Search results

John was writing history. What makes you think that he couldn't write, in 96 AD, about what occurred in 70 AD? Your argument is risibly baseless.

Date of writing is irrelevant, as both John and Luke were retroactively recounting the content of Jesus' Olivet prophecies which He delivered before 30 AD. Pure Scriptural history. Throw your Scofield fantasizer in the round file from whence it came.

Then you believe that the desolating armies seen by the Judean Christians surrounding Jerusalem were part of that event, as Luke 21:20 describes. That's encouraging to see. Pure Scriptural history. Throw your Scofield fantasizer in the round file from whence it came.

The answer to your question: I agree with Gentry's exegesis. My next question: What caused you to change your mind about Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15?

So you finally agree that Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are parallel readings of the same events. That's encouraging to see.

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine. What does it have to do with Matthew 24?

I am undecided regarding its fulfillment. Once Again: What does that have to do with Matthew 24?

What does that have to do with Matthew 24?

Thanks for confirming your fallacies. And don't forget your 490 delirious days.

You didn't answer the question. What did Luis Alcazar say about Matthew 24? I'll answer it for you. Alcazar said nothing about Matthew 24. His fabrications, like those of your apostate futurist hero Francisco Ribera, were based entirely on Revelation. Your claims are demonstrably false.

By the time of the Reformation, there was not a single futurist to be found in the ranks of the Reformers. They recognized the apostate papacy as the prevailing antichrist of their time, against whom God had summoned them into spiritual battle. If the church fathers had survived to the time of...

If preterism is seen in Matthew 24, then Luis Alcazar, the father of preterism, must have had something to say about Matthew 24. What did Luis Alcazar say about Matthew 24? Source, date, and verbatim quotes, please.

You're even more dispensational than the dispensationalists, with your denial of Reformation historical prophetic truth, without which the Protestant Christian Church would not exist today; the 490 days of delirium that you attempt to impose on Daniel's 70 weeks; your espousal of the futurist...

Tell us, with exact verbatim quotes, what Alcazar taught. Then show us, with exact verbatim quotes, any Reformed Church today quoting Alcazar in its teaching. Try not to over-exert yourself.

If it doesn't teach what the Reformers taught, then it is not legitimate reformed eschatology. Neither it nor you can name one Reformer who espoused preterism. You, on the other hand, espouse the futurist fabrications of the apostate papacy's counter-Reformation Jesuit Francisco Ribera.

You cannot name one Reformer who espoused preterism.

Satan has been against God's Chosen People of faith and obedience forever, irrespective of their genetics. That will continue until His return.

Sorry. Your claims are Scripturally unsupportable.

Unlike you, Peter, Paul, and John knew and believed and observed and experienced what Daniel had written. You have no answers for the questions. Your paradigm has never left the ground. Thanks for the guffaws.

There are armies in Luke 21, which is the Olivet discourse's synoptic counterpart to Matthew 24. There is no Antiochus Epiphanes in the Olivet discourse. There is no antichrist in the Olivet discourse.