what it plainly states and can be literally fulfilled, are deceived.
They do it to promote a belief or doctrine that needs scriptures to be misinterpreted and misapplied.

The idea that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does not mean that a sinful man will push his way into the Temple of God and sit in the holy Place, declaring himself to be God; is a direct rejection of a Biblical truth.

How could a future physical temple possibly be something Paul would call "the temple of God"? For a temple to be the temple of God it has to be a temple that God approves of and dwells in. Is that your understanding of this supposed future Temple of God? No, it isn't. So, you are trying to say a future temple that God would have nothing to do with can be called "the temple of God". That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Unless SJ is planning on falling away, where I personally don't even see a hint of that happening to him as of yet, why would you think that might be applicable to him?

There's only two possibilities here. Either he's purposely trying to annoy me and get me riled up by saying something extremely offensive like that or he is absolutely terrible at discerning what other people are saying.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Since most Preterists are also Amils, though some of them are PostMils instead, I'm meaning Amils like them.

I think you should make that clear then when you talk about them instead of just referring to Amils generally like you did.

And as to Preterism, from what I can tell, most of them see the temple involving Matthew 24:15 to be meaning the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving.

Yes, I think that's the case.

If I were to guess, regardless what temple one thinks 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving, whether it be the 2nd temple, a rebuilt one in the future, or a temple in a non literal sense, the majority of interpreters, which includes both Preterists and Futurists, agree that it is meaning the same temple Matthew 24:15 is meaning. Those who might disagree, such as you, would be in the minority not the majority.

Which I could not care less about. I'm sure you understand that the majority opinion is not always the right one.

And the same would be true of Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21, would be my guess.

Again, that doesn't matter to me if my view is in the minority on that. Your view that Matthew 24:15-22 is not a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24 is in the minority, also.

The majority of interpreters agree that Jesus was quoting from Daniel 12:1 in Matthew 24:21. Any interpreters that might disagree, such as you, would be in the minority not the majority.

And, once again, I don't care about that.

Assuming Matthew 24:15 is involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving. And assuming Matthew 24:21 is involving the same time of trouble Daniel 12:1 is involving. And that if we interpret Matthew 24:15-21 to be involving the 2nd temple in the first century, while interpreting Daniel 12:1 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to be involving something pertaining to the end of this age, this is an example of an interpretation full of contradictions, not one that is squaring.

Does anyone interpret all that in the way you described, though? Seems like you're making a straw man argument here.

Keeping in mind, assuming that the first 2 sentences in this paragraph are true.

It doesn't matter which temple or what kind of temple one is applying the one in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to. That's not the point. The point is that it is meaning the same temple Matthew 24:15 is meaning.

But, of course, I disagree with that.

I agree. So why can't that also mean during when Matthew 24:15-26 is meaning?

Because Matthew 24:15-22 has to do with what happened in 70 AD. You already knew that I believed that, but you still asked me this question? I don't know why you would ask me this.

Look how Jesus begins the OD.

Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And that He is still going on about this in the following verses right after what He said in regards to the AOD.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

If I'm not mistaken, you think these verses are meaning after the events involving verses 15-21 are fulfilled first.

Correct. What you're not recognizing is that Jesus went back and forth between discussing things related to His coming and the end of the age and things related to the destruction of the temple buildings that He said would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. He was asked two questions about two different things with one being about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings and the other about the timing of His coming and the end of the age.

I would likely agree if I too was convinced that Matthew 24:15-21 is referring to the first century leading up to 70 AD. But I cannot agree with that the fact I already fully accept, just like the majority of interpreters do, that Jesus was quoting from Daniel 12:1 in Matthew 24:21.

Look, David. If you want me to take you seriously on this then you need to tell me exactly how Matthew 24:15-21 should be interpreted. Can you do that? It's one thing to claim that it's not about what happened in 70 AD, but then what is it about?

What did Jesus mean when He said when you see the abomination of desolation then those in Judea should flee to the mountains? Why did He indicate that this would be a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women? Why did He indicate it would especially be a problem if it occurred during the winter or on the Sabbath?

And that no resurrection of the dead event ever followed what took place in 70 AD, and that Daniel 12:2 records that a resurrection event follows the time of trouble meant in Daniel 12:1.

This is why Matthew 24:15-22 and Daniel 12:1-2 can't be the same. Yes, they have similarities but there is nothing about a resurrection occurring when what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 happens.

