Search results

I don't take Revelation 11:1-2 to be involving the first century and 70 AD to begin with. I never did. I have always taken it to be involving Matthew 24:15-26. Except initially I interpreted to be involving a rebuilt temple in the future. I abandoned that idea some time ago. I take it to be...

I 100% agree with this, yet at the same I would argue that there is a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 And Luke 21:27, though. In Luke 21, meaning as of verse 20, we are in the beginning of the times of the Gentiles. In Matthew 24, meaning as of verse 15, we are in the final days of the times of...

If this poster in the OP that has me on ignore was actually interpreting Scripture with Scripture pertaining to Revelation 3:21, he would have to admit that it proves Premil, not Amil. And here is how. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat...

Once Christ died and rose, everything from that point on pertaining to a temple is meaning spiritual not literal. IMO, the reason why God didn't destroy the 2nd temple soon after Christ died and rose, but chose to wait 40 years, was in order to give them plenty of space to repent. 2...

And the way you try and get around that, to stand in the holy place doesn't even mean to be in the temple. But if you thought it did mean that, would you still be insisting the AOD was already fulfilled in the first century?

What was nonsensical about me explaining why I am concluding what I am, based on interpretrting Scripture with Scripture? Unless one shouldn't be doing doing that sometimes, but other times should be, I think one should be doing that at all times. So, unless one has an issue with someone...

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. IOW, this below, unless you...

BTW, it would be nice, but not that I think you are misquoting anyone, to also provide the links to where those quotes can be found.

Why are you bringing this up? That is not involving anyone's interpretation of anything as far as I can tell.. IOW, assuming one takes any of that to be holy writ, they still have to interpret it themselves.

I would argue that nothing in Luke 19:11-27 supports a Preterist interpretation nor an Amil interpretation. For certain, not the former. One reason why it doesn't support Amil is because Amil has no days following the 2nd coming but prior to the fulfillment of 1 Corithians 15:28 that can...

No He didn't, and what the thief asked Him proves it, the fact Jesus did not even remotely come into His kingdom upon death----remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Jesus then answered that in the next verse via this---Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise...

Personally, though I'm not disputing the idea of souls in heaven prior to their bodily resurrection, it is likely meaning in this sense, such as the latter below. Genesis 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Luke 21:24 mentions until the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled. How can the times of the Gentiles not be involving a few thousand years? The point being, if it does, this indicates there is a gap of at least 2000 years that follows Luke 21:20 before the coming in verse 27 can arrive.

What you are failing to factor in, IMO, is the following. Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Something has to explain...

For decades that was my position as well. Therefore, I grasp where you are coming from and why. The reason I changed my position is because I eventually realized that it was not reasonable that the Discourse would be silent altogether in regards to 70 AD. 70 AD happened, and that it makes zero...

Maybe look at it like this. Take this little season in Revelation 6, for instance. If one interpreter is applying it to the first century and another interpreter is applying it to final days of this age leading up to the 2nd coming, obviously then, a futurist label can't fit the former, nor can...

Here's an idea. Instead of blatantly misrepresenting what I plainly said and meant, why not look at what I said in context, not out of context? Observe what I was arguing at the time. Grasp my position. I wasn't arguing for what you quoted, I was arguing against it. One would have to lack...

The fact you brought this up, I guess I overlooked something chatgpt said that I myself don't necessarily agree with. Meaning this---From this angle, the souls under the altar represent those killed during the Tribulation, not from the first century. I would argue this instead. That it includes...

I gave what you said to Chatgpt to chew on. Here is some of what it said. I can't speak for anyone else, but I like how it answered and addressed this. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ---------------------------- chatgpt: -----------------Futurist View: Futurists interpret Revelation largely...

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Some views, mainly Amil take the following to be meaning in heaven while in a...