Search results

Oh please you can do the better than that, Christ was dead and gone before the prince to come was mentioned, believing that is still speaking of Christ is nonsense because neither He, nor his church had anything to do w/ 70ad. That is grasping at straws trying to defend a belief that has always...

That sounds very nice but it goes off into symbolic land and doesn't stay w/ the literal. The AoD is one specific thing that had nothing to do w/ 70ad. Were there general abominations and desolations? Of course, but that happened several times in Isreal's history not just in 70ad. Do you know...

It includes gentiles as well.

In vs. 26, "the prince to come" isn't the important part but it is prophesying about the future a/c. The "people of the prince" are. Israel was considered too small potatoes for Rome to risk their valuable soldiers upon, so except for a handful of Roman leaders, the army of Titus (who wasn't...

There is a difference, Lk says "when you see Jerusalem be surrounded flee". Matt. and Mark say "when you see THE AoD flee. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was not the AoD. That is one signal thing spoken of in Dan. 11:31 and 12:11 "not" 9:27. You can see what the fulfillment will...

Of course he didn't abolish the OC, he abolished the law and they are not the same. 2 Tim. 3:15-16 is speaking of the OT which was the only bible the first church had for decades. Guess what scriptures Acts. 17:11 are talking about? You got it the OT! The church age began when the law ended and...

We are only given a very brief Cliff Notes version of creation. True about 6:1, however, the sons of God, in vs. 2 which are 'not" angels were here first. Sons of God = children before the fall, daughters of men = children after the fall, imo.

Yes, they obeyed Lk. 21 20-24 as I said which was "specifically" about 70ad. Matt. and Mark were not. It goes back to the last person mentioned which wasn't Christ, it was "the prince to come", which is 'after 70ad in the linear reading and there is no reason not to read it that way. The last...

So much error is here. First, no one is going copy Christ's covenant, because that isn't what is spoken of. Dan. 2:44, 7:21, 23-25, 8:11-12, 9:27, 11:21-45 and 12:7 are all speaking of the same guy. The holy city is New Jerusalem. Just because a temple might be built o even a tabernacle would...

Just because it is possible to do something doesn't mean it will be done.

Imo, when experiencing the same thing for thousands of years, you're not going to be counting the days. It was eternal time until the fall.

I agree on most of that but "spiritual" Israel isn't dependent on DNA but upon faith. That is what Paul is teaching.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as apocalyptic literature in the bible. This term first derived from unbelievers speaking about prophecies that haven't been fulfilled. Just as satan planned, this phrase destroys the natural understanding of literal scripture. When God says something He's not...

No, there isn't a clear teaching about it outside of Rev. 20. However, the millennium is about Christ's reign on earth, aka, the physical kingdom of God upon is referenced many times, especially in Rev. 11: 15. but the bible also talks about the spiritual kingdom of God that we are already a...

If the prophecies are not about Christ's 1st advent, they are most likely all future except Lk. 21:20-24 which is a stand alone prophecy among the gospels.

In the 70th week the a/c/false messiah makes a pact w/ Israel to allow sacrificing to return and sometime "in the context of" the 70th week he changes his mind and breaks the covenant. No, it doesn't have to be in the exact middle of the week which causes many to go astray in their eschatology...

Sorry, but the covenant and person spoken of in 27 was never and will never be Christ because it's not talking about a religious covenant.

That is seeing what you want to see, the only covenant mentioned in this passage is speaking about, is a secular covenant that hasn't happened yet. You're the one changing scripture because you choose to ignore the verses that prove this belief to be wrong. Being impatient, antsy and demanding...

one second after 12/31-1/1 the previous year is past.

You're overlooking God's foreknowledge of what would actually happen eventually where the beings he created needed the night and day for a variety of reasons.