Search results

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...

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: