Search results

I just don't understand this guy. It's very hard to believe that he was being sincere when only one day later (or only hours later?) he continued being rude to you. And he implied that you and all Amils, including me, are intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

That is not what I believe. I do not fit this definition of preterism. Not even close. So, if you call me a preterist one more time then you will go on my ignore list permanently. I currently have a grand total of zero people on the list, but I'm not going to deal with a child falsely accusing...

Please do not misquote holy scripture. There are no English Bible translations which translate the verse that way. Hebrews 9:28 (NKJV) so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. This says...

Show me even one source that defines preterism as you do. Just one. Any person, website, whatever. Anything. Good luck.

I wish this forum had a policy of not allowing children to post on it.

You create a definition of preterism that no one else shares with you, so why should I care about a definition of the word that you alone have in your own imagination and personal dictionary? I don't, that's for sure. How about getting back on topic instead of trying to derail the thread, buddy...

No, they do not, buddy. Not any more than your agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons that Jesus died and was resurrected makes you one of them. Grow up already. The partial preterist believes that Jesus died and rose again and so do you. So, you too are a partial preterist! Congrats...

Yes, thank God that dispensationalism didn't exist back then. People who God had plans for after that time would have been unnecessarily killed and had their lives cut short because of being stupid and not heeding the warning Jesus gave to flee to the mountains.

And, yet, you can't even come close to debunking it with your gibberish, so who do you think can easily debunk it? Certainly not you.

This is rich coming from you. The person who calls me a preterist just because I agree with their interpretation of one passage in the Olivet Discourse is complaining about being lumped in with Reformed Eschatology because of sharing their understanding of the timing of the thousand years. LOL...

You said this in response to Marty and what you did here is basically accuse him and all Amils of purposely being intellectually dishonest and deceitful. And you said this after previously telling him "Marty, I'm trying to do better via my exchanges with you.". This gives the impression that you...

How are we supposed to believe that you truly intend to try to have more respectful discussions with Amils when you talk to Amils like this? Are you being respectful here by accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty just because he disagrees with you about something? I actually disagree with...

He acts like he sincerely wants us to have respectful discussions while he is not attempting to do so himself. He expects more of us than he does of himself, apparently. I just don't get it.

Stop trying to sidetrack this thread, buddy. As if believing that one thing occurred in the past is all it takes to be a preterist? In that case, you are a preterist, too, because you believe that the prophecies about Christ's first coming were fulfilled in the past. So, we're both preterists...

Right. In the post I just created previous to this one, I tried to explain this to him. It seems that a lot of his disagreement that he has with Amil is due to him not understanding what we believe. So, he ends up making a lot of strawman arguments. But, he also brings in unnecessary confusion...

Agree. You disagree with that? Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you agree with the Amil interpretation of Revelation 20, I'm asking if you disagree with the idea that we are reigning spiritually with Christ now, regardless of how we interpret Revelation 20. Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is...

David, I thought you wanted to have a more respectful tone in these discussions going forward? This is far from that. To demand that one verse proves Premil is true is nothing less than utterly ludicrous. That's as nicely as I can say it. This is not how to form a doctrine. We can't just narrow...

Don't lump all Amills together. Only partial preterists believe in three comings of Christ, including one in 70 AD. Not Amills like me.

What exactly is your point here as it relates to what I said? Are you saying that Revelation 19 should be interpreted literally in the sense that He was talking about a literal sword coming out of His mouth and such? My point relates to the type of physical destruction that will occur when He...

I did not say you for sure that you were the one who said what Grailhunter claimed that I said. I made that clear. Why are you acting as if I said for absolute certain that you were the one who said it? My main point to him is that I didn't say it and I was just guessing who had said it. I...