Search results

LOL. Says the guy who called me "the natural man" (1 Cor 2:14), which refers to an unsaved person without the Holy Spirit. That's your way of speaking with honesty and integrity? Who do you think you're fooling? You are fooling no one with your holier than thou act.

LOL. Obviously, it is, but I believe Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:26-27 and explained why. It's clear to me that He had to be referring to something that was prophesied in the book of Daniel in relation to the destruction of the temple buildings since He was asked when that would happen. The...

What a joke this is. You guys are so desperate to come up with something to support your view that you have to resort to using very untrustworthy AI. Jesus was clearly referring to a future abomination of desolation, so to try to claim He was referring back to a past abomination of desolation is...

I gave my reasons for why I see it the way I do and you addressed none of them. If you can explain convincingly why Jesus would have talked about global things in relation to the coming fulfillment of a local event, then feel free. But, I can't make any sense of that.

What does this have to do with anything I said in my post? Did I say anything in my post which would indicate I was intending to discuss who the real author of the book of Matthew was? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

So, you're saying you think I'm not saved? Or are you not able to discern that the natural man is not saved? If you are saying that I'm not saved, then you have a much bigger problem than misinterpreting the Olivet Discourse. You will be judged with the same measure that you are judging me if...

I did answer it. You have horrible reading comprehension skills just like a majority of people on this forum. I do not believe Jesus was referring to Daniel 12:11-12. I believe He was referring to Daniel 9:26-27 because He was talking about something related to the destruction of the city...

I have not stopped laughing since the first time you tried to claim that nothing in the Olivet Discourse is about the destruction of the temple buildings. LOL! That will never not be funny. You think Jesus was asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed, but you say He decided to just not...

You've made it clear in this post that you have no interest in actually addressing anything I said in my post specifically. Which shows that you have no real interest in addressing any challenges to your view. Which shows that it's a complete waste of time talking to you. If you want to think...

It's as if you didn't even read my post. I said that I believe Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:26-27 because what He was talking about related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple just like is described in Daniel 9:26-27. What is hard to understand about what I'm saying, Douggg? Do you...

Premils like you continue to prove that Premil is not based on clear, straightforward scripture, but rather on assumptions and speculation like what you're doing here. No, Adam's life span has nothing to do with Revelation 20. You have so little support for your doctrine, that you have to resort...

All you did was whine that he asked for New Testament scripture in his questions because you had none. You never answered those questions. Why do you say you did? He did no such thing. There isn't just one translation, so how can you accuse someone of changing something if they were not even...

No, that is not likely. Their perspective at that time means nothing. Jesus's perspective is what matters. He knew they would eventually understand what He was talking about. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Matthew to record the disciples' second...

LOL. That is completely irrelevant. You're just proving my case that Premil is based on assumptions and speculation while Amil is based on clear, straightforward scriptures. Did you read my first two posts in that other thread? How do you reconcile your Premil doctrine with clear...

I can't get over you saying this while at the same time agreeing with the preterist interpretation of Luke 21:8-24. That is just unbelievable and completely hypocritical. Did you forget about the existence of Luke 21 when you said this?

Is the following not plain language to you in terms of what He is going to do to His enemies at that point, which can be compared to what happened to unbelievers when the flood came? 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away...

LOL. The real mystery is why Jesus would bother descending from heaven to meet us in the air if He's just going to turn around and return to heaven with us. Why wouldn't we just be gathered and brought to Him to meet Him in heaven instead of "in the air" in that case? I'm sure you have no...

There is no basis whatsoever for claiming that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are not parallel passages to Luke 21:20-24a. None. Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are clearly referring to the prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27 because part of the Olivet Discourse relates to the destruction of the city...

Yes, I am well aware of that and have been for many years now. That goes without saying. This is not the right approach to take to interpreting scripture. You have admitted to doing this same thing when it comes to not wanting to agree with Catholics who believe in Amil (not all of them do)...

We who belong to Christ will escape what Paul said those in spiritual darkness will not escape, which is the "sudden destruction" that will come unexpectedly as a thief in the night when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3). Peter indicated that the "sudden destruction" Paul said will occur on...