Search results

In my case what would the doctrinal bias be pertaining to in particular? IOW, what doctrinal reason would I need it to be what I take it to mean? It doesn't help support Premil one way or the other, so that can't be why I need it to mean what I take it to mean. And since I'm Post trib, I don't...

The following passage has puzzled me for some time now. Mainly meaning verse 6. Why would it say that death would flee from them? Should we take that literally? I'm now beginning to think maybe yes. Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be...

Except that ignores some things that Jesus said that couldn't possibly fit the first century. Such as. Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Then compare that with this... Matthew...

LOL at myself for forgetting that. It indeed shows some fleeing when He returns, Except I don't see Luke 17:31-33 being in regards to any of that. Especially in light of verse 33 then comparing that with Matthew 16:24-26, for instance. But not that Matthew 16:24-26 is meaning Luke 17:33, but...

What some are ignoring, before Christ can even return, there are two totally different events involving a temple that have to be fulfilled first. One of those events has already been fulfilled, meaning in the first century and the 2nd temple being destroyed. Except that has zero to do with the...

The only way I can see to square this, in the day the Son of man is revealed is not meaning in the day they are to flee. Keeping in mind that if 70 AD is meant, your view, it would be Christians that are to flee. If meaning the 2nd coming, it would be the unsaved that are to flee. Neither of...

Trust me, I get your point, but even so, it will be obvious when the real Christ arrives. It won't even be questionable at that point. No one, and I mean no one, will be able to deny that the real Christ has arrived. After all, legions of angels will be accompanying Him for one thing.

IOW, you don't agree, that even in our day and time, there is such a thing as someone that can fit what Luke 17:23 records? Keeping in mind that He said that right after what He said in verse 22. Also keeping in mind, He expanded on some of this even further, in Matthew 24, verses 23-26, for...

In this case, even though you may be right about some of those things, look again what Jesus said in Matthew 24:21---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. How can this be trumped or even repeated--- no, nor ever shall be?

I still don't fully get what you are meaning here. In Matthew 24, it is at the beginning of great tribulation that they begin fleeing. Obviously, during B), meaning while B) is still true, they never see one of the days of the Son of man they are desiring to see, because one of the days is...

Speaking for myself, I'm not fully grasping what you're meaning. Take Matthew 24:21, for instance. That can only be involving one specific era of time. If it involves the first century we then can't also apply it to the future, in any sense. After all, the next verse says those days are cut...

In Matthew 24 verse 17 and 18 are meaning during great tribulation. The 2nd coming is nowhere in view at this point. In Matthew 24 the 2nd coming is meaning verse 30 and that verse 29 indicates it is after the tribulation of those days. What tribulation of those days? How can it not be meaning...

Luke 17:22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. Like I pointed out in another post, this verse is key the fact it says this---one of the days of the Son of man. The first thing to keep in...

No, I have A) involving while He is away during His ascension, and I have B) involving His return in the end of this age. Yet, some of it could probably overlap with when He walked the earth---such as this part--They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage...

But when you look at it like that, how then do you explain something like the following? Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man...

Interpreting Matthew 24 in light of Luke 17. Except most probably won't read all of it because it is a bit lengthy. I can't fault them for that since I'm the same way at times in regards to other's posts if they are a bit lengthy. Unfortunately, there was no way to say all of these things below...

That's an interesting point. What then do you make of Matthew 24:15-21 in light of that?

Years ago, the fact I have never in my life ever taken Matthew 24:15-21 to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, my position at the time for decades was this. Since Matthew 24:15-21 isn't involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, neither is Luke 21:20 involving the first...

Believe it or not I see that somewhat making sense. But I haven't had time to really think about in depth.

You lost me. I don't have a clue what you are meaning here. As to Mark 13:20 it is for the elect's sake these days are shortened. And since the elect can't be meaning the unbelieving Jews, I'm unable to comprehend that if this is meaning the first century, that in what way would it have been...