It is time to give Pretrib a decent burial

[The Light]

Never expect a dispen to recognize or understand history.

But there it is. From the Jews themselves.

Don't you dare disbelieve your chosen people.

"Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

As always, keep reading.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.

 

[covenantee]

As always, keep reading.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.

Whom to believe?

1. Jews who acknowledge that Jews "caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted", upon their own countrymen.
2. Dispens willfully ignorant of history who deny the Jews' own acknowledged complicity against their own countrymen.

Who needs a hint?

 

[The Light]

Whom to believe?

1. Jews who acknowledge that Jews "caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted", upon their own countrymen.
2. Dispens willfully ignorant of history who deny the Jews' own acknowledged complicity against their own countrymen.

Who needs a hint?

I think I will believe the rest of the story as written. You have a habit of making false conclusions on partial information.

As always, keep reading.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.

 

[covenantee]

I think I will believe the rest of the story as written. You have a habit of making false conclusions on partial information.

As always, keep reading.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.

You're utterly incapable of refuting the Jews' own admission that they "caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted", so your only recourse is risibly impotent denials of unassailable historical realities.

AKA standard dispen procedure.

 

[The Light]

You're utterly incapable of refuting the Jews' own admission that they "caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted", so your only recourse is risibly impotent denials of unassailable historical realities.

AKA standard dispen procedure.

You're utterly incapable of recognizing the difference between the suffering of people and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple. I'll repost it for you from your own source.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.

 

[covenantee]

You're utterly incapable of recognizing the difference between the suffering of people and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple. I'll repost it for you from your own source.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.

Were Jews destroyed when their fellow Jews starved them to death?

And drove them to cannibalism?

Obviously you consider their destruction inconsequential compared to the temple.

Typical dispenitis.

 

[The Light]

Were Jews destroyed when their fellow Jews starved them to death?

And drove them to cannibalism?

Obviously you consider their destruction inconsequential compared to the temple.

Typical dispenitis.

LOL. Yes I consider it inconsequential to the scripture in Daniel 9. It says the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

And you are over there talking about cannibalism as if it has something to do with the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Typical for someone that thinks they have replaced the Jews.

 

[rebuilder 454]

So, you think the descriptions of the horses, the clouds and sickles and such should all be taken literally and that is why you say Revelation 14:14-16 and Revelation 19:11-21 are different events. Have you considered that those descriptions are symbolic rather than literal? Revelation 14:14-20 and Revelation 19:11-21 are symbolic descriptions of different aspects of what will happen on the day that Christ comes again.

He is not going to be literally riding on a white horse with a literal sword coming out of His mouth when He comes. He also isn't going to literally sitting on a cloud with a literal sharp sickle in His hands when He comes. Your entire view is based on taking symbolism literally. You end up with interpretations that contradict a lot of other scriptures. But, do you care about that? Of course you don't.


LOL. Do you ever tire of posting complete nonsense? Those passages are not meant to be taken literally. Once you realize that then there's no reason to think that they can't be when He comes in like manner from heaven (visibly and bodily) of how He ascended to heaven. He IS only coming from heaven once and that is clearly what scripture teaches. Why would He come from heaven more than once? There would be no reason for that. But, more importantly, scripture does not teach that. You are the gullible one who believes in multiple future comings of Christ.

Lol
....and the "symbolism" you claim to go by is completely opposite of some symbolic "one coming"
Do you ever tire of posting complete nonsense?????

You just can not understand the simple truths of the bible.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I vote to give pretrib a decent ressurection.

For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. - 1 Thessalonians 5:2

Yep
The only position that fits scripture.
It is a little tedious watching them go against the bible.
they are straining at the leash to line up and torture the bible.
It has to be c a spirit driving them.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Why not doing a simple word study on Parousia? Each time it’s used refers to Christ 1 and only second visible coming.

Which is your favorite one coming?
Is it first Thessalonians chapter 4?
Is it revelation 14 verse 14?
Is it the groom coming for the bride in Matthew chapter 25,? (Which is neither Revelation 14 verse 14, nor is it first Thessalonians 4, nor is it Revelation chapter 19).
Or could your favorite one coming be the one that was described in Acts chapter 1 where it said Jesus would be coming in" like manner" (which is completely different from your supposedly one coming?)

One coming doctrine destroyed in 60 seconds.

Ahem....which means I just destroyed that ENTIRE THEORY based on ancient dead men in a time of gross heresy.

