Search results

New Covenant was not established in 48AD. It was established when Christ died with his blood. Can't you read Scripture at all? Heb 9:15-17 (15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the...

Per Covenantee's weak post, #130, you guys got the wrong Jews and wrong Judea. The Olivet Discourse was not prophesied for Jews who became Christians in Judea at all! Matthew 24:15-19 (15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in...

There you go. Having the same blindness like the Jews thinking Christ was talking about the physical stones of the city and the temple. Even to this day! Sad. :-) You have not proved anything biblically. I am waiting for text proof. No, actually everyone fled. No one can gainsay or...

Simply quoting the Greek word charagma does not prove the mark is a literal, physical brand. It could means that people are spiritually branded by Satan so that they become his. Beside, words derive their meaning from context, and Revelation is a book filled with signs and symbols (Revelation...

Not when it is based on the Scriptures I quoted. You may disagree with the interpretation, but simply calling it “assumption” does not address the biblical evidence presented. The issue is not the length of the explanation; it is whether the Scriptures support the argument. If you believe the...

Oh I may add, 70AD theorists to see if you can follow this without it being too complicated! There is the Israel of God, which is Christ, from above (Matthew 2:15; Hos 11:1). There is the Israel of God which is the election on earth (Revelation 7:1-4). And there is an Israel of God that is the...

Ha! Very unlikely. Oh brother, you still think God was talking about physical Jerusalem or physical stones of the temple in Galatians 4:25? Wow... What part of the gospel is concerned with literal or physical stones falling and being laid even with the ground? That's not the message of...

Yes and a mountain. I think you are confused. You are questioning how can some Jews of the Old Congregation lose their salvation when they do not know that their congregation as fall. Because the congregation do not know that Christ was their Messiah the Prince that was prophesied. Only...

You seem to naively think that Christ went through all this lengthy explanation just for the people (particular generation) He was addressing? You also seem to think that what Christ said has no bearing on us (the future generation 2000 years later)? For example, it was all about physical stones...

Glad you agree with me despite that you still don't get it. So far, you really have not refute my position. Go have fun playing in 70AD Sandbox that won't get you any closer to the Gospel truth.

You completely misunderstood what Jesus was teaching. Yes, the Second Temple was destroyed in AD 70. No one disputes that historical fact. But your error is assuming that when Jesus spoke about the temple, He was ultimately pointing to a physical building. The New Testament repeatedly teaches...

What are you talking about? Losing salvation? What does this has to do with Luke 13. You were not listening very well.

More Preterism nonsenses. Wrong. Read the verse in context: Luke 13:34-35 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not...

AI, nor anything created by it, will NOT be the mark of the Beast. It is YOU who do not have a clue what you are talking about. It is because you do not understand what the beast with two horns like a lamb symbolically is to begin with anyway. You think so. I am adding your claim to a list...

Seriously?! The idea that the mark of the beast is simply a worldwide acceptance of one individual whom you believe to be “the” Antichrist or “the” beast is not supported by the full context of Scripture. The mark is not presented as a mere physical object placed literally on the right hand...

Amen. SI clearly misunderstood.

This clearly show that you do not know what you are talking about. No Scripture support whatoever. The problem is that you are still assuming the very thing that needs to be proven. You keep saying Jesus was speaking about the physical temple in Matthew 24, but you have not demonstrated that...

The problem with your argument is that you are still treating the temple as primarily a physical structure, while Jesus Himself had already revealed that the true Temple was His body. John does not leave us guessing: “But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). That is not my...

No, I did not merely "claim" this. The inspired text itself explicitly states it: "But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). The interpretation is not my invention, nor is it a spiritualized guess. The Holy Spirit through John tells us exactly what Jesus meant. If you reject that...

Vatican City? Facepalm.