Search results

LOL!!!!!!! Why do I have to make up my mind about that? Can the truth of this matter of whether or not there is such thing as a pre-trib rapture only be determined by determining who the 24 elders are? LOL!!!!! Certainly not. You are unbelievably ridiculous. Your approach to interpreting...

It's clear that you will go to any length to avoid the clear context of Revelation 3:3. Where do you find any mention of a global event in the message given to the church in Sardis? Nowhere. Everything Jesus said to them applies to them specifically. Let's stick to the topic here, which is the...

No, there was not. You have done nothing to prove that. You are the one with the problem, not me. Yeah, so? That's what the context indicates. The context of Revelation 3:3 is not in relation to a parousia (no mention of it anywhere in Revelation 3) and not in relation to a global event like...

I believe the truth is always far simpler than futurists and preterists make it out to be. Both groups often try to relate unrelated scripture. There's no balance in either view. To futurists, almost everything in Bible prophecy that isn't about the first coming of Christ is yet to be fulfilled...

We can only guess about that, of course, but I believe the prince is mentioned there because the intention was to show which people it would be that would destroy the city and the sanctuary. To just mention people destroying the city and the sanctuary without giving any indication as to which...

I responded to that post already, not realizing you hadn't read my other post. My response was based on thinking you had already read that, so please disregard anything I said which was based on that assumption. Like what I said at the beginning where I said I already explained something to you...

There is no problem with that for many of us. You are creating one for yourself with your faulty understanding of what an antecedent is, as I explained to you in my previous post. That's your false assumption. You have no proof that everything described there has to fall within the 70th week...

I was saying it is both about what happened in 70 AD and what would happen after 70 AD up until the future second coming of Christ. That is not what you're agreeing with, though. You do not believe that the Olivet Discourse is about anything that occurrs after 70 AD. I couldn't disagree more...

Apparently. How can you conclude that those other verses have the same context as Revelation 3:3 when that verse is only in relation to the first century church in Sardis? If you can somehow show that the context of all those verses is the same, which would mean Jesus was referring to a global...

Not in Revelation 3:3. What Jesus was talking about there related specifically to people in the first century church in Sardis. So, He was speaking figuratively to them about punishing them if they did not repent. He was not referring to the global event of His parousia there. This has a...

You have no clue of what you're talking about. None. Not even close. Your false accusations do nothing but make you look like a liar.

The nearest antecedent is the Messiah because He is the last person focused on before verse 27. In verse 26, it is not "the prince" who is in focus there, it is "the people of the prince". So, that makes the antecedent the Messiah. He is mentioned, but is not the antecedent because what it says...

The reference to the Euphrates River in Revelation is symbolic, just like the references to Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, Mount Zion, Armageddon, Gog and Magog. Taking all of that literally makes a complete mess of the book and results in contradictions with other scripture.

The word "parousia" is not used in that verse. So, that verse is irrelevant in a discussion about the parousia of Christ. You cannot find even one verse that actually refers to the parousia of Christ that has anything to do with 70 AD or anything else in the first century.

This is absolutely unbelievable and very disturbing that you think Jesus's death has nothing to do with fulfilling any part of the prophecy including any of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24. The only way for reconciliation to be made for iniquity is by way of the blood of Christ! People...

@Eternally Grateful Here it is. He confirmed that what he means is that Jesus died on the last day of the first 483 years, which means he is saying that Jesus died on the last day of the 69th week. Just as I said. Can you please apologize to me now for accusing me of falsely accusing this person...

No, you are trying to avoid acknowledging that if His death occurred after the 69th week (first 483 years) ended, then that places His death within the 70th week.

Yeah. From what I've seen, some might try to claim that about Edwards, but whether the doctrine started being taught in the 1700s or the 1800s is irrelevant. It was never taught before that and is not taught in scripture. And LOL at "Dispensatanist". :D

It is certainly partly about what happened in 70 AD, but not all of it is as preterists falsely believe. To deny it has nothing at all to do with 70 AD is just ridiculous. Matthew 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its...

Agree. It was never taught until the 1800s when it was popularized by John Nelson Darby. Some might say it was first taught by Morgan Edwards in the 1700s, but the point still stands that it didn't exist until long after the New Testament was written. You certainly will not see such a thing...