You didn't answer the question.Established encyclopediae are unbiased works of histoey. Can you DISprove what he wrote?
Are you confident that what he claims is true?
Yes or no?
Upvote
0
You didn't answer the question.Established encyclopediae are unbiased works of histoey. Can you DISprove what he wrote?
Nupe. There was no great trib then, & He certainly didn't physically, visible return.Those signs that Jesus talked about in the first century were present in the first century.
Newp! YOU have, in denying it. Unlike you, I showed evidence for my point.And you have been wrong every time you have so stated this.
I know you mean well, Douggg, but you're making the same error prets make in counting the Roman rulers only from Julius Caesar onward. Remember, Rome was around some 600 years before Julius was born.There is debate of when Revelation was given. I go with the time of Nero, last of the historic Julio Claudian kings.
Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
King 7 little horn person (end times)
King 8 the beast (the little horn person killed and back to life)
little horn - leader of the EU.
beast - dictator of the EU.
How many are actually Christians, I wonder?The great falling away? where?
https://www1.cbn.com/how-christianity-growing-around-world
As Penn State professor Philip Jenkins writes in The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, predictions like Huntingtons betray an ignorance of the explosive growth of Christianity outside of the West.
For instance, in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million.
Yes. Why should he post guesswork, klnowing the reputation of the encyclopedia & of its authors would be permanently sullied by printing a fake report.You didn't answer the question.
Are you confident that what he claims is true?
Yes or no?
True.Yes. Why should he post guesswork, klnowing the reputation of the encyclopedia & of its authors would be permanently sullied by printing a fake report.
And He didn’t say that He would. So it has still all taken place.Nupe. There was no great trib then, & He certainly didn't physically, visible return.
If you would have read the article that I linked, you would have found out they are very conservative. I remember when Obama was president and tried to get homosexual rights in Nigeria, their president told him to take a hike because they don't accept that there.How many are actually Christians, I wonder?
And no one can deny the "new normal" is now open homosexuality, gender-benders, fornicators, etc. & that many church services are shams, just paying God a little lip service while concentrating on music & social events. This is worldwide, not just in the USA. That's the great falling away.
The reason for starting with Julius Caesar is because the 7 kings are related. Julius Caesar to Nero were 6 sequential leaders of the Roman Empire of the same family - called the Julio-Claudians.I know you mean well, Douggg, but you're making the same error prets make in counting the Roman rulers only from Julius Caesar onward. Remember, Rome was around some 600 years before Julius was born.
Yes. Why should he post guesswork, klnowing the reputation of the encyclopedia & of its authors would be permanently sullied by printing a fake report.
Then why would they want to kill him for teaching what they taught about the resurrection? He must have taught something different than their view of the resurrection, even though they both taught there would be a resurrection.Paul never denied the resurrection of the physical body, which he taught would be altered by the power of the Holy Spirit to an incorruptible condition when it was in a glorified state. He told Felix that he AGREED with the Pharisees' teaching about the resurrection in Acts 24:15. "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow" (speaking of the Pharisees) "that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."
The Cross was the first physical resurrection. All the OT who came out of Abraham's bosom.Yes, the First resurrection was most certainly chronological. I Corinthians 15:23 tells us this. "But every man in his own order (tagmati); Christ the Firstfruits, afterward they that
Yes, He DID. Please read Matt. 24 & Rev. 20.And He didn’t say that He would. So it has still all taken place.
Scripture makes kingdoms "kings" elsewhere, starting in Genesis.The reason for starting with Julius Caesar is because the 7 kings are related. Julius Caesar to Nero were 6 sequential leaders of the Roman Empire of the same family - called the Julio-Claudians.
The next dynasty were the Flavians.
The idea to make the kings the into kingdoms has been around for quiet a while now. Chuck Missler took that point of view. But I don't think it is right because it requires making the kings into kingdoms.
You're beating a dead horse. According to the dictionary, 'repeat' does NOT mean 'affirm'. Repeat means to say or write again, while affirm means PROVING it's true. In the 1930s, Goebbels often repeated Hitler's lies, but that didn't AFFIRM them; they still remained lies.In response to my question above:
"You didn't answer the question.
Are you confident that what he claims is true?
Yes or no?"
You answered "Yes" as seen above.
As you'll notice, in agreeing that you're confident that the Colliers account is true, you've affirmed that account, as seen from the dictionary definition of affirm below:
Dictionary definition of affirm:
Essential Meaning of affirm
1 formal : to say that something is true in a confident way
Previously, you repeated information from the Colliers account.
Then you affirmed it.
You didn't have to explicitly declare that "this information is true".
You affirmed it simply by repeating it unconditionally.
Same with the commentators that I cited previously.
They didn't have to explicitly declare that "this information is true".
By repeating information from Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts unconditionally, they too affirmed them.
Now you know the synonymous relationship between "repeat" and "affirm".
You've demonstrated it yourself.
In Revelation 17, in verse 10, it is "kings".Scripture makes kingdoms "kings" elsewhere, starting in Genesis.
Once again (which you already agreed with me on), coming on the clouds isn’t a physical return.Yes, He DID. Please read Matt. 24 & Rev. 20.
But in Rev. 17:10, the 'kings' are KINGDOMS. The "6th king", the one that then was, was ROME, not Nero. And there were quite a few after Nero. After Gen. Galba ousted Nero, there were four in that year alone, counting Galba. Vespasian ended the turmoil.In Revelation 17, in verse 10, it is "kings".
Then in verse 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
The ten kings give their "kingdom" to the beast. So the kingdom of the 7 kings, and the beast, who is of the seven - is one kingdom. As in Daniel 7, the ten kings and the little horn come out of the fourth kingdom.
...Except He didn't then return, except that He is present whenever/wherever 2 or more are gathered in His name.Once again (which you already agreed with me on), coming on the clouds isn’t a physical return.