Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 217

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    [...]

    No, I'm completely right on this, because Jesus said "this generation," referring to his own generations. He was speaking to his own disciples, in the very time that he was living! You seem to *want* to believe that this can be some future generation. But it's impossible.

    [...]
    It actually is so, the Greek has the word « an » in this sentence which denotes an uncertainty. The Lord simply states here the possibility this generation may not pass before all is fulfilled. This leaves the fulfillment in a future date open. The reason is simple, Israel will collectively have to accept their Messiah, at the time this was the uncertainty. We know now they didn't, so it moves to the future, then they will.

    Aristarkos

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Both answer the question of the coming desolation of the temple . If you want to believe that Matt ignores his own question with the disciples , that's up to you.

    It is not Matthew's question, it is the disciples question, and Jesus' answer. It's not up to me that Matthew is proven not to record everything Luke says. Luke records the surrounding armies, Matthew does not, proving Matthews record is incomplete. So yes I can see it is incomplete, yet you seem to deny it is incomplete when the evidence is in front of you. It just is not logical .

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If my view is confusing to you, brother, it is because others have contributed so many differing views that it's hard to see. My view is very simple, with respect to this issue. The AoD is fulfilled in 66-70 AD, which is outside of the 70 Weeks prophecy. The prophecy places the destruction of the city and the sanctuary *after* the "cutting off" of Christ, and the 70th Week. This is not confusing.
    Okay so to understand you more clearly, you place the bolded part as outside the 70 sevens:

    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.


    Also just curious about the Jewish-Roman war, the initial Roman forces were defeated in 66, only in 67 did the Roman Army arrive, and they only reached Jerusalem in 70 AD to start the siege. At which point do you feel Matthew 24 is fulfilled and the armies surround Jerusalem? And at what point does the 3.5 year period of the abomination end?




    No, I'm completely right on this, because Jesus said "this generation," referring to his own generations. He was speaking to his own disciples, in the very time that he was living! You seem to *want* to believe that this can be some future generation. But it's impossible.
    Jesus says there will be signs, and that generation who witnesses those signs will experience the second coming:
    32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened

    Now you are saying it is impossible to see those signs outside Jesus' generation? In fact the bible predicts those signs will be more fully fulfilled during the final 3.5 years , surely then the generation of the final 3.5 years could be "that generation"

    Unless you believe I cannot use the word THAT, which I can use because that is a Greek possibility, making my view possible, yet you say it is impossible.
    οὗτος hoûtos, hoo'-tos; from the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), i.e. THIS OR THAT (often with article repeated):—he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.


    This is untrue. There were false Jewish messiahs in the 1st century, who either tried to get Israel to fight the Romans, or who tried to get Jews to follow their cult. As for the preaching of the gospel, Jesus never said the job would be finished in the 1st century--only started. As to Jesus' 2nd Coming, he never said he was coming back after the AoD of 70 AD. Rather, he said the AoD would lead to an age-long Jewish Dispersion, after which he would return. As to the AoD in 70 AD matching the AoD of Antiochus, there is no need for them to be an exact match. They only have to be an "abomination," and they only have to lead to "desolation." These happened in both cases.
    Matthew 24 predicts : Gospel preached to ALL NATIONS; An abomination of Daniel (3.5 years according to Daniel) ; Greatest Ever Distress; False Messiahs and with Great Signs and Wonders; Second Coming; Gathering of the elect

    HISTORY: 70 AD has surrounding armies (not resembling the Antiochus example of a statue of Zeus much); no precise 3.5 year period starting with surrounding armies; a great distress, not the greatest ever; False Messiahs, arguable "great signs and wonders" ; No second coming; no gathering of the elect in the clouds

    REV 13: a great image of the beast (better matching Antiochus statue of Zeus); a precise 42 month period; Rev 12 has the same 3.5 year period of Satan's wrath on earth, the greatest distress; false prophet of NOTE with signs and wonders of NOTE, even fire from heaven; 2 Thess 2 and Rev 19 confirm the actual second coming concludes this reign of the beast (42 month reign), so we have the ACTUAL second coming. As post-tribs we know the rapture occurs then, matching the gathering of the elect of Matthew 24

    The predicted events of the 42 months of the beast match the abomination period of Matthew 24 exponentially more than the weak fulfilments you propose.