Wow a doctrine based in a setting of gross heresy.
SMH

 

[rebuilder 454]

Awfully quiet in here. I guess you guys got tired of torturing that Bible

 

[covenantee]

LOL. Yes I consider it inconsequential to the scripture in Daniel 9. It says the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

And you are over there talking about cannibalism as if it has something to do with the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Typical for someone that thinks they have replaced the Jews.

Yes, according to the dispenarrative, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, but not one Jew went hungry.

They all had three squares every day.

More dispenitis.

As for your delusion that Jews were not responsible for the destruction of the city and temple:

"In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b)."

 

[The Light]

Yes, according to the dispenarrative, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, but not one Jew went hungry.

They all had three squares every day.

More dispenitis.

As for your delusion that Jews were not responsible for the destruction of the city and temple:

"In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b)."

Oh boy. In LATER GENERATIONS the rabbis hyperbolically declared

"In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b)."

Hyperbolically - Hyperbolically refers to language that exaggerates or overstates the truth

Is there anything that you understand about the Word of God as it relates to endtimes? Everything you claim can easily be proven as incorrect nonsense.

Maybe you should try golf.

 

[The Light]

As for your delusion that Jews were not responsible for the destruction of the city and temple:

Mmmm. Still trying to claim the Jews destroyed their own city and Temple?

I'll repost from the end of your article of supposed truth that you seem incapable of understanding.

"During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea."

Did your article claim the Jews destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple? Not hardly. Time for you to climb back into the kiddie pool.

 

[covenantee]

Mmmm. Still trying to claim the Jews destroyed their own city and Temple?

I'll repost from the end of your article of supposed truth that you seem incapable of understanding.

"During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea."

Did your article claim the Jews destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple? Not hardly. Time for you to climb back into the kiddie pool.

Yes, the Jews never damaged so much as one square micrometer of Jerusalem, because they knew that the dispens would be claiming such.

You were saying?


The Wars of the Jews

Book VI

However, the cloister was full of those that were gone up the ladders; at which time the Jews set it all on fire

The Jews also cut off the rest of that cloister from the temple

In the mean time, the Jews were so distressed by the fights they had been in, as the war advanced higher and higher, and creeping up to the holy house itself, that they, as it were, cut off those limbs of their body which were infected, in order to prevent the distemper's spreading further; for they set the north-west cloister, which was joined to the tower of Antonia, on fire, and after that brake off about twenty cubits of that cloister, and thereby made a beginning in burning the sanctuary;

The Jews, in like manner, cut off its roof; nor did they entirely leave off what they were about till the tower of Antonia was parted from the temple

 

[covenantee]

Oh boy. In LATER GENERATIONS the rabbis hyperbolically declared

"In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b)."

Hyperbolically - Hyperbolically refers to language that exaggerates or overstates the truth

Is there anything that you understand about the Word of God as it relates to endtimes? Everything you claim can easily be proven as incorrect nonsense.

Maybe you should try golf.

You disbelieve the rabbis, the elite of your chosen people?

For shame.

Before succumbing to delirious ecstasy about hyperbole, be aware that it originates with a nucleus of truth.

Sorry to puncture your bubble.

 

[The Light]

You disbelieve the rabbis, the elite of your chosen people?

For shame.

So you still don't understand what hyperbolically means.

Standard.

 

[The Light]

Yes, the Jews never damaged so much as one square micrometer of Jerusalem, because they knew that the dispens would be claiming such.

You were saying?


The Wars of the Jews

Book VI

However, the cloister was full of those that were gone up the ladders; at which time the Jews set it all on fire

The Jews also cut off the rest of that cloister from the temple

In the mean time, the Jews were so distressed by the fights they had been in, as the war advanced higher and higher, and creeping up to the holy house itself, that they, as it were, cut off those limbs of their body which were infected, in order to prevent the distemper's spreading further; for they set the north-west cloister, which was joined to the tower of Antonia, on fire, and after that brake off about twenty cubits of that cloister, and thereby made a beginning in burning the sanctuary;

The Jews, in like manner, cut off its roof; nor did they entirely leave off what they were about till the tower of Antonia was parted from the temple

"During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea."

 

[covenantee]

"During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea."

Let's continue exploring your futurized fantasies and fallacies.

Who is the prince in Daniel 9:26?

 

[The Light]

Let's continue exploring your futurized fantasies and fallacies.

Who is the prince in Daniel 9:26?

The prince in Daniel 9:26 is unknown at this time.