Search results

You’re not reading well. Either the Old Covenant remained in force, or it didn’t—but either way, your interpretation of a physical temple in 70 AD still collapses. That argument doesn’t rescue your position; it only exposes it. Read my post again. Especially read the Scripture I quoted...

False! You cannot claim that the new covenant was spiritually established at the cross, with the Church already functioning as its covenant body, and then argue that the old covenant remained in force until the physical destruction of the temple in AD 70. That is a theological contradiction...

:rolleyes: Gee-whiz! Covenants are ended and confirmed by blood, not by buildings or dates. The New Covenant was confirmed at the Cross with Christ's blood, therefore the Old Covenant had to end at the Cross, not years later in 70AD. To place the end of the Old Covenant after the...

What part of "C" do you not understand? Weren't you the one who wrote "C" as: "Luke 21:22 happens future, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens future." Of course they are the one and the same, speaking of the judgment of the unfaithful New Testament congregation.

Your guess is as BAD as lacking spiritual discerning on what Christ talked about. Period. This has nothing to nursing mother fleeing Jerusalem in 70AD! You've got yourself into another blatant contradiction. Do as I suggested we do. Check the Parallel passages. Mark 13:18-18 "But woe to...

A) WRONG B) WRONG C) CORRECT 1. The Temple of Matthew 24 is a prophecy of the Temple near the end of the world/age that would have abomination stand it in. 2. The Old Testament Temple (that the literal temple symbolized) was the congregation that fell at the cross. Spiritually! And was...

Seeing a man as tree walking is post hoc allegorization? LOL!!!!! I would say that you are having a carnal hermeneutic or natural-man interpretation which rooted in: 1 Corinthians 2:14 – “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God…” John 6:63 – “The flesh profiteth...

Chuckle! You really believe Matthew 24:15–22 was fulfilled in 70 AD? Then let’s slow down and read the text with spiritual discernment, not surface-level literalism. First—the “holy place.” Do you honestly think the Jerusalem temple was still “holy” in God’s eyes after Christ declared...

Wrongo. Read the verses carefully: John 2:18-21 (18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? (19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (20) Then said the Jews...

You are not thinking carefully. John 2:15-21 (15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence...

Sorry to hear that. Clearly, you do not have spiritual discernment. Your point was that Scripture is to be taken literally, so now we are to believe that your own opinion is the arbiter of when that rule no longer applies. The truth is, there is "nothing obvious" in the book of Revelation. It's...

No—the New Jerusalem “is” the Bride herself: the PEOPLE. Not a literal city of stones and gemstones. Scripture is clear: the stones and foundations represent redeemed people, not architecture. Selah. Revelation says the New Jerusalem is “the Lamb’s wife” (Rev. 21:9–10). A city cannot be...

The tone of my previous post is fine. You decided to whine BECAUSE clearly you cannot answer the questions biblically and do not want to do the research with God’s Word. Got it.

God “created” (בָּרָא, bara H1254) His covenant congregation, but Jerusalem is the symbol, not the creator nor merely a physical city. Here is the biblically precise answer: 1. What does bara (H1254) mean? The Hebrew verb בָּרָא (bara) means to create by divine action, often bringing...

What Jerusalem is this? And who are the Gentiles in God's eyes? Who are the Two Witnesses, exactly? 1,260 days? Literal or symbolic period? Who Israel is this woman represented? Feed her with what? Wrong. Per context, the power was given to the beast, not antichrist. The beast is not...

More nonsense. This argument collapses only if one insists on wooden literalism where Scripture itself uses symbolic language. The 1,260 days of Revelation 12:6 and the “time, times, and half a time” of Revelation 12:14 are the same period, expressed in different symbolic forms—just as...

Also, not that this truth will matter much to those who turn to the right hand and to the left to avoid the truth of that matter. As I said, there are not many Berean-like Christians who will do anything but ignore the facts, and argue the Hebrew and Greek nuances, insist on physical stones...

I have explained Matthew 24:1-3 to you and other Preterists and so-called Partial Preterism Amillennialists before, many times. And you guys are still spiritually blind to Christ's Word. So guess its time for another education for you here: I have no problem with them saying the disciples...

Thought so. You’ve actually made my case, exactly as I wrote. John 2:18-21 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the...

Consider wisely the Holy City, the Temple, and the Buyers and Sellers cast out - What hidden manna do you see there: John 2:13-21 "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money...