Search results

And you equally explain away passages that tend to prove Premil, thus disprove Amil. Such as Matthew 19:28. Such as Revelation 3:9. Such as Revelation 3:21 in light of Revelation 20:4, 6, and Matthew 25:31. So on and so on. And I didn't even need to bring the OT up and I still provided...

Most of us were taught since youth that when the lost die they then wake up in burning flames the next second. Equally, most of us were taught since youth that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are real. Eventually we grow up and no longer believe in things we believed in when we were still young...

Assuming the millennium follows the 2nd coming, those that the tares represent, they won't be present during the millennium. But the ones Meant in Zechariah 14:16 will be present during the millennium. Except these are not meaning the tares nor the saved. Some interpreters just don't get it...

I can agree that the sowing of the good seed preceded the time of the cross. But what we have to factor in here, is this. Until men slept first, in the meantime there are no tares sown among the wheat. Which then raises the question. How much time elapsed between the good seed intially being...

The tares get separated during Christ's return at the end of this age and is meaning the sheep and goats judgment. And that the sheep and goats judgment and the great white throne judgment are not the same judgment, in my view. For one, nowhere in Revelation 20:12-14 does it give the impression...

Shouldn't that mean the tares among the wheat issue has been fully resolved? That there are no more tares among the wheat? That there are no more unbelieving Jews in the world if unbelieving Jews and tares are one and the same? As if reality agrees though, that as of 70 AD unbelieving Jews...

But even so, not everyone does. So meaning the ones that don't, not the ones that do. The ones that don't, how do they square their view with the parable since 70 AD would contradict their view if they have unbelieving Jews also meaning the tares?

Obviously, if they are the saved remnant among the nations that then equals they are among these. Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they...

Or we could even use unbelieving Jews to make your point. Especially millions of them in 70 AD who lost their lives as a result of God's wrath upon them at the time. Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them...

Ummm--aren't you bringing racism into this yourself by proposing that it means the end of the Jewish race? What does that even mean? That there is only the Gentile race remaining after that? There are only Jews and Gentiles, right? If the Jewish race no longer exists at some point, that...

Nothing like an OP using a straw man as an argument. As if Premils are so stupid to think to inherit the kingdom of God is temporary instead of forever once inheriting it. After all, you are arguing that Premils have flesh and blood mortals inheriting the kingdom of God during the millennium...

Here's something to factor in, in regards to peace and safety being proclaimed, then the DOTL coming upon them suddenly. Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall...

Which then leads to something totally illogical, that the DOTL is now involving great tribulation per this proposed scenario. Except Matthew 24:29 places the DOTL after great tribulation. Not to mention, as if it makes sense to apply 2 Peter 3:10-12 at the beginning of great tribulation rather...

LOL. Why wouldn't you agree with him? It's not like some of us are surprised by that. After all, your interpretation of some of the Discourse also defies logic. What matters is, is not your view nor @Spiritual Israelite view of Matthew 24:21. What matters is, what is Jesus' view of it? That's...

It doesn't sound like that to me in Luke 21, though. Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. 10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: 11...

You don't get it. Probably never will. At least not in this lifetime. One doesn't have to explain what those things mean if not meaning in the literal sense. Everything else I have been arguing already proves it's not literal events involving 70 AD. Arguments, such as. Matthew 24:21 and Daniel...

By Preterists I'm not meaning full Preterists in this case. I'm meaning anyone that is interpreting the Discourse from start to finish and applying all of it to the first century only. None of these Preterists I have in mind think Jesus returned in 70 AD. They still believe He returns in the end...

Apparently, even non-Pretribbers do that at times as well. In Luke 21 Jesus calls it wrath. In Matthew 24 He calls it tribulation. If Luke's account is involving unbelieving Jews, that would mean the wrath is God's wrath. If the tribulation in Matthew 24 is involving persecuting the church...

Apparently, the way @Spiritual Israelite and some others interpret 'τότε' at the beginning of verse 23 is that nothing previously mentioned explains it. That nothing previously mentioned is pertaining to the same context that verses 23-26 are involving. As in, once verses 15-21 are fulfilled...

I will try and address some of your concerns later. In the meantime, what I was proposing in that last paragraph in the post you were replying to, actually, assuming Amil is the correct view, though I have my doubts, it's possible that Matthew 24:15-26 can be explaining satan's little season...