Let me bring up something else.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.


How can verse 13 not be interpreting what is meant in verse 12? IOW, how can the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days, once that has been reached, not be meaning at the same end of the days verse 13 is meaning? Assuming one is able to accept that, thus agree, well, one can't divorce verse 12 and 13 from verse 11 then.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days

And if verse 12, at the end of the 1335 days results in the end of the days in verse 13, obviously, one can't even reach day 1335 without it first involving the 1290 days recorded in verse 11. That's just common sense, right?

LOL. I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, but you're saying this is common sense? I don't interpret those time periods literally like you do, so we're already not on the same page there.

Not only does Matthew 24:15-31 involve an AOD with a time of trouble that has no equal, a resurrection from the dead event(Matthew 24:31), so does Daniel 12. I find it to be utterly preposterous to just chalk that up as merely coincedental.

You're assuming that those verses in Daniel 12:11-13 are all talking about a short period of time in the future, but I don't agree with that. Why do you base your doctrine on passages like that which are clearly debatable and anything but clear?

One last point. Matthew 24:records that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains at the time. Therefore, according to interpreters, such as you, this AOD is involving a literal temple and that only the 2nd temple makes sense of the text.

Consider the following then.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


How should we assume they are to come out of her? By literally leaving one geographical region and entering into another geographical region? Or is this meaning in another sense, a sense where it is not required to literally leave one location and enter another location?

Assuming you agree that this is not literally meaning leaving one location and moving to another location,

Yes, I agree with that.

why can't the same be true regarding what is recorded in Matthew 24 about fleeing to the mountains?

I suppose it could be except for the fact that Jesus also talked about that being a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women as well as a problem during the winter and on the Sabbath. What could all of that possibly mean in a symbolic sense? It's clear to me that Jesus was being literal there because it would be a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women to literally flee into the mountains. It's obvious that would be a problem during the winter because of the cold and snow. And it would be a problem on the Sabbath because of travel restrictions on the Sabbath.

Just because it is literally true in Luke 21, why does it have to also be literally true in Matthew 24, especially if Matthew 24:15 is involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving?

Because the context demands it. Jesus talked in the sense of what would be literal problems of having to literally flee into the mountains. I can't see any way that He was speaking figuratively there. Also, I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 are not parallel passages. The differences in some of the wording are simply because of the differences in audiences (Matthew 24: Jews. Luke 21: Gentiles). The similarities in the rest of the wording can't just be ignored.

 

[keras]

How could a future physical temple possibly be something Paul would call "the temple of God"? For a temple to be the temple of God it has to be a temple that God approves of and dwells in. Is that your understanding of this supposed future Temple of God? No, it isn't. So, you are trying to say a future temple that God would have nothing to do with can be called "the temple of God". That makes no sense whatsoever.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 is quite clear; the new Temple will be a Temple of God.
Ezekiel 43:1-4 describes how the Shekinah glory of God will enter the new Temple and reside there.
When the 'beast' conquers the holy people, He will desecrate God's Temple, as Paul describes, also Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15

You have successfully shown that you ignore any scripture which doesn't suit your beliefs. Anything you promote must be viewed with caution and it is you that has 'no sense whatever'.

 

[Timtofly]

First of all, the one being revealed is not meaning satan, it is meaning the beast., and that the beast is not satan. Which means to me that once it is revealed it's 42 month reign follows, and not, that it is revealed after it's 42 month reign is fulfilled first. How can anyone be worshiping it or not worshiping it during it's 42 month reign unless it has been revealed first?

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

I'm not dogmatic about this, but I do tend to think the above could maybe be understood like such----only he who now letteth will let(meaning the beast is being restrained in the pit at the time)---until he be taken out of the way(meaning the beast has ascended out of the pit and is being revealed)

If one looks up 'taken' in the Greek and also compares to how that same Greek word is used elswehere, it doesn't mean 'taken' the way we take taken to mean in the English. For one, it means to come out in the open, and that 'way' in this same verse means 'midst' in the Greek, and not how we might understand 'way' in the English. IOW, no one is being taken out of the way. One is arriving on center stage instead, so to speak.

Well Satan is the beast that was, was not, and now is, and his followers. Pretty sure even Amil view it that way, as they have Satan incapacitated since the Cross.

Most do not accept the futurist AC and 7 years of such rule either.