Search results

Ahem… so let me get this straight. You’re absolutely confident that Matthew 24:1–2 must be taken strictly literal just because Christ did not correct his disciples… and somehow that same rigid literalism conveniently carries through the entire chapter? Interesting. So tell me—are we still...

Very True.

Your objection assumes that if there is no explicit correction, then there is no misunderstanding. But that standard is not consistent with how The Gospel of Matthew—or the Gospels in general—present Christ’s teaching. The issue is not whether Jesus always corrected misunderstanding...

Not if the Holy Spirit has not enlightened you yet like the disciples were? Haven't you research with the Bible on this? The Gospel show many moments where the disciples misunderstood Christ - not just once or tw3ice, but repeatedly throughout His Ministry. For example, they misunderstood...

Not at all. The argument that therefore Matthew 24 must be limited to only physical temple stones assumes something the text itself doesn’t require. In Matthew 24:1–2, the disciples point out the physical temple buildings, and Jesus responds that not one stone will be left upon another...

I think you’re missing the bigger biblical pattern here. Look at Matthew 21:42–45. Jesus calls Himself the stone the builders rejected—and notice who the builders are. Verse 45 says the Pharisees knew He was speaking about them. So this isn’t about literal stones at all—it’s about people in...

If 70 AD fulfillment is true, it must be clearly proven from Scripture first—not dependent on a 4th-century historian. This is because their eyes are on this world and its preoccupation with secular history, rather than on the Bible alone and Biblical history. Biblical history corroborates...

I still see some people treating the temple stones like they’re the missing puzzle piece for the Olivet Discourse—just toss in “70 AD” and suddenly every verse magically snaps into place… no context needed, just add interpretive duct tape and call it settled. :watching and waiting:

I see that you haven't cited Scripture to support your answers which is not surprising. And you’ve also misrepresented (or even know) my view—I’m not teaching about a physical “original Israel,” whether in 70 AD or the modern state of Israel. Both interpretations are incorrect.

What Israel? :bigCeeze

Well... okay. Semi-preterist and partial preterist are basically the same view. Still wrong no matter how hard they try. Not interested in dealing with proven false doctrine.

I can tell that you really do NOT understand what the whole book of Revelation 13 is about, anyway. You just assumed and make speculations here as far as I can see what you wrote lately.

Oh, so Revelation 13:13 is about missiles now? That sounds like pure speculation—especially after admitting you don’t actually know what the Lord meant. Not surprising.

Humm... The lake of fire is a physical magma of the Earth that will last forever?

:watching and waiting:

Indeed. Most modern church pastors have adopted a form of Judaizing—teaching that Christians must align themselves with national Israel as though God’s redemptive plan still centers on a physical nation. In doing so, they echo the same spiritual blindness seen in the Pharisees and scribes of...

You are still confused. I see that you do not make any sense with the word. The Meaning of G4591 in Revelation 1:1: Primary sense: “to make known, indicate, point out, or communicate clearly” An actual revelation or message Usage here: God is revealing or making known to John what is...

LOL… you just built an entire argument around a word I never even used in my previous post that you replied. That’s not clarification—that’s deflection. Instead of dealing with the actual Scriptures I presented, you ran off chasing “signified” and tried to force a definition that doesn’t even...

You still don’t get it—and you keep repeating the same unsupported assumption as if saying it louder makes it true. You claim, “if it doesn’t explicitly tell you otherwise, take it literally.” That is not a biblical rule. You just invented that. Now prove it—from Scripture. You won’t be able...

Your claim is completely weak! And that’s the problem. You boldly say “most times a star is just a literal star,” yet you provide not a single verse to prove it. That is not Bible study—that is opinion dressed up as authority. The book of Revelation does not leave “stars” up for your private...