Search results

I like to add that the difference is that someone says things that cannot be Biblically validated and passes them off as the actual Word of God. Allow me to demonstrate the difference. For example, if I were to say that I think many Jewish revolutionaries were hold up in the hills in AD 70, and...

As the watchmen, we are commanded to look for the true signs of Christ's coming. Do you know what the signs of Christ's return are in Scripture?

They are the builders just like us. What temple did they build who have rejected the cornerstone OF THAT BUILDING? Who was the cornerstone of thst building before the fall at the cross?

Didn't you read in Scripture? Mat 21:42-45 (42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom...

Wrong people. Wrong Judea. Wrong Church. Wrong time. Olivet Discourse has NOTHING to do with "Judaean CHurch" or "70AD." But believe whatever you like. The Lord judges, and I am comfortable with it.

I think you misunderstood Luke 21:22-24. Yes, Luke these verses do speak of great judgment — but it’s not primarily about the physical destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with many Jews being physically killed and held away captive into physical nations as you think. Rather, it's a prophecy of...

Oh yes, clearly God was just furious at architecture that day. Because nothing says “divine judgment” like knocking over some bricks. No, that’s not what Scripture teaches — but sadly, some still cling to that idea thanks to Josephus’ writings and the usual preterist gymnastics. You're right...

Oh, I see — sounding a little jealous there, aren’t we? Look, we might not agree on every interpretation under the sun, but hey, if we’re both actually reading and understanding what Christ really said in the Olivet Discourse… then glory to God, right? Miracles do happen!

You're making a shallow assumption by claiming that Jesus was merely referring to the physical stones of the temple buildings in Matthew 24:1–2, as if that were the central focus of His prophetic warning. But that interpretation misses the deeper spiritual truth He was declaring. When Jesus...

Thank you!

(Chuckle). Start a thread. If you’re going to challenge doctrine, at least come with Scripture rightly divided—not recycled labels, false assumptions, and smug sidesteps without fully understand the situation between Christ and Satan at the wilderness. Unless you agreed to take your own advice...

Well, because, unlike yours, my doctrine does not support any way, shape, or form of premillennialism, including their discernment. Well, because, unlike mine, your doctrine does incorporate Preterist's interpreation of Olivet Discourse ("partial") or even some in Revelation, as part of your...

Not at long as you incorporate preterism's view of 70AD into your "amillennial" view, I doubt that you have the truth in some of your doctrine. Not a true amillennialist, nope.

Cheap talking. You falsely label MY DOCTRINE comparable with premillennial, regardless of their rapture or seven-year theories, just because you believe I cannot discern which text in Matthew, or Revelation is literal or figurative. Funny.

You heard me. Do what you advised yourself to do. You said it yourself. Grow up. :gd

Your interpretation overlooks key scriptural context. Listen... First, before you try to assign a timeline, ask the right questions: How was the city destroyed—and by whom? You’ll likely say it was Titus and the Roman soldiers in 70 AD. But Scripture does not explicitly mention Rome or Titus...

Yawning... Perhaps it's time that you should start listening to your advice: "Don't try to tell me what to do. I have MANY other things I could be doing besides talking to you and probably all of them would be time better spent." I will see about that if you do what you preach. So... just...

Doubtfully! Yes you are. Partial Preterist infused amillennialist. Stop denying. Not supported by the bible. It's a speculation. Not at all. Done, and I can see that I am on the right path. Yours dont. Exactly what I expected—deflection instead of answers. You're dodging the...

More of the same—empty noise, strawmen, and zero biblical refutation. You’ve proven nothing from Scripture. Not one solid answer to the questions I asked. Just recycled assumptions and blind defense of the flawed 70 AD theory. It’s clear you’re committed to that view no matter how much it...

Where exactly did I ever teach that the thousand years come after a literal seven-year tribulation? Or that there’s a pre-tribulation rapture? Or that there's only one Antichrist? Or that part of the Olivet Discourse refers to the physical destruction of Jerusalem? Or that the physical temple...