    I'm postrib, but I'm sorry--Jesus said the AoD would take place in "this generation." Believe him, and your view of the Olivet Discourse will be better.
    Read the Greek, THAT generation also works, that generation where the starting signs are more clearly fulfilled than the first century. But even the word "this" can point to a future relevant generation. Yes I believe Jesus, the generation seeing those signs will be the generation experiencing the second coming. As mentioned above, those signs having a far better fulfilment in the future events of Rev 13 than in the first century.
    οὗτος hoûtos, hoo'-tos; from the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), i.e. THIS OR THAT (often with article repeated):—he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Ridiculous! The premise for your response is false. Therefore, no response is worthwhile.
    No the premise I gave is what is stated in the prophecy.
    You DEMAND it MUST be consecutive, yet when shown there Is ZERO requirement for that and shown why according to what is stated, you have no answer but "ridiculous!"
    The FACT is that the prophecy of 70 weeks is broken into THREE blocks, and EACH block refers to different things.
    Further EACH block has a starting point, and a statement about what happens.
    The 7 weeks leads to an anointed one.
    The 62 weeks has the building of the city and streets.
    The 1 week has an agreement and an end to sacrifice.

    We are further explicit told that the cutting off of an anointed is NOT during a block but AFTER a block is ended - it is AFTER the 62 weeks are complete.

    When you feel like actually debating arguments on merit and showing why something is not possible, then please do.
    As it is IF we agree that the WEEKS are 7 YEARS long, THEN there are TWO anointed ones in view.
    Further this leads to an acknowledgement that the 70 weeks are NOT consecutive as the FACT is that Daniel was to KNOW and UNDERSTAND about this anointed one - which Daniel would have done, IF he read his scriptures and studied the WORD of the Lord.
    He would have taken great comfort from this prophecy and seen how God would answer his prayer in the affirmative, though there would also be a future negative which would end with the final positive of the right relationship between God and His people.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think you know what I mean? Jesus' death brought an end to God's recognition of animal sacrifices as part of the Mosaic Law. That covenant had been terminated with Jesus' death on the cross, indicated by the rending of the temple veil. Hebrews indicated that temple worship continued, but was soon to come to an end. It did come to an end when the Romans destroyed the temple, just as Jesus had prophesied.
    I KNOW what you think you are claiming.
    However Jesus' death did NOT bring an end to God's recognition of animal sacrifices. IF it had done then the apostles INCLUDING Paul would NOT have continued with sacrifices.
    You also KNOW that I disagree with your basic premise that he covenant was terminated by Jesus death.
    You confuse a completion clause with an end.
    Now if you are claiming the end was in 70 AD then that doesn't fit WITHIN the 70 weeks, so it is a false connection.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think you know what I meant. The Preterist movement had not yet begun. Since you are one of those who try to fight your battles by name-calling--by calling me a Preterist--I will not dignify your response with anything at this point. You are one of those who might insist that I'm a preterist even though I'm not. You would spin it so that others think that's what I believe. If so, I don't respect that at all.
    You are HELD in the grip of the Preterist understanding of "this generation". Nothing you are told seems to get past this Preterist viewpoint even though IF it were TRUE then everybody SHOULD BE Preterist.
    I would be Preterist IF that statement were TRUE because that statement applies to the WHOLE of the Discourse.
    Now I agree those who held Preterist views were NOT called such back then and it was NOT a movement.

