Search results

To add to that. but they shall be priests of God and of Christ(Revelation 20:6) can not be divorced from those verse 4 are pertaining to. The ones verse 4 are pertaining to have already physically died at some point, which means they are currently in a disembodied state in heaven resting...

I get where you are coming from, except you are conflating some of these things. Until the last trump sounds first, in the meantime---shall never die is not literally relevant yet. That only makes sense when this mortal puts on immortality. Even the saved that have already died still have to...

Why do you even believe in a bodily resurrection in the future when you deny some of the passages undeniably pertaining to exactly that? Luke 20:34-38 is crystal clear. I guess to everyone except for maybe you, that a bodily resurrection is what is in view. Granted, the majority is not always...

Where are you meaning where Christ said He was coming soon but would not be meaning His 2nd coming?

LOL. Everyone, including you, know exactly which chapters and verses he is referencing. It might be different if some of the verses he was referencing were found in the OT instead. In that case it would be a good idea to list the chapters and verses. But it is obvious that he is meaning in both...

If it was literal fire as you seem to believe, it is then nonsensical to use imagery of feasting birds and feasting beasts of the field. The fire would eventually turn their bodies to ashes, as in--cremation. Which then makes the aftermath depicted in Ezekiel 39 nonsensical since ashes don't...

Ezekiel 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel. In your opinion, has this already been fulfilled? Or is it yet to be fulfilled? Then...

You are still not addressing everything. What does it mean if a Gentile is grafted into the good olive tree, but doesn't continue in His goodness, thus God cuts him or her off? What does that equal since there are only 3 possible answers? 1) That Gentile lost their salvation, thus NOSAS? 2)...

Thinking outloud here. Even Daniel 7 proves Premil. Verse 21 is involving saints being persecuted big time, verse 22 is involving a coming , and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom is undeniably meaning Revelation 20:4-6. Which then means Daniel 7:21 precedes the beginning of...

Maybe the feasting birds are literal, maybe they are not. But one reason they could be literal is that they would obviously aid in cleansing the land of all the corpses littered throughout. But you probably don't even believe there will be dead bodies everywhere or anywhere. That it's meaning...

It wouldn't mean the same thing when it is being applied to the lost as it would mean if applying it to Christ. What is your point then, since none of this has anything to do with eating the flesh of anyone saintly, in any sense?

If there is this alleged contradicton if both are true, debunk the alleged contradiction per the following. Which BTW can't be debunked since it's impossible to debunk the truth = Check mate. Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22...

You try and act like there are no such thing as man-made weapons in the 21st century. Therefore, man-made weapons are not meant anywhere in Ezekiel 39 since it is absurd that that are man-made weapons of war existing in the 21st century. Except you apparently can't comprehend that Ezekiel is...

In Ezekiel 39 not only does it mention an X amount of years, it also mentions an X amount of months. But why if neither are involving a literal amount of time specified as years, and specified as months? Why not be consistent if one is God? By saying the burning of the weapons and the cleansing...

Douggg, do you not see that Gog and his multitude are undeniably men of war? And that the house of Israel then burns their weapons. Can you not see in Ezekiel 39:20 that God destroys all men of war at that time? Men of war without weapons, though? How could they have any weapons if they have all...

The question is not whether or not OSAS is Biblical. The question is, is only OSAS Biblical but NOSAS isn't? Which then would mean, in some cases OSAS is indeed true. But in other cases NOSAS is indeed true. Rather than, in all cases OSAS is indeed true. Or, in all cases NOSAS is indeed true...

He who alleges must prove--one of your favorite quotes. Except, in your mind, this probably means anyone but you must prove what you allege. But here's an idea, regardless. Keeping in mind readers can see what you are avoiding or not avoiding. So the challenge is then this. Prove what you...

Exactly. And I'm not arguing otherwise. Yet only per Premil can OSAS and NOSAS both be Biblical and not contradict Revelation 20:6. The point is, one can be both an Amil and a Premil and still be saved. That's not the issue, not even remotely, since it would be absurd to argue that only Amils...

I've said it before. Only OSAS and Amil make sense. NOSAS and Amil certaintly doesn't. Not even remotely. Thus why I can't be Amil if if I wanted to be. No way am I going to abandon that NOSAS is also Biblical in order to be Amil. So the problem is this. NOSAS is also Biblical. Therefore, though...

My bad. I'm sorry. You are correct. Now I recall what the issue was in the past. The issue wasn't you denying that Ezekiel 39:17-20 and Revelation 19 are the same event. The issue is that you don't agree that Ezekiel 39:4 is the same event as Ezekiel 39:17-20 nor Revelation 19. Therefore, equals...