Serouj Mamoulian

The internal evidence is enough. Don't move the goalposts. Acts 5:36–37 Gamaliel cites Theudas and Judas the Galilean as prior insurgent claimants who drew followers after themselves. Acts 8:9–11 Simon amazed people and was hailed as “the great power of God,” showing the first-century environment was already full of exalted deceivers and messianic pretenders. Acts 13:6–10 Bar-Jesus/Elymas is a Jewish false prophet opposing the gospel. Acts 20:29–30 Paul warns that after his departure, deceivers will arise from "among yourselves" and draw disciples away. 2 Corinthians 11:13–15 Paul says false apostles were already present, disguising themselves as servants of righteousness. 1 John 2:18 “Even now many antichrists have come”; John presents this as already happening in his own time. 1 John 4:1–3 many false prophets have gone out into the world already. 2 John 7 many deceivers have gone out into the world.

Note to preterists: A messianic claimant is not the same thing as a prophet claimant. So you can stop citing Josephus as if you know what you’re talking about.

@AmericanTorah I will take this as an affirmation.

@1nnerman Ok.

Preterists and "covenant" theologians say that the eternally unchanging God--who promised for the sake of Israel's patriarchs never to forsake the natural descendants of Jacob no matter how wicked they might be--changed his mind, rejected them after all, and reneged on all of his previous covenants because they killed his Son whom he sent to earth to be killed. Um, what!?

@Joel7Richardson Calling a theological position "demonic" without demonstrating it from the text isn’t discernment, it’s deflection. Your claims have already been addressed, point by point, here: fulfilled.fyi/blog/every-acc…

Beware of deceivers who claim biblical prophecies are already fulfilled. They use flawed arguments to mislead you. Pay close attention to these warnings. #BiblicalTruth #Prophecy

@Joel7Richardson makes 12 bold claims against fulfilled eschatology (Full Preterism) without engaging any of its core arguments in his latest video. In this article, each claim is addressed and then turned back, showing that they ultimately reveal more about the collapse of Dispensationalism and futurist eschatology than about Full Preterism. fulfilled.fyi/blog/every-acc…

@MessianicAge10 Amen!

The Law and Prophets are witnesses against the harlot city who is about to receive the covenant curses for killing the prophets and the Son. The death of the witnesses could point to the persecution of the church, and the resurrection to vindication and glory

@Noremac_Ma_i @TulipPatriot That's not what Irenaeus said. Look up the quote and see for yourself.

That is actually incorrect. According to Irenaeus and other early Church fathers, John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Emperor Domitian which would place the writing of the book to the mid-90’s AD. Also, he wrote it with the future in view because it’s prophecy is still future. God bless you, but try again.

The Book of Revelation was written before 70ad Or John would’ve written as though it had already happened.

@DerekFeehrer @IamJoshJackson When is the windows version expected to ship?

@IamJoshJackson Not a mockup, I made the whole video in Kite, including all the text, music, voiceover, custom cursor, 3d animation. Just used a skeleton UI instead of a real screen recording to keep the attention on the callout part. You can try it right now: kite.video

It's 2026. If your screen recordings don't look like this... Straight to the permanent underclass.

@BasedTorba @DefiantBaptist He understands it, that's the problem.

@DefiantBaptist It all ended in 70 AD. He, of all people, should understand this.

Doug Wilson’s covenant theology with respect to modern Jews is mind-blowing. In this short clip, here are all the errors he makes: ~{Modern conservative religious Jews are in a special class of unbelievers, since they desire to live under the Law of Moses.} This is incorrect for multiple reasons. Romans 2:12-16 lays out clearly that both Jews and Gentiles alike are under the law, whether it’s written down on their paper or on their hearts. There is no distinction, no special class of unbelievers. Second, these conservative Jews he’s speaking of live under the Talmud, not the Torah. Living under the Torah is impossible without a temple. ~{The Jews that existed in Paul’s day are still around in our’s.} No, not even close. Not religiously nor genetically. Again, modern Judaism is based on the Talmud. It has to be post-70 AD. And the Jewish bloodline that culminated in the Messiah being born was cut off. Centuries of dispersions and intermarriage has guaranteed this. ~{The Jews today still have Rabbis, Rabbinical schools, synagogues, the Hebrew language, and genealogies.} Again, what is Judaism today? It’s not the Torah observant Judaism that was being practiced in the first century! And genealogies survived? Those were all destroyed by Titus in 70 AD. All the records are gone! Doug is really downplaying the fall of Jerusalem in so many ways. ~{The Hagar (Old) Covenant did not end in 70 AD.} Yes, it did! Doug is destroying the entire argument of Hebrews! In describing the New Covenant, the author says in 8:13 that the Old Covenant is becoming obsolete, growing old, and ready to disappear. What else could that possibly be referring to but 70 AD?! Conclusion: In order to win elections, Doug has decided to adopt a “Dispensational Lite” theology to keep Jews and Christian Zionists happy, while still maintaining his reformed bonafides. Unfortunately, in an effort to please all sides, he only succeeds in alienating everyone, most especially his reformed brethren. It’s not too late to turn back from this insanity, so I pray that he does.