    The definition of a preterist normally excludes those who believe in future prophecies contained in the Olivet Discourse, such as my view of an age-long Great Tribulation of the Jewish People. It usually excludes those who believe in a future explanation of the book of Revelation, such as belief in a future Antichrist. And it normally excludes belief in a future restoration of Israel. Since I believe these, I am *not* a preterist. Your wish to brand me as such is wrong-headed. I don't know if you still wish to brand me as such, but if so, I'm disinterested in discussing with you anything about it, if anything more at all. Name-calling isn't Christian. And slander is worse. Unless you wish to completely redefine preterism, you owe me an apology?
    You go on about Preterism when you ignore the heart of it.
    Anyone who claims that "this generation" meant that period of time is holding to the key Preterist tenet and the one which delineates Preterists of whichever form - Full or Partial.
    I am not trying to brand you, I am highlighting that such views were held by others even when they were not so branded.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,530

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Okay so to understand you more clearly, you place the bolded part as outside the 70 sevens:

    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
    Thank you for acknowledging what I believe, brother. I feel such personal animosity towards me that I wondered if anybody here could understand anything I was truly saying? You're proof that somebody is listening, and less emotional about this, and actually cares to represent the truth of my position, whether you agree or not. I appreciate that very much!

    I hope I'm not over-reacting to this, because generally I find such friendly folks who take the Scriptures seriously and intelligently reason through these kinds of issues. I have more problems with those who try to manipulate, using personal attacks and intentional misrepresentations. None of us are perfect. But some are self-correcting, and others are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Also just curious about the Jewish-Roman war, the initial Roman forces were defeated in 66, only in 67 did the Roman Army arrive, and they only reached Jerusalem in 70 AD to start the siege. At which point do you feel Matthew 24 is fulfilled and the armies surround Jerusalem? And at what point does the 3.5 year period of the abomination end?
    My understanding is that there were 2 major approaches to Jerusalem in this time period, one in 66 AD by Cestius Gallus, and another in 70 AD by Titus. There are 2 aspects, therefore, to what Jesus was predicting. He predicted, 1st of all, the complete destruction of Jerusalem's temple, stone by stone. That took place in 70 AD. The other aspect had to do with Jesus warning his disciples to watch for the "Abomination of Desolation," which was a preliminary sign for them to flee the area around Jerusalem. The initial sign was in 66 AD, when Cestius Gallus came in and made a series of blunders, tactically. He ended up having to retreat, and suffered defeat. This gave time for Jesus' disciples to flee, which they did, as noted in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Jesus says there will be signs, and that generation who witnesses those signs will experience the second coming:
    32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened

    Now you are saying it is impossible to see those signs outside Jesus' generation? In fact the bible predicts those signs will be more fully fulfilled during the final 3.5 years , surely then the generation of the final 3.5 years could be "that generation"
    No, I didn't mean to imply that similar "signs" could not happen outside of Jesus' generation. I'm only saying that this particular set of signs, associated with the AoD, had to be fulfilled exclusively within Jesus' generation, because Jesus identified the generation as "this generation," referring to his own generation.

    And indeed, all those signs were present in his own generation. I did not mean to imply that some of those signs could not extend *beyond* Jesus' generation. For example, Jesus said the preaching of the gospel would take place within "this generation." But the gospel continues to be preached "until the end of the age." And so, the sign of preaching the gospel continues throughout the age.

    Also, the sign of false prophets was in Jesus' generation. Consider this quotation from an article on the time of this Jewish Revolt:

    http://www.josephus.org/warChronology2.htm
    "To the Jews, the defeat of an entire Roman Legion, augmented with auxiliary troops, seemed like a miracle. There can be hardly any doubt that the false prophets that cooperated with the revolutionaries saw the hand of Heaven in the sudden and inexplicable retreat of Cestius, who had seemed on the verge of taking the city. Biblical precedents must have been cited, such as the sudden withdrawal of Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah..."

    Clearly, this author believed there were "False Prophets" in the time before 70 AD, who encouraged resistance to the Romans. But the failure of Cestius Gallus was designed, according to Jesus, to be a sign of warning for his disciples to flee. It was not a prophetic sign of imminent deliverance of the Jews by God! It was, in fact, a sign of imminent judgment against the Jews, as Jesus indicated.

