Search results

Nope, I've been trying to find something wrong with the message for a long time and so far I've not turned up anything. With regard to YOUR Jesuit beliefs, I assure you that they're not Biblical.

I just realized i wrote "didnt' happen in Daniel's day". That's pretty obvious. What I meant was, didn't happen in Daniel's chapter 8 prophecy...which it is claimed was conducted by Antiochus Epiphenes. Since Daniel's and Jesus' words are so descriptive of what happened in 70 AD, it has to apply...

Well, at least we agree on that!

The AOD didnt happen in Daniels day. Heres what we know: 1) Daniel predicted a coming AOD. 2) Jesus reminded us of Daniel’s prophecy AND TOLD CHRISTIANS TO FLEE WHEN THEY SAW IT. 3) When it happened in 70 A.D., no Christisns perished in the destruction.

You sound like liberals who reject the Bible because "it's outdated" without offering any arguments against it. Just as well.

Since that comment wasn't for you, it seems that it is YOUR emotions that convinced you it was. Be that as it may, I assure you I'm one of the most left brain guys out there. That's why I was able to walk away from my former Jesuit ideas and embrace the truth.

I know that - but only a small speck on the timeline.

Here's another: "The truth is regarded as "hate" by those who hate the truth."

No he didn't, and neither did the other ECFs. Please review this: Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness So, God considers a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in which the sacrifices offered therein would be an official, national, Jewish rejection of the sacrifice of God's...

When I asked "can you say the same?" it was in reference to my statement that I only appeal to the Bible and accurate history (not papal revisionist history). If you're going to include Maccabees, then you actually can't say the same thing I said, which was the Bible and history PERIOD.

You keep throwing around the "h" word like a special snowflake, leftist, SJW, beta male, so I finally decided to show you just what the Bible says about "hate". It's anyone who refuses to rebuke the brethren for their sin, which is breaking God's Law, the Ten Commandments. That be you.

I've already shown you that Paul told the early church that the Restrainer preventing the rise of Antichrist was the Roman Empire - it was in the past, not our day. The man of sin, son of perdition is the papacy

I'm happy to discuss the 70 Weeks with you, but only if we use the Bible and history as evidence.

One of my favorite quotes from those who served on the front lines in the Battle of the Bibles: “Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it...

This is the SECOND time I've had to tell you the apocryphal books are not inspired and only in certain cases is the historicity of it authoritative. So, either dispense with this nonsense, or consider our conversation over. I don't need to appeal to anything but the Bible and accurate history...

Who cares? Both these words - "the" and "that" - are definite articles used for specific identification of something in nature or the supernatural. So what if the Greek is "the man of sin" in verse 3 and then "that great Wicked" in verse 7? The use of the one doesn't not disqualify the other...

I'm still here waiting for you to come up with anything that even resembles a challenge to the truths that I've shared with you...about Antiochus...about the origin of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism. So far, you've done nothing but run the other way.

I attend the church of today that is described in prophecy as the end time church that is to exist just before Jesus comes back. It gives the "3 Angels Messages" of Revelation 14: Worship the Creator because the Judgement hour is here, come out of fallen Babylon before the wrath of God falls on...

Dude, if you choose to continue believing Jesuit lies after you've been shown the truth about where Futurism and Preterism came from and why they were sent into the world, then I can't help you. I'll pray for you :)

No Christian should feel "worthy" of anything but nailed to a rugged, splintered cross. But, let's not pretend that at the core of Calvinism we can't see an element of "exclusivity" - that "I've got a ticket, Jack, and you don't so tough luck, you non-destined you." So foreign to the character...