Search results

Strawmen rebut themselves. But you wouldn't know that. :laughing:

Your brews of imbecilic allegations, psychotic gnostications, and hyperspiritualized hallucinations are in a risibility class by themselves. Keep 'em coming. :laughing:

Still haven't taken your meds. Gnosis psychosis is intractable without them. :laughing: Take them first. Then copy/paste what you claim is my claim that "the old covenant remained in force". Do it twice for "good measure." :laughing:

Forgot your anti-psychotic meds again, eh? :laughing: Copy/paste the claim "the old covenant remained in force".

I affirm your belief that Jesus was instructing his disciples on how to survive the coming 70 AD experience, so I presume that your question is not directed to me.

Your eisegeses are built on futurized fantasies. The disciples actually witnessed false christs and deceivers. DECEIVERS Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4,5)...

Absurd indeed. One would wonder why Jesus didn't command His disciples to go to the pub while He discoursed, as nothing He was about to say would have any relevance to them. :laughing: But it certainly did have relevance, notably demonstrated years later by the Judaean Christians remembering...

Nope. Calvary covered it. But we know that Messiah commanded and controlled AD 70. What was its purpose?

Absolutely.

The time drawing near was that of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. All of the evidence cited of false Christs and deceivers appeared during the years between Jesus' discourse and 70 AD. Certainly the Church can draw spiritual lessons from any and all Scriptural history. But Jesus'...

In fact, Jesus was describing DECEIVERS who would appear during the years between His discourse and 70 AD. Jesus was alerting His followers that these DECEIVERS did not yet signal the end of the old covenant age: Matthew 24 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall...

True. And 70 AD saw spiritual fulfillments which continued those begun at the cross, and which will continue to the Second Coming.

Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem was both a physical and spiritual event, representing God's physical and spiritual judgment upon apostasy, and signifying the passing of the old covenant to the New by the physical destruction of all physical vestiges of the former, and the spiritual eclipse of...

The Judaean Christians fled, and were spared.

The opposite is true. Jesus had just finished referencing "these things", i.e. the stones of the temple buildings and their ultimate downfall; to His disciples. His disciples then asked, "When shall 'these things' be?", i.e. "these things" which Jesus had just referenced. The sign which would...

According to you, He talks only about the spiritual, never the temporal. You didn't add to my list. What's the matter with you? :laughing:

The discerning recognize that historical Scriptural fulfillment does that. The undiscerning do not recognize that futurized fallacious fantasy does not. Which are you? :laughing:

Yes, there was no literal 70 AD. There was no literal temple. There was no literal destruction of the temple. There was no literal Jerusalem. There was no literal destruction of Jerusalem. There was no literal Roman army. There were no literal Judaean Christians who escaped the literal Roman...

Yes, royally flushed after your sitting. The Romans and Jews knew and know the difference between a temple and a retaining wall. You don't. Thanks for the confirmation. :laughing:

Debris at the base of the Western Wall. Here's what the Jews of the Jewish Virtual Library say about the Western Wall: "When Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., only one outer wall remained standing. The Romans probably would have destroyed that wall as well, but it must have seemed...