Again, I think that what you (JoeBob) are saying in your above posts should certainly be at least considered as possibly what really is.
Is it unreasonable to reject other key elements of dispensationalism that have been prevalent for just the past 200 or so years…?
When discussing Jesus’ teachings on the Mount of Olives…often called the “Olivet Discourse”…is it unreasonable to reject the standard dispensationalist position that Jesus is mainly talking about future events ~ such as describing the events around the “Seven Year Great Tribulation” as pertaining specifically to the End Times ~ and instead take the position that most of what Jesus is prophesying about is instead pertaining specifically to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD…?
