Search results

No more heretical than recognizing that God "came" in judgment many times in the OT. His "coming" didn't have to be physical or literal.

Not in the Bible. This is conjecture from history. Most "futurist" end-times theories are no less conjecture than my "past" views.

Agreed. It certainly can be a challenge when dealing with such a complex book. Isn't it ironic that a book titled "Revelation" is the most cryptic?

There wouldn't be any mention of AD 70 if Revelation was written during the late 60s, and not in the 90s as many believe. As a matter of fact, the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is missing from Scripture (except in the Olivet Discourse) is one of the main reasons that I...

My apologies, Brother. Let me see if I can elaborate. We certainly don't want to interpret Scripture allegorical where it shouldn't be. That could leave interpreting the Bible to be like reading Aesop's fables. Most of the Bible should be taken in the literal sense. As you say, we need to...

Jesus "returned" in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. This is not the same as the Second Advent that we look forward to.

Scripture should be interpreted according to "sensus literalis" - the literal meaning of the passage. This is not to say that everything is to be interpreted in a "wooden" literal fashion, but to interpret it by the type of literature it is. We have historical narrative, poetry, didactic, and...

Thanks. You figured out what I was looking for, even though I wasn't very clear in the way I asked. While it's interesting, I still hold to a symbolic interpretation of a very long time.

Since John told his original audience that they would be able to calculate the number of the Beast, it must have been someone they knew. In 2 Thess. 2, when Paul speaks of the "man of Lawlessness", he states that the mystery of Lawlessness was already at work. That is, it was already at work...

So a Jew who is not washed in the Blood of the Lamb has no more hope of salvation than a Gentile who is not covered by the Blood. BTW - We are carrying on two conversations. Could we combine them into one for simplicity?

A few questions, my Brother. I apologize up front, as I do not want to appear confrontational. Just looking for a deep discussion, and you strike me as a true Biblical scholar. 1. Where do you find 3 1/2 years of worldwide peace in Scripture? 2. Where do you find a 3rd Temple built in...

So one should not refer to Abraham's spiritual descendants as "Jacob". For the record, I don't believe in "the AntiChrist", but that's may be a topic for another day.

Agreed - those contrasting groups are still with us. Paul was not talking in a literal sense, but was speaking of our spiritual inheritance. Jews and Gentiles, men and women, slave and free all have the same spiritual blessing when they put their faith in Christ Jesus. I'm not trying to twist...

@HankD was just explaining that to me. Interesting, but it doesn't change my view. On another note, I just realized that part of your signature is a link to a song, and I was just watching it. Absolutely beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

So John could have made a reference to the 1,000 years in a different way and still have it be grammatically correct? Could you provide an example? (I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you happen to know, I'd appreciate it.)

Isn't that just a matter of using proper grammar?

While I don't agree with that view, it's clear that you have actually studied the scripture to draw your own conclusion instead of just going along with what someone else was saying - like the Bereans.

Good one :). He was saying that there is no advantage in being a Jew, and there is no advantage in being a man. His main point was in Gal. 3:29 - "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

No wonder I'm so confused. I guess that's why so many people just give up and take the "it will all pan out" attitude.

Thank you. I don't know if I'll ever understand all the different views of the End Times.