Your argument is unconvincing. The same Greek word "nah-os" is used in the following cases, and in context with what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians it does not fit your interpretation, which comes across as trying to stretch the evidence to save your theory (similar to dating Revelation early, etc.). All your theory hangs on many slender threads.
Here is the same Greek word translated as temple:
And again
And again
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.
Therefore, Paul was writing about the Temple of God in Jerusalem, not the human body of the Antichrist. No, Nero's palace in Rome was not the Temple of God.
My evidence is convincing. I don't have to pretend it is a physical temple, so I don't need any evidence to prove that it is. There is no such evidence in existence, anyway.
The only way the Greek word would be "evidence" is if it was the same Greek word that was used directly for the Jerusalem Temple, which it is not. Indirect references can go either way.
In the case of the temple John referenced in Rev 11, which I believe was referring to the Jerusalem Temple, John was referring to a temple in a vision, not the actual temple. Otherwise, how could he have measured it from Patmos? In Paul's temple, there is no indication one way or the other whether it is spiritual or physical. The only evidence points to spiritual.
One other major piece of evidence I have on my side is: where is the other evidence? Shouldn't something as significant as the building of a third temple have all sorts of N.T. references?
>>>Therefore, Paul was writing about the Temple of God in Jerusalem, not the human body of the Antichrist. No, Nero's palace in Rome was not the Temple of God.<<<
Again, you do not know that. You are only speculating, and you have no supporting evidence whatsoever.
I don't know why you brought Nero into the picture, because I never really considered him to be the one Paul was referring to, beyond a casual peek and discard. Paul spoke of the "man of sin" as one of their own who fell away, much like Judas. Both were even given the same label: the son of perdition.
John also spoke of those who fell away:
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 Jn 2:18-19 KJV)
Hebrews spoke of it as if it were not uncommon:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb 6:4-6 KJV)
There were some real shenanigans going on in Jerusalem before the siege, including false christs and prophets, just like Jesus predicted. The most horrendous were the three factions that had divided control of the city into three parts. According to one of Josephus' witnesses, they defiled the temple and all sacred areas.
Philip