Search results

Again - "That Scripture is inconvenient to my pret hooey, so it's gotta be SYMBOLIC!" HORSE FEATHERS! I should leave you wallering in your apostasy, but someone else might believe that tripe if no one posts against it & proves it's tripe. Note - Second reply to this thread. Roby, I want to...

My apologies, John. I guess I let Roby get my goat with his responses, and I responded out of anger. I really don't have anything against the "futurist" view of eschatology, but I get tired of people who act as if only an idiot would believe in any form of preterism. But, I digress. Here is...

You keep saying that you've shown me proof. You haven't provided anything but your views and parroted "futurist" nonsense. Your comments only serve to reinforce those who already hold to the "futurist" view. My comments will only reinforce those on this forum who are already preterists...

Agreed, Scripture is not coded. However, it was written in Hebrew and Greek. Since we are dealing with other languages, we have to consider all the possible meanings of words we translate. Most are pretty straightforward, but some may have multiple applications. It makes a lot more sense for...

I've already explained that "problem". In broader context, let's go to Rev 18 (next chapter). The subject of is that Babylon has fallen. Verse 21 "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown with violence". Verse 24 "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints". Sounds like...

I personally hold to the early date (65-67) authorship. I've run across an intriguing theory that the Beast could be better understood as Rome, and "personalized" in Nero. Since Nero committed suicide in 68, the "Rome" theory makes sense to me. (Not sure how my fellow Preterists might view...

If you check out the Blue Letter Bible or Strong's Concordance, you will see that "image" (Strong's # 1504) has several definitions. One of the definitions is "applied to man on account of his power or command". You keep saying that Scripture is proving me wrong, but all you've done is present...

Since he adheres to the late date, it makes sense that he would see Domition as the Beast. On the other hand, Eusebius does see an early fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation prophecies. I personally hold to the early date (65-67) authorship. I've run across an intriguing theory...

Jerusalem was first called "that great city" in Rev. 11:8. This term is used for Babylon. So far we are in agreement. In Rev. 14:20, the winepress is trampled "outside the city", which refers to Jerusalem. Yet, the only city mentioned earlier (14:8) is Babylon. "The Harlot" as a term for...

You do acknowledge that "The Antichrist" is not found anywhere in Revelation - nor in the rest of the Bible, for that matter. We definitely agree that the "antichrist" definition fits anyone opposed to Christ. We also agree that the terms above most likely point to the same guy.

At the very least, the "image of the Beast" was someone who represented the Beast, and carried the authority of the Beast. Titus is a very likely candidate, but it may have been someone else representing Rome. This certainly makes more sense than a talking statue or a hologram. While you've...

Well, everyone needs a hobby :). (Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)

Interesting point, Brother David. However, "antichrist" is only found in 1 & 2 John as one who opposes Christ. "The Antichrist" is nowhere in Scripture. However, Nero fits the description of "the Beast" quite well.

An excellent article, Brother Glen. They were great examples of being able to live in the world without being of the world. Like our Lord, they endured being hated without cause. Would that we all follow the examples of these, who in turn followed the example of Christ.

Hello, Brother Glen. Hope you are doing well. Of course the passage above is often used as "proof text" for the Rapture. Maybe there will be one, I can't say for sure. However, if there is one, I don't believe it will be a "secret rapture" before or during a future period of great...

I do appreciate your patience with me. The Beast from the Sea was 1st Century Rome, represented by Nero. The Beast from the earth (Rev. 13:11) was Apostate Israel, represented by the priests who aligned with Rome. "Earth" in this context is better translated as "land", meaning "the land of...

You ARE sharp, Brother! You made me realize that I made a mistake. What I should have pointed out earlier is that the Great Harlot is Jerusalem.

The Beast of the Sea was Nero. (You didn't really expect me to give you a different answer, did you? :). The False Prophet was Apostate Israel, who had aligned themselves with Rome. Based on what the Bible says, what makes you think any statue ever said anything? The Mark of the Beast didn't...

While we disagree regarding our views of the End Times, I'm sure we can agree that it doesn't matter which of us is right. We aren't going to change anything that was or will be in the future. Our mission is to obey the Great Commission. Neither my faith nor anything else in my life really...

To be honest, I don't blame you. I held the "futurist" view for about 30 years, and it took quite a bit to convince me (about 10 years ago). I'm sure we at least agree that part of the Olivet Discourse points to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.