Search results

Say the natural man like the disciples before they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit. :laughing:

Not going to happen. Messiah in the future to be cut off? Does not make sense. And there is no "3.5 year" of Gentiles.

The Seventy Weeks concern God’s covenant relationship with His people—Covenant Israel which is spiritual Jerusalem, of which Daniel was a part. Messiah the Prince = Jesus Christ. Messiah being cut off = Jesus Christ being crucified. The people of the prince = the Old Testament congregation...

If you insist that the mark must be physical then the beast in the same context must be a physical animal that comes out of the land called Europe. Let me know if you find the animal with two horns like a lamb. :laughing:

You're still missing the point of Paul's argument. Yes, Paul says that Hagar and Sarah are allegorical, but you are making an unwarranted leap when you conclude that “the present Jerusalem” therefore means the physical city itself, and that Paul is merely using the city's location as metonymy...

LOL. That’s quite a leap. I never said—or taught—that 2 Peter 3:9–10 was fulfilled in 70 AD. You simply invented an argument I don’t hold and then proceeded to attack it. That’s not a refutation; that’s arguing against your own imagination. 2 Peter 3:9–10 has nothing to do with my position...

Wait, what? 2Pe 3:9-10 (9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the...

Your reply is nothing more than speculation wrapped in sarcasm. Show me the Scripture that says the Judaean Christians, while being filled with the Holy Spirit in the holy temple of the heart, fled because they still believed the physical temple remained God's holy dwelling. You can't, because...

Sounds like a good idea since you were not successful in produce evidence on what I actually said. Good riddence.

Oh please! You are playing games here. I cannot confirm or deny a statement that I never made. You claimed this to me: “You were saying the OC passed in 70AD, remember?” Now please show me where I actually wrote that. Provide the exact quote, the context, and where it was stated. If you can...

Wow! The confusion here is failing to distinguish between the legal establishment of a covenant before God and people continuing to live under a covenant "they wrongly believe is still in force." Yes, the Old Covenant officially ended at the cross. Christ established the New Covenant through...

Clearly you don't remember or in denial. Move on! You need some break from this forum.

Funny, you brought it up and said, "You were saying the OC passed in 70AD remember?" But the real questions is did you remember where I actually wrote it? If so, then you need to show me that actual quote, else you are considered a false witness. The ball is in your court.

Why should I? I already explained. Now you need to prove that the beasts, horns heads, and lamb are literal. Clearly you failed. For you, yes. LOL!!! That is not how it works. God gives us the understanding by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Not turning symbols into literal to fit...

Because it does not exist. I never said that exactly. Bet you did not read what I wrote correctly. The one you are blind to the Truth.

No its you who are still in denial. Good! Good! Please show my quote that actually says this. Never did. Really? Then you must accept the fact that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 cannot be applied to 70AD since you did not think it was holy. LOL. I gave the answer that you did not...

"Present-day Jerusalem?" What Jerusalem, exactly? LOL! You are still fixated on a "physical city" that Paul is not even discussing in this passage. Galatians 4:23-26 does not say, “the physical buildings of Jerusalem,” “the stones of Jerusalem,” or “the geographic location of Jerusalem.”...

No, the focus has NEVER been on physical stones. Even in the Old Covenant, God’s covenant relationship was always with His people — the congregation of Israel — not with buildings or earthly materials. The tabernacle and temple were only symbols of God's presence among His covenant people...

Not at all. Its you who are misunderstood my point. I was explaining how and when the New Covenant was established, because that directly answered his question. Galatians 4:24–26 (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth...

LOL!