Search results

You seem to be under the impression that the word "sunteleias" means "end of the age". It does not. It means "end". So, there is not one instance where the word "sunteleias" is translated "end of the age", either. When the word "sunteleias" is used in scripture, it is also used in conjunction...

I don't see any indication at all that Jesus is not being literal in verses 4-14. I would think so since He specifically prophesied that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and we know that they were destroyed in 70 AD. I don't think it says that in order to indicate...

This comment was completely uncalled for. What is causing you to be so bitter and condescending towards someone who you agree with otherwise a vast majority of the time? You know darn well that WPM's overall beliefs are far from "Darby/Scofield dispensational futurism", so why would you say...

Why do you cut if off there at verse 28? If you think everything up to that point is regarding what happened in 70 AD then you have no choice but to conclude that about at least verses 29-31 as well. So, how do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31?

I didn't misquote anything. What is the reason for your unnecessary rudeness? The word "sunteleias" means "end", not "end of the age". The Greek word meaning "age" is "aion". It's a separate word. You have the right to that opinion, but the fact is that they can be used as synonyms.

That was not my claim at all. Honestly, this is the kind of response I would expect from someone like Timtofly, not from you. In no way, shape or form did I say His predictions were useless. This is a disappointing response. You're better than this. How you concluded that I was saying His...

Agree. Well said. I'm doing some research on the words sunteleías (translated as "the end" in Matthew 24:3) and télos (translated as "the end" in Matthew 24:6,13-14) and it seems that they are synonyms that can be used interchangeably, similar to how we have English words that mean the same...

I'm just not seeing your point at all. Do you not believe scripture ever speaks of things that would happen only in Jerusalem? Do you not believe that Jesus said that the physical temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed? If you do believe that, then do you think that other...

What a ridiculous and bigoted thing to say. As if all Australians are arrogant and have a know it all attitude. That is not true. As Christians, we should know better than to be bigoted towards any particular group.

Of course all scripture, including scripture about things that happened locally in Jerusalem long ago are "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...". We all know this. What does this have to do with what the...

You are not getting my point. I don't deny that those things were happening back then. We all know that. But, was Jesus only making the point that those things would occur before the end or is there more to it than that? Jesus talked about the things He referenced as happening more frequently...

That is what we're all saying, but we're disagreeing on which verses relate to which. What question is that? You have a tendency to be very vague with your comments. Can you try to be more specific, please?

He didn't specify any particular war, nation, famine, pestilence or earthquake, so how do you know that the things He "predicted occurred exactly at the time and in the manner that He predicted"? It seems to me that He was speaking in a general sense and the reference to birth pains suggested...

Keep in mind that all of us who are discussing this in this thread so far (you, me, WPM, rwb) believe that the Olivet Discourse is both about what happened in 70 AD and about the future coming of Christ at the end of the age. So, none of us are denying that physical Jerusalem and the physical...

That's not what Paul was saying at all. Being cut off because of unbelief didn't mean that an Israelite was no longer a part of the nation of Israel. No, they were still citizens of the nation of Israel. So, that means they were cut off from a different Israel, which is spiritual Israel or "the...

Paul called it "The Israel of God". Why do you try to create rules about how many terms can be used to described the congregation of God's people? It's called the church, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the Israel of God and the New Jerusalem. Paul called it "The Israel of God" here...

Let's not play games. Just get to the point. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Which is? You think what is described in Revelation 20:9 (people being consumed by fire) is separated by a thousand years from what is described in Revelation 20:15 (people being cast into the lake of fire)?

You weren't talking about what you believe, you were talking about what I believe and misrepresenting it. You were acting as if I believe that spiritual Israel replaces national Israel. No, I do not. That would require there originally being one Israel (national Israel) and then it being...

No, I haven't since Daniel 9 has absolutely nothing to do with doing away with the NT. That is utter nonsense. It has to do with Jesus establishing the new covenant, not doing away with it. Good grief. Unbelievable.