I have read Dawkins et. al. and I know plenty of atheists of varying. Of course they say it's about evidence, but why would you trust what an atheist actually says? If you let them talk long enough, they will contradict themselves. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him- if they would seek, they would find.it's like you have never talked to an atheists a day in your life
They can, and they will, just like the pharisees. They would explain away any miracle saying "oh, well that's a interesting phenomena!" instead of attributing it to Satan. It's like you've never spoken to an atheist in your life.They can't sweep direct evidence away ...this whole idea is just ridiculous
Okay, so I have watched the video. I have never heard of the idea that "the destruction of the jerusalem in 70AD was part of the work of the cross".If you want it spelled out to you, the clowning you do with Daniel's 70 Weeks, you will watch this different video of the same guy
That is a huge claim. Of course it was prophecied... but that does not make it part of the work of the cross. Also, His explanation about why "strong covenant" cannot apply to the anti-christ is weak- considering revelation says the beast is permitted to wage war and conquer and that authority is given to him.
I will definitely look more into the significance of 70AD. But I can see why people would think amillenials are anti-semitic for placing so much significance on this event.