Search results

You must have misunderstood me somewhere. I'm not saying Nero is the sea beast. I'm saying there are Preterists that I have observed in the past that insist Nero is the sea beast. My point is that some Preterists insist Nero is the sea beast. Assuming they’re correct, though, it raises a...

Which brings up this point when observing Preterists insisting Nero was the beast. Ok, if that is so, according to Revelation 13, you can't have a beast that rises out of the sea without having a beast that rises out of the earth working hand in hand with it. therefore, if the beast was Nero...

IOW, you ignore any arguments that might trump your arguments.

An opinion that doesn't defy common sense, though.

Which defies common sense. Which equals in your case, meaning only in regards to this, thus not meaning this universally, someone that is intelligent but lacking good common sense.

You still don't get it. Not because you are unable to get it, but because you refuse to get it. 'In that day' can span several millennia. "In that day' is clearly meaning an era of time no matter how you look at it. It might be like someone giving the history of the USA from the 1700s through...

Wherein dwelleth righteousness can simply mean every single thing is dealt with fairly and righteously. It could mean no more crooked courts , crooked judges, crooked cops, crooked lawyers, so on and so on. And if anyone steps over the line during the millennium, it would mean they are dealt...

Provide the passages pertaining to this so I can consider context first. Typically though, I take the end of the age to be when Christ bodily returns. Winch then leads to the beginning of a new era, the millennium. Except I, unlike most Premils, have the millennium being the first thousand years...

Let's start over then. Re-ask those questions you are specifically demanding answers to. Don't send me back to a previous post of yours. Simply re-ask them and I will try one more time. In the meantime you need to realize that the way I go about things might be vastly different than the way you...

Zechariah 14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. 8 ¶And it shall be in that day, that living...

Maybe this will satisfy you though I don't expect you to agree or to be objective about it nor intellectually honest about it and admit I raise valid points worthy of considering. But at least it shows I'm answering your questions. So guess what, Marty? I fully agree that in that day began...

I don't actually think that at all. How could I when I don't even take verse 2 and 3 to be involving the battle against Jerusalem in 70 AD to begin with. I'm just saying that would have to be the logical conclusion to arrive at if verses 2-3 are involving the war upon Jerusalem in the first...

The OP is my position and someone else's position. The AI is simply examining strengths and weaknesses in each position. No one pertaining to the OP is getting their theology from an AI. No AI to date has ever caused me to change my position about anything.

That's a valid argument that you have not read the entire thread. I can certainly relate to that. In that case then, you deserve a little slack per my part. That aside for now--- IMO, and you of course are going to disagree you being somewhat Preterist and all. What one should be comparing to...

I have already indirectly answered some of your questions per what I have submitted throughout this thread. For example. Clearly, Jesus was on the mount of Olives numerous times several thousand years ago. No one is disputing that. But what does any of that have to do with what is recorded in...

Let me take a guess here. You need Jerusalem to also be meaning in the literal sense on account of verse 2 in Zechariah 14. Since you obviously take verse 2 to mean 70 AD. How can you not when you basically take a lot of things to mean 70 AD? As if it makes sense that 2000 years ago one lone...

What is your view of verse 2 and 5, since it is obviously connected with Him standing on the mount of Olives in verse 4? No mattrer how you look at it then, no matter how one interprets verse 2, verse 2 is clearly meaning post the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ back into...

In my view, the sense it is meaning now is not meaning forever. Verse 11 requires a Jerusalem that is safely inhabited forever. IOW, you cannot fit forever into an age that is finite. If the sense the heavenly Jerusalem is being understood in, in the here and now is meaning it will forever be...

Let's start with the following since I first need to try and understand your mindset in regard to all of the following. And then how your reasoning trumps the way I am reasoning these same things. Unlike you in this case, thus not applying this to you universally, I tend to try and interpret...

1st coming and 2nd coming equal 2 manifestations. What then is this 3rd manifestation that you are referring to?