@flowersslop @elonmusk @matterasmachine

@elonmusk @matterasmachine Because China has zero interest in distilling Grok, since Grok isn't leading in any critical area. But you also don't allow distillation, and you’ve put active measures in place to stop others from doing it. So yeah, you’re being pretty hypocritical about it.

Anthropic is guilty of stealing training data at massive scale and has had to pay multi-billion dollar settlements for their theft. This is just a fact.

How I typically regard it is an already/not yet tension in their own time (For you I suppose it's already then, not yet for us today) They had already come to the heavenly city in terms of covenant access and standing (Heb 12:22). They were still seeking the city to come in terms of the imminent removal of the earthly Jerusalem and the final historical establishment of the unshakable new covenant order (Heb 13:14; 12:27–28). The tension is covenant-historical instead of a 2000+ year gap. The letter to the Hebrews hints to such a reality of realization / manifestation of the Kingdom with the consummated passing of the old covenant system (70AD judgment) throughout the letter: Hebrews 8:13 What is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 12:27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. In Luke's account of the olivet discourse Jesus says: So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. (Luke 21:31) So even with the "already" component, the partial preterist/postmill/amill position still has to reconcile Jesus placing a near coming of "the Kingdom of God" that is tied to the remaining "that generation" destruction/judgment prophecies in that same passage.

@1nnerman My understanding was that you were initially saying the full realization of the city had already arrived in chapter 12, so I just want to make sure I’m tracking your position correctly. 2/2

Serouj, I get you but consider this. In the very next chapter, we’re told “we seek the city that is to come.” Hebrews 13:14. Also, if we back track to Hebrews 2:8, we’re told we don’t see everything in subjection to Him yet. There’s a King and a city coming!

@scripturesvoice Yes my question is regarding that point exactly. When the author writes about a coming city to his audience in that letter, was it something they were expecting in their own time?

@1nnerman Hold up…. Let’s go back to your original argument. You used chapter 12 to demonstrate an established, present city but didn’t allow the text to build and give further context, as found in chapter 13, that speaks of a coming city.

Hey! I don’t see any textual indicators in Daniel 2 that the feet represent a deferred or entirely different kingdom rather than a weakened fourth (Roman) empire. The challenge would be to show where the text signals a long chronological gap instead of continuing in the same kingdom in a divided form.

@1nnerman @Joel7Richardson @shekenahglory @faboIus @chariotsofiron @DrAlanKurschner Hi Serouj... Do you see a distinction between the legs of iron (Rome) and the feet of mixed iron and clay (final antichrist/beast kingdom)?

“He will swallow up death permanently. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from every face, and remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. Indeed, the LORD has announced it!” (Isa 25:8)

@faboIus @DrAlanKurschner So you're arguing that just because it doesn't fit your own definition, Jesus was not speaking about his own time? Also, if your definition is correct, then why after Christ's ascension and enthronement were apostles killed and christians persecuted?

@1nnerman @DrAlanKurschner The days of vengeance likewise refer to the Day of the Lord, foretold in great detail by the Prophets. If this has already happened, why are God's enemies still allowed to kill Believers across multiple continents?

Airtight argument for premillennialism.

@faboIus @DrAlanKurschner The inhabited world, biblehub.com/greek/3625.htm

@1nnerman @DrAlanKurschner There's more loopholes with your argument, Rome's empire span across the mediterranean, northern parts of Africa, but not the entire world. That's historically ignorant. The greek in this passage should be rendered differently.

John 19:37 Explicitly says Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at the crucifixion Zechariah 12:10 "They will look on Me whom they pierced." John 19:34–37 "One of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear… And again another Scripture says, ‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced." I can send more, just say the word!

@DotConnectorz @Exodus15_11 So tell us what this means. Zechariah 12 Who do you blame for his piercing/death? Hmmmm

When the King returns, He will have the devil incarcerated and be received as Savior by a repentant Jewish remnant. He will rule from David's throne at Zion over Jacob. And that's not referring to the Church.

Daniel identifies the sequence as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Persia conquered Babylon (Daniel 5:30–31), Greece conquered Persia (Daniel 8:21- 11:2–4), and the 4th kingdom is the one ruling when Jesus was born and crucified under Roman authority (Luke 2:1; John 19:15). Daniel 2:44 says God’s kingdom begins “during the days of those kings.” and not "after" they are destroyed. Jesus was enthroned right then (Acts 2:33–36). Ignoring the text in this case is importing a foreign definition of "beast kingdoms" to impose your postponement theology. You need to acknowledge misplacing the fulfillment of OT passages when Jesus clearly places them in the time of His ministry "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." Luke 21:22 Daniel 2:39–40 describes the 4th kingdom as stronger than all previous ones and crushing the whole earth. Rome uniquely fits this description historically. Luke 2:1 confirms this by stating Caesar Augustus issued a decree affecting “all the world.” Daniel 9:26 says the Messiah is cut off, and then “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman army under Titus. That places the 4th kingdom as Rome.

@shekenahglory @faboIus @chariotsofiron @DrAlanKurschner Daniel 7:27 says His kingdom comes after all of the beast kingdoms are destroyed. Ignoring the text to push quasi-gnostic doctrine is a bad look.