Search results

I said verses 1–3 are applicable, at least in part, to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, because they specifically mention the Temple buildings that the disciples literally pointed out , to which Jesus responded, "do you see all these things? truly not one stone will be upon another.” In...

I was asking if you would explain what you meant when you said to me “by your own words”

The context includes the following: Matthew 24:1-3 As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown...

My own words what? I don’t know what you are trying to get at?

This is a prime example of a claim without explanation or evidence. What exactly do you mean that I “excused/denied the reality of Matthew 19:28-30”? Or you could just make a claim with a provided explanation and/or evidence to support it, as this how a debate/discussion forum typically works.

You are most welcome. Though, You have made several claims towards me without providing explanations nor evidence to back those claims. So there is nothing for me to respond to specifically, therefore, of course my response will be generic.

a sound, fruit of the spirit response. I would expect nothing less.

Right, it should be obvious, but then again you have the OP here trying to argue a literal chronological order for revelation in attempt to disprove amil………

according to revelation 20, heaven and earth pass away AFTER the millennium. According to Peter, the heaven and earth pass away on the day of the Lord, with which he associates the coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:4,12). As far as it goes locationally, the gospels and epistles heavily associate...

When a theological system can’t answer Scripture, it often changes the subject to motives. That doesn’t resolve the textual problem—it just confirms it exists. Thanks for demonstrating that with your generic response that provides no evidence for your own position nor addresses anything i posted.

Not all amillennial interpreters read Matthew 19:28 as exclusively pre–Second Coming, just as not all premillennial interpreters read it as exclusively post–Second Coming. John Gill, a premil commentator, explicitly applies it to the present church age. So the rigid either/or framework you’re...

I’m not sure what you are meaning by this here, but my point was that if you are arguing that revelation disproves amil because of its chronology, and then appeal to gospel passages that don’t necessarily clearly support your chronological argument for revelation, then it’s confusing as why you...

My point was that from solely a literal chronologically, the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire prior to the millennium, based on revelation 20:10.

Your argument began by appealing to the chronological sequence in Revelation to disprove amillennialism, so I don’t see why you are now appealing to Matthew 19 and Luke, which amillennialists interpret very differently? The passages in Matthew and Luke do not really tell us anything about the...

Yes—this is accurate. From a purely thematic and narrative standpoint, before introducing any theological framework, it is fair to say that if one assumes Revelation unfolds in a single, straightforward chronological sequence, then the 42-month reign of the beast naturally precedes the...

It seems to me that the vision of revelation 20 happens sequentially after 19 because of revelation 20:10 revelation 19:20And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presencee had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those...

What textual or linguistic evidence do you have that genea means ‘the current age in which all believers live across time,’ rather than this being an interpretation you’re reading into the English based on your theological framework? A timeless command does not require a timeless referent...

what is your source for the definition of genea ?

This is what's so confusing about your posts. You keep saying you like blueletterbible but then you seem to reject Thayer's. Are you not aware that BlueletterBible.org's source for lexical information is Thayer's?

How does a modern day english speaker, who does not speak nor read first century koine Greek, get the big picture without English translation teams?