Search results

It represents the dispensational attempt to rationalize what in essence is dispensationalism's polygamous God: Israel, including OT Israel, is the wife of Jehovah, while the NT Church is the Bride of Christ. Thanks for the Scriptural rebuttal.

Your sign of delusion. Jesuit futurism is fable, fantasy, folly, and fallacy. F words. :laughing:

Those pesky Judaeans just won't leave you alone. :laughing:

Great exegesis and arguments, bro.

Sure. So let's not have any more bunk denying the historical physical realities of what occurred in 70 AD. Because those pesky Judaeans and the mountains of historical physical evidence confirming Jesus' Olivet discourse confront and repudiate said bunk. Unassailably.

You've disqualified yourself by using the word "history", because you believe that all history is secular history, which you've forbidden. :laughing:

Just can't bring yourself to use that word "history", can you, because that would mean secular history, and that would mean interpreting Scripture via secular history. :laughing: Your hallucinations exceed those of even the most hallucinatory Jesuit futurist.

Refusal to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh identifies antichrist. 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in...

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess...

Your refusal to answer the following simple question...: So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture. Yes or no? ...exposes the following: 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that...

A simple question: So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture. Yes or no?

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture. Agreed?

What you meant to say is, "I already disputed quoted Scripture". :laughing: You're welcome.

"In about 50 AD, Paul and Barnabas go to the council in Jerusalem 14 years after Paul's conversion (Galatians 2:1-9 and Acts 15:2)." Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem in 50 AD, years after Pentecost. They obviously got left behind, so they obviously weren't Christians. :laughing:

No mention of rebuilding in the Olivet discourse. Irrelevant.

So quote for us the Scripture confirming that all of the Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea, upon seeing the Roman armies advancing on Jerusalem, after Pentecost, fled into the mountains. Book, chapter, verse, please. :laughing:

John 2:19-22 is not the Olivet discourse. There were no Pharisees at the Olivet discourse.

Was the city completely repopulated and rebuilt the day after the Romans destroyed it?

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture. :laughing:

Who was physically inhabiting it after the Romans destroyed it? Other than some of the local fauna? :laughing: