22-minute video. Very scriptural. Is he correct?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
22-minute video. Very scriptural. Is he correct?
No.
The speaker has not considered the last 100 years of history to confirm whether or not his understanding is true.
Did you watch the video?
22-minute video. Very scriptural. Is he correct?
It was written much later which is why there is no prophecies in it covering the events of AD 70. Zero. Not one word about the temple being destroyed. Nothing.IMO he is correct Revelation is written before AD 70.
22-minute video. Very scriptural. Is he correct?
I agree. The beast in Revelation 13 is end times, 42 months before Jesus returns.The beast is not here yet, not at least in the form it has during the 42 months. Jesus certainly did not return in the past. We are waiting for his return.
The temple and city were destroyed in 70 AD.
What beast did Jesus destroy?
Did you watch the video?
22-minute video. Very scriptural. Is he correct?
Good point.After all, according to Revelation 13, there can't be a beast unless there is also the false prophet working hand in hand with it.
It was written much later which is why there is no prophecies in it covering the events of AD 70. Zero. Not one word about the temple being destroyed. Nothing.
I don't even need to watch the video in order to determine if he is correct or not. Nor am I even going to bother watching his proposed Preterist nonsense. Clearly, he isn't correct. Take 70 AD, the time period in question. Was there also a false prophet involved with 70 AD? After all, according to Revelation 13, there can't be a beast unless there is also the false prophet working hand in hand with it.
Check chapter 11, the temple is still in place.
Rev 11 is in the future and the temple is mentioned so either a new temple is built, or it's figurative. Again Rev never once speaks of AD 70 and the destruction of the temple. If it was written before AD 70 and covers the events of the first century then it should speak of it but not one word. Lets not skip over the fact that two people were not killed in the streets of Jerusalem, then resurrected and went into heaven in the sight of everyone there./ Did not happen, but it will in the future.
He says the Roman Empire.