Truth about 2Thess 2 and the Day of the Lord

[prophecy70]

5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

They knew what was restraining, if it wasn't connected with the present time, why did Paul, not be specific in his letter?
He told them in person, but couldn't in a letter, because it had connection with THAT time. Not 2000+ years in the future.

 

[Covenanter]

The quote from Irenaeus, commonly used as an attempt to 'prove' a late date for Revelation indicates good reasons not to name names:

Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that/he/it was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."​

John doesn't give a name - he gives the number 666 - work it out from possible living antichrists. We are dealing with past events.

 

[robycop3]

The "man of sin" is mentioned under other names in other passages as well, in Daniel 9, & Rev. 13. I believe his coming to power will be the beginning of the eschatological events.

Many people have mentioned many candidates for that office, from Nero to Attila to Alexander The Great, to Napoleon to Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot to every pope to Donald Trump. But NONE has met ALL the criteria Scripture assigns to that man.

Let's look, for example, at Nero. Yes, he was a very bad boy. Yes, he ruled the Roman empire. Yes, he killed a number of Christians, including Paul. But.....

He didn't overthrow 3 other rulers to become Caesar. He was APPOINTED to office.

He was never in Jerusalem, so he couldn't've committed the AOL. And he worshipped the Roman pantheon of gods/goddesses.

He was overcome by man, specifically General Galba.

He was not cast alive into the lake of fire; he DIED in fronta witnesses after having his secretary stab him.

And, he had no miracle-working false prophet as his deputy.

The TRUE "man of sin" MUST meet EVERY Scriptural criterion written about him, to the letter. So far, that hasn't yet happened.

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

The "man of sin" is mentioned under other names in other passages as well, in Daniel 9, & Rev. 13.

Scripture NEVER teaches what you are claiming here.
It is purely an invention of Man.