Search results

Aww… poor baby, you. Did the “long response” hurt your attention span? Some of us actually read more than one chapter of the Bible a day. And your point is? It does not refuted anything I said. LOL!

In John 2:18-21. Christ was giving a sign to HIS PEOPLE, the Jews, they they will be the one who came and destroy the temple and the sanctuary (Christ), per Daniel 9:26. Christ rebuilt it and confirmed a covenant with New Testament congregation, the church. Nothing to do with 70AD, third...

You believe in Imperial Rome/Papal Rome crap? You believe Daniel 7:24 is talking about the Papal Church?! :laughing: No wonder that many people came up with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the ten common market states, Roman Empire, or Papal Rome, etc. etc. etc. based on "world history." That is...

The confusion comes from failing to distinguish between Christ Himself, His true saints, and the outward corporate church. Jesus Christ is the true Temple of God. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He spoke of the temple of His body (John 2:19–21). No abomination can...

Zechariah 14:11 is a prophetic description of spiritual Jerusalem—the Church established under the New Covenant—representing the Kingdom of God on Earth. Jerusalem often symbolizes the Church, the true Israel in Christ, and the City of God, safely inhabited by believers chosen by God throughout...

Do you even know what is God's defination for the beast. His defination for the horns? What is spiritual signification for number two? What does this beast represents? What is God's defination for the right head? And the forehead? Do you expect that there will be one man called "the false...

Please! Let’s think logically about the mark of the beast. If a born-again Christian is walking down the street and a mob attacks him, forcing to insert the beast sanctioned chip or mark into his right hand or forehead against his will—does that mean he instantly loses his salvation? Of...

It is. LOL!!! Despite the Scripture I quoted. Okay... Isaiah 40:2 can be understood both as authoritative Scripture and as containing figurative language. It is authoritative Scripture. Within the context of the Bible, Isaiah is part of the prophetic writings inspired by God. So Isaiah...

Of course. LOL!!! Despite the Scriptures I have quoted. Okay... Isaiah 40:2 can be understood both as authoritative Scripture and as containing figurative language. It is authoritative Scripture. Within the context of the Bible, Isaiah is part of the prophetic writings inspired by God. So...

Forgot? Not at all. Its you who are making a fool of yourself for lack of understanding. The true integral Holy Place is within the Holy Temple which no one can enter into "except" through the curtain/veil that is the body of Christ (Hebrews 10:20). While you (and other...

Both Matthew 24:1-2 and Luke 19 mirror the end of the corporate old Covenant congregation and the end of the corporate new Covenant congregation, because of their rebellions against God's word. If you are going to use Matthew 24:1-2 to justify it speaking about AD 70, then you must use Luke 19...

Once again, that's a terrible way for you to try to exegete the Scriptures. Where is it found in Isaiah 40:2 when God was saying to comfort Jerusalem, He was talking about people, not a literal city? It's not found there; it is found in other Scriptures that are relevant to it and explain it...

Sigh... Read carefully: Luk 19:41-44 (41) And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, (42) Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. (43) For the days shall come upon...

Like I predicted, I knew you still would not get it because of your DENIAL or spiritual blindness. I can see where you get your view from, but I don’t agree with limiting Matthew 24:1–2 to a strictly physical prediction about the temple buildings. Scripture repeatedly uses temple and stone...

Those coming with blind and false doctrine of 70AD who insisted on physical temple falling saying it is not even debatable. LOL!!!!! Boy, you have got it twisted. The debate is not over whether the physical temple was destroyed, because it obviously was, since it's not there anymore. The...

I am back from short camping trip and I can see that many of you still don't get it regarding the stones of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2 and others. I would ask you again, what part of the Gospel is concerned with literal or physical stones falling and being laid even with the ground. That's...

Sigh... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Not at all. I am getting to the point. The issue isn’t about which verses you feel like taking literally or symbolically. The real question is whether the disciples misunderstood Christ in the Olivet Discourse—and there’s zero evidence that they did. They wrote exactly what Christ said. No...

Yes. It does. It all related. Really, tell us, which part of Matthew 24 you think cannot be interpreted rigid literal? Look at questions again. And...? Yes. They did. I already explained it. Read my previous post again. I already explained it. I already explained it. It is part of...