    But False Prophets continue well beyond this particular generation, and I didn't mean to indicate otherwise. We continue to have false prophets, like Mohammad, continue well beyond the time of Jesus. There have been, since that time, many, many False Prophets! And in the end we will have Antichrist and his own False Prophet. But Jesus was specifically referring to his own generation, with respect to the fall of Jerusalem, and indicated that following this there would be an age-long Great Tribulation of the Jewish People, including both believers and unbelievers.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Unless you believe I cannot use the word THAT, which I can use because that is a Greek possibility, making my view possible, yet you say it is impossible.
    οὗτος hoûtos, hoo'-tos; from the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), i.e. THIS OR THAT (often with article repeated):—he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.
    The word in context implies "this generation." Jesus was referring to *his own generation*--not the generation that sees the signs. In other words, the signs do not identify the generation. Rather, the particular generation will see these signs. It was Jesus' generation that would see the signs. In fact, the sign of Jerusalem's destruction, along with the destruction of the temple, stone by stone, could *only* have referred to Jesus' own generation. The context is clear. Luke 21 makes it more than clear. It is impossible to see otherwise without redefining the words and the context in which these words are used. I do acknowledge that there are other opinions. I'm just giving my own. It is *impossible* to render "this generation" as anything other than Jesus' own generation. To do so flies in the face of explicit statements. I'm *certain* of this because it is so explicit. Doubt comes from authorities who claim otherwise without sufficient basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Matthew 24 predicts : Gospel preached to ALL NATIONS; An abomination of Daniel (3.5 years according to Daniel) ; Greatest Ever Distress; False Messiahs and with Great Signs and Wonders; Second Coming; Gathering of the elect

    HISTORY: 70 AD has surrounding armies (not resembling the Antiochus example of a statue of Zeus much); no precise 3.5 year period starting with surrounding armies; a great distress, not the greatest ever; False Messiahs, arguable "great signs and wonders" ; No second coming; no gathering of the elect in the clouds
    I really haven't tracked who I've explained these things to, but I'll repeat here. The Great Tribulation is the *entire NT age,* in which Jews, believers and unbelievers, suffer the loss of their homeland. Believers have the added indignity of suffering rejection by their own Jewish brethren. It is the "greatest tribulation" in history because it is the *longest in duration*--not because it is worse than the Holocaust or any other particular war. By contrast the Babylonian Captivity only lasted 70 years. The NT age has seen nearly 2000 years with respect to the Jewish Diaspora. That's what makes it the greatest Jewish Tribulation in history!

    The AoD is the same from Antiochus to the Roman Army because they both took a militant *stand* against God's place in Jerusalem. They were both an "abomination" because they were not Jews, but pagans. They were "desolators" because they both massacred Jews and damaged Jewish worship in the temple. Thus, the AoD is not identified by what Antiochus specifically did, but by the *nature* of what he did, massacring Jews, defiling temple worship, and taking a stand against God in his Holy Place.

    I already addressed the presence of False Prophets in the time before the Jewish War 66-70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    REV 13: a great image of the beast (better matching Antiochus statue of Zeus); a precise 42 month period; Rev 12 has the same 3.5 year period of Satan's wrath on earth, the greatest distress; false prophet of NOTE with signs and wonders of NOTE, even fire from heaven; 2 Thess 2 and Rev 19 confirm the actual second coming concludes this reign of the beast (42 month reign), so we have the ACTUAL second coming. As post-tribs we know the rapture occurs then, matching the gathering of the elect of Matthew 24

    The predicted events of the 42 months of the beast match the abomination period of Matthew 24 exponentially more than the weak fulfilments you propose.
    I'm not talking about what more *strongly* represents examples of these signs--for example, I'm not showing who is the greatest False Prophet, what the severest Tribulation was, or what constitutes the culmination of gospel preaching! Rather, I'm talking about what was to happen specifically within "this generation," in the time leading up to and including the fall of the temple. After all, that was what Jesus specifically pointed to in this discourse--the fall of the temple, stone by stone, and the encirclement of Jerusalem by the Roman Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Read the Greek, THAT generation also works, that generation where the starting signs are more clearly fulfilled than the first century. But even the word "this" can point to a future relevant generation. Yes I believe Jesus, the generation seeing those signs will be the generation experiencing the second coming. As mentioned above, those signs having a far better fulfilment in the future events of Rev 13 than in the first century.
    οὗτος hoûtos, hoo'-tos; from the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), i.e. THIS OR THAT (often with article repeated):—he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.
    If you want to believe that, fine. I'm just giving my own view. "This generation" is self-explanatory, and the context is clear. This was *Jesus' own generation.* This was judgment against the Jews who would reject Jesus and have him crucified.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,262
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    It's entirely possible that Acts 2 and Jesus both actually mean all nations. Jews were well travelled beyond the Roman Empire
    Yes so the gospel could of gone out to the nations after that day when the Jews who heard and accepted Peters sermon went back to their nations. That is the reason that the Holy Spirit came that first day

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Yes so the gospel could of gone out to the nations after that day when the Jews who heard and accepted Peters sermon went back to their nations. That is the reason that the Holy Spirit came that first day
    I see the victory of the gospel in Rev 12 where the church overcomes Satan through our testimony 3.5 years before the end. I'm pretty sure some tribes haven't heard the Gospel yet.

    I know you are committed to this historical view, but look at my comments to Randyk concerning the fulfilment of the abomination in Rev 13 compared to the fulfilment in 70 AD

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Yes so the gospel could of gone out to the nations after that day when the Jews who heard and accepted Peters sermon went back to their nations. That is the reason that the Holy Spirit came that first day
    Well, South America did not hear the Gospel until Christopher Columbus went their about 500 years ago. Sub-sahara Africa did not until the 18th century. Japan, China did not until the 17th century! Unless you want to redefine what Jesus meant by "the Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in ALL the WORLD for a WITNESS unto ALL the NATIONS"? Matt 24:14

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    No need to be rude, put up a scriptural argument.

    Luke 21:20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


    That part about the surrounding armies and the diaspora is left out of the book of Matthew.
    A good observation. Some argue that Luke wrote exclusively with the Jews in mind, hence the clarity on the attack on Jerusalem. But Matthew wrote with the broader church in mind...

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Matt and the other disciples were an eyewitness to his majesty. This is where Luke got all his information.

    Lk 1
    1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
    It looks like you are alluding that Luke made up some of his accounts since he did not receive the info from Jesus directly?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Some argue that Luke wrote exclusively with the Jews in mind, hence the clarity on the attack on Jerusalem. But Matthew wrote with the broader church in mind...

    I believe the opposite is true. Matt wrote with Jews in mind and Luke the Gentiles.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    It looks like you are alluding that Luke made up some of his accounts since he did not receive the info from Jesus directly?
    Luke seems to make it clear where he got his info from in lk 1....the eyewitnesses.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Luke records the surrounding armies, Matthew does not, proving Matthews record is incomplete. So yes I can see it is incomplete, yet you seem to deny it is incomplete when the evidence is in front of you. It just is not logical .

    15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

    Perhaps the above alludes to when epiphanes came with his army to Jerusalem and the temple, or how the prince who is to come destroys the city and sanctuary in Dan 9.


    As to the diaspora Matt alludes to this by saying...,

    20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is the 200 Million Man Army an Army of God or of Israels Enemies ?
    By Revelation Man in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: Aug 18th 2016, 01:52 AM
  2. USA Army
    By Ta-An in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Sep 17th 2012, 06:37 PM
  3. What the Abomination REALLY is
    By Cyberseeker in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: Apr 23rd 2009, 07:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •