A recent session I had with Chatgpt pertaining to some of the Discourse

[Randy Kluth]

I affirm your belief that Jesus was instructing his disciples on how to survive the coming 70 AD experience, so I presume that your question is not directed to me.

Yes, I misread your message. Sorry about that! I've amended that post...

 

[ewq1938]

And you think there is *nothing* about the Fall of the Temple in this Discourse? Amazing!

There isn't. Go ahead and quote from the OD.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem was both a physical and spiritual event, representing God's physical and spiritual judgment upon apostasy, and signifying the passing of the old covenant to the New by the physical destruction of all physical vestiges of the former, and the spiritual eclipse of the old testament national economy by the New Testament Kingdom of God.

False!

You cannot claim that the new covenant was spiritually established at the cross, with the Church already functioning as its covenant body, and then argue that the old covenant remained in force until the physical destruction of the temple in AD 70. That is a theological contradiction.

Scripture is explicit: the old covenant ended at the cross, not forty years later.

• Hebrews 9:16–17 — “Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.”
  The covenant was enacted by Christ’s death, not by Rome’s armies.
• Hebrews 10:9–10 — “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second.”
  The removal of the first covenant and the establishment of the second occur together—at the cross.
• Matthew 27:51 — “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.”
  God Himself ended the old covenant order when Christ died. Access to God was no longer through a physical temple.
• Daniel 9:27 — “He shall confirm the covenant with many.”
  Christ confirmed the new covenant by His sacrificial death, bringing an end to sacrifice and offering—not in AD 70, but at Calvary.

The Church did not wait for a demolished building to exist. It was birthed in Christ’s blood (Acts 20:28), established on His resurrection authority (Matthew 28:18), and publicly manifested at Pentecost (Acts 2).

To place the “offical end” of the old covenant in AD 70 simply because of physical destruction is to confuse symbol with substance, shadow with fulfillment (Colossians 2:16–17). The cross—not the fall of physical stone walls—marked the decisive covenantal change.

 

[covenantee]

False!

You cannot claim that the new covenant was spiritually established at the cross, with the Church already functioning as its covenant body, and then argue that the old covenant remained in force until the physical destruction of the temple in AD 70. That is a theological contradiction.

Forgot your anti-psychotic meds again, eh?

Copy/paste the claim "the old covenant remained in force".

 

[TribulationSigns]

Forgot your anti-psychotic meds again, eh?

Copy/paste the claim "the old covenant remained in force".

You’re not reading well.

Either the Old Covenant remained in force, or it didn’t—but either way, your interpretation of a physical temple in 70 AD still collapses. That argument doesn’t rescue your position; it only exposes it.

Read my post again. Especially read the Scripture I quoted. Slowly this time. Don't forget your reading glasses.

 

[covenantee]

You’re not reading well.

Either the Old Covenant remained in force, or it didn’t—but either way, your interpretation of a physical temple in 70 AD still collapses. That argument doesn’t rescue your position; it only exposes it.

Read my post again. Especially read the Scripture I quoted. Slowly this time. Don't forget your reading glasses.

Still haven't taken your meds. Gnosis psychosis is intractable without them.

Take them first.

Then copy/paste what you claim is my claim that "the old covenant remained in force".

Do it twice for "good measure."

 

[TribulationSigns]

Still haven't taken your meds.

Take them first.

Then copy/paste what you claim is my claim that "the old covenant remained in force".

Do it twice for "good measure."

Keep demanding proof like a parrot, but it doesn’t change the fact—you’re still wrong. Your 70AD physical temple theory is nonsense, and not a single verse from Scripture backs you up. Your still haven’t even refute the scripture i quoted with your own. Classic.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Keep demanding proof like a parrot, but it doesn’t change the fact—you’re still wrong. Your 70AD physical temple theory is nonsense, and not a single verse from Scripture backs you up. Your still haven’t even refute the scripture i quoted with your own. Classic. View attachment 76204

Just show where he claimed that "the old covenant remained in force", if you can. Otherwise, just admit that you made a false accusation towards him.

 

[covenantee]

Keep demanding proof like a parrot, but it doesn’t change the fact—you’re still wrong. Your 70AD physical temple theory is nonsense, and not a single verse from Scripture backs you up. Your still haven’t even refute the scripture i quoted with your own. Classic. View attachment 76204

Your brews of imbecilic allegations, psychotic gnostications, and hyperspiritualized hallucinations are in a risibility class by themselves.

Keep 'em coming.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Your brews of imbecilic allegations, psychotic gnostications, and hyperspiritualized hallucinations are in a risibility class by themselves.

Fascinating. Instead of addressing the Scriptures I’ve cited, you resort to decorating your insult with fancy words like ‘gnostications’ and ‘hyperspiritualized hallucinations.’ How convenient—it must be exhausting to avoid Scripture by inventing a vocabulary meant to impress rather than inform. If you truly cared about truth, we’d be discussing God’s Word, not your thesaurus. Until then, your clever labels say more about your strategy than about the Bible.

Still waiting for a biblical rebuttal—your fancy words won’t replace Scripture.

 

[covenantee]

Fascinating. Instead of addressing the Scriptures I’ve cited, you resort to decorating your insult with fancy words like ‘gnostications’ and ‘hyperspiritualized hallucinations.’ How convenient—it must be exhausting to avoid Scripture by inventing a vocabulary meant to impress rather than inform. If you truly cared about truth, we’d be discussing God’s Word, not your thesaurus. Until then, your clever labels say more about your strategy than about the Bible.

Still waiting for a biblical rebuttal—your fancy words won’t replace Scripture.

Strawmen rebut themselves.

But you wouldn't know that.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Strawmen rebut themselves.

But you wouldn't know that.

(Chuckle) Until you provide Scripture to support your 70 AD "claims" either way, your argument is thoroughly refuted. Time to grow up and debate the Bible, not your childish imagination.

 

[covenantee]

(Chuckle) Until you provide Scripture to support your 70 AD "claims" either way, your argument is thoroughly refuted. Time to grow up and debate the Bible, not your childish imagination.

What does gnosis debate?

 

[TribulationSigns]

What does gnosis debate?

My doctrine has nothing to do with so-called 1st-century Gnosticism or ‘gnosis.’ That accusation is just a convenient distraction. What I’m presenting is spiritual discernment grounded in Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:12–14), not secret knowledge or philosophical mysticism. If my position were truly gnostic, you could easily refute it with the Bible. But guess what, you just label it ‘gnosis’ because you can’t answer the Scriptures themselves. Name-calling is not refutation—God’s Word is.

Any more distractions? Still waiting...

 

[covenantee]

My doctrine has nothing to do with so-called 1st-century Gnosticism or ‘gnosis.’ That accusation is just a convenient distraction. What I’m presenting is spiritual discernment grounded in Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:12–14), not secret knowledge or philosophical mysticism. If my position were truly gnostic, you could easily refute it with the Bible. But guess what, you just label it ‘gnosis’ because you can’t answer the Scriptures themselves. Name-calling is not refutation—God’s Word is.

Any more distractions? Still waiting...

Your "doctrine" is pure gnosis.

What does gnosis believe about 70 AD?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Your "doctrine" is pure gnosis.

Rest my case. This guy is having a reading problem. LOL!!

 

[covenantee]

Rest my case. This guy is having a reading problem. LOL!!

Does your gnosis need to rest?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Does your gnosis need to rest?

Waiting...

 

[covenantee]

Waiting...

I too...

 

[rwb]

This on-going argument is exactly why I cannot embrace even partial preterism. It simply muddies the water and takes away from the sufficiency of the cross. So what if history proves a literal destruction in 70 AD! Doesn't change the FACT that it was at the cross not 70 AD that all that was written of Christ coming in His Kingdom was finished at the cross, not 30-40 years later.