Search results

That's just a small sampling of his many insulting comments. And he has the gall to say "The going personal, of some, is getting too tedious.". LOL.

LOL. Who do you think you're kidding with this? As if you don't ever get personal? You do often. And, how is it intelligent back and forth when you just make claims without making any coherent arguments using scripture?

The generation that would see the things that would indicate that His one and only future coming was near. His one future second coming which scripture says would be in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Scripture teaches that He would come a second time (Hebrews 9:28) and it...

LOL. You already know what I believe and why, so I don't need to go into that here. You have no scripture whatsoever which teaches that Jesus would come in 70 AD. None. And no scripture which teaches a gathering of the elect in 70 AD. No scripture which teaches such a thing as an old covenant...

You acknowledge that mountains are not necessarily literal mountains, but then you also say they must represent literal "raised areas of land". That makes no sense. If the mountains are symbolic, then they can symbolize anything and do not have to symbolize something that is similar to literal...

How about not making things up in your imagination and looking at scripture instead?

LOL. I'm doing no such thing. Scripture does not teach anywhere that He would come again except that He would come again in the same manner in which He left, which was visibly and bodily. YOU are the one changing the text to fit YOUR framework. Also, never does scripture teach anything about an...

All flesh on earth? Why did Jesus only say that those who are in Judea needed to flee then? You are turning a local tribulation event into a global tribulation event to make scripture fit your doctrine. You never just look at scripture objectively. You're always manipulating it to say whatever...

How about looking at all of scripture and making sure you don't contradict any other scripture while interpreting the Olivet Discourse? Looks like you forgot to do that in your supposed exegesis of the text. Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in...

You're not living in reality then. Spiritually. He didn't say we would never die physically. Please join us in reality. Yes, his soul and spirit went to heaven with Christ after his bodily death. But, he did die physically/bodily and will be bodily resurrected in the future when Christ...

What are you referring to exactly when you refer to Christians returning in their glorified body? Christians will all be changed and then have glorified bodies when He returns at the last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:50-54), but what evidence do you have that the thousand year reign is future?

It's not there, of course. Of the MANY weak arguments that pre-tribs make, that might be at the top of the list. To equate John being taken to heaven or being given a vision of heaven with a pre-trib rapture is the biggest stretch of scripture imaginable. It's complete, utter nonsense.

People are still dying, so your view can't be taken seriously at all. Are you a full preterist?

Well, your HONEST opinion is 100% wrong and makes no sense. There is NOTHING blasphemous about the Amill doctrine. That is ridiculous nonsense. You're the only Premill in the world who would accuse Amill of not giving Christ enough credit for what He has done and for who He is now. We say that...

This is utter foolishness. I will not stop supporting Amillennialism which is NOT blasphemous at all. That is a LIE! Amillennialism is the doctrine that puts Jesus on the pedestal above all things right NOW where He belongs. Premillennialism (as most understand it) is the view that denigrates...

No one cares how long you have been a preacher. It just means you have been preaching falsehood, such as the pre-trib rapture, for a long time.

You have your own brand of Premil. Where did Paul ever teach your brand of Premil (or any form of it, really)? I don't see anywhere where he taught that many of the dead who are resurrected will then live on the earth for a long time while being tested.

Do you then see the reference to the dead in Christ being resurrected in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as the second resurrection with the resurrection of only those who were beheaded as being the first resurrection? When giving the order of bodily resurrections unto immortality in 1 Corinthians...

Exactly. People who believe in a future individual Antichrist just ignore verses like those.

You need to ask yourself how the second death has no power over those who are alive and remain until the second coming of Christ. I believe Revelation 20:6 indicates that one must have part in the first resurrection in order for the second death to not have power over them. Tell me, does the...