Search results

Doesn't this basically mean we are in agreement here, in regards to who the tares are meaning in that context? You don't think, per this context, tares also mean, for example, atheists, witches, satanists, etc, right?

What you are basically saying is. When Jesus died then rose, the body He died in was never seen again. Instead of rising in the body He died in, He rose in a different body altogether. John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except...

I'm not certain what you are meaning by this? Can you provide an example of how Amils would be doing this?

Actually I'm hardly the only one that interprets it in this manner. You can query Google, for example, and come up with numerous links that support what I'm arguing. It might be different if I was the only person on the planet arguing it in this manner, but that is hardly the case. I still...

Exactly! And by ignoring context like some of these interpreters do is to then make total nonsense out of the imagery used. How does it make sense, if in the real world, tares resemble wheat in it's early stages, and then contradict that by insisting the tares are meaning all of the lost in...

I realize it is a parable, but so what? Since it is a parable does that mean none of Christ's enemies are literally slain in some manner? Since it is a parable, should we take it to mean no one actually literally leaves the planet at some point to go and receive a kingdom for Himself then...

Why would a sanctuary in heaven need to be cleansed? Therefore, a sanctuary on earth seems more likely. But that doesn't have to mean a literal brick and mortar sanctuary is meant. IMO, it involves 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for one, and that I don't take that verse in the literal sense. Def not...

Shouldn't we be considering context first before deciding how to interpret something? It seems to me that you are applying verse 27 universally rather than in context. Verse 14 provides context for verse 27, does it not? Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him...

I don't misrepresent Amil. You just don't understand how my arguments work. If I'm assuming that I'm interpreting something correctly, that is the POV I am arguing from and that I then proceed to show why Amil can't be the correct position because it contradicts this or that, etc, based on my...

Except Amils need to be the ones answering questions not Premils. After all, the Premil position is not questionable, the Amil position is. It only stands to reason that if something is questionable a lot of questions are going to be asked. BTW, I answered his question. Maybe not the way you...

Here's a thought that comes to my mind. Can't speak for anyone else's mind, though. Matthew 25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. I can't help but think of the following when I read...

Even if the mark is something spiritual rather than a literal mark, what does that have to with anything? Regardless what it looks like to do the following, until one beast rises out of the sea, another out of the earth, there is no mark to take or refuse to take in the meantime. No one could...

My point would be, none of that matters whether that person was correct or incorrect about the 12 disciples, since it doesn't change the fact that being beheaded can mean in the literal sense in some cases. Maybe not in all cases, though. Maybe in some cases being beheaded is simply another way...

You don't seem to be in good company per this thread then. Pretty much all these Amils posting in this thread are pro-preterists to some degree rather than anti like you.

Can't apply any of the following only to the first century, now can we? Yet you insist futurists have to change the goal post even though there are actually real cases where Christians are literally being beheaded in our day and time. ------------------------- The beheadings were described as...

Currently I don't believe in soul sleep. Therefore, your point is moot in my case. Obviously, when Samuel died he lived on in disembodied state somewhere But not in heaven since that wouldn't be possible until Christ died and rose first. Even so, Samuel still lived on in a disembodied state...

Can't say I have ever heard of that general rule of thumb. I don't even know what you meaning here by 'told' and 'showed'?

The way to maybe look at it might be like such. If one is literally beheaded what would that mean? It means their voice has been silenced. Therefore, in some cases it is meaning to literally be beheaded since some saints have been literally beheaded. In other cases it is meaning to be martyred...

My point was, regardless which manner Samuel came up, do you think he came up bodily or in some manner, since you apparently think some of the departed saints are already in physical bodies? Or at least that was the impression you were giving per the transfiguration example. Maybe I need to go...

And let's not forget what some Amils do with the following passage as well. Especially verse 44 and the way some of them apply that, thus disregarding that verses 51-57 follow verse 44, obviously further expanding on verse 44. 1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is...