Search results

Disagree. The things the men have made/built... material things... are not in view, David. We disagree on that, and that's fair enough. Gotta read apocalyptic literature like... apocalyptic literature. <smile> Okay, well, I don't think that's what @WPM is implying, either. I could be...

That's not what any of us are saying, David. I don't think... at least not me. A... "good Amil" <smile> ...would never even insinuate that. Grace and peace to you.

Many times in the Bible ~ and specifically here in Revelation 20 ~ things that either are presently happening or will at some point in the future happen... or both... are spoken of in the past tense. And specifically regarding John's Revelation, this is true. The thing to keep in mind in...

Right, but the "thousand years," God's millennium, is a real, literal time period. You agree; I'm not insinuating that you don't. The disagreement is regarding the nature of it and when it actually is... or occurs. And what takes place in it... <smile> Ohhhh, if people would just read it...

Well, yes, we do know that He will return in the same way in which He ascended to heaven, as documented by Luke in Acts 1... ...but I don't think you're quite understanding what I said above. There is a sense in which ~ and I think you'll agree with this ~ that the day of the Lord was when He...

The remainder ~ the remaining portion ~ of it is, yes. <smile> Began quite some time ago... from our perspective anyway... <smile> Ah, the day of the Lord.... Well, I do agree that there will certainly be a day, a literal twenty-four hour period, in which He returns (although of course it...

"Our God is a consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 10:29). With this in mind, one question, which may or may not seem relevant to some, arises in my mind that I would... well, raise in a rhetorical manner to @Davidpt ... Regarding 2 Peter 3, how can the works of man... all be burned up...

The thousand years is not future. Christ's return is, though, certainly... because the thousand years are not yet ended. Christ's return will be prompted by the end of the thousand years. The end will come, certainly. And the Lord will not delay in bringing this to be. Grace and peace to...

Um... yes. <smile> Which I... think... is what you are saying in the rest of this post. Old Testament Sabbath ~ Saturday, the seventh day of the week. New Testament Sabbath ~ the Lord's Day, the day of Christ's resurrection, Sunday, the first day of the new week. Both of the above are ~ the...

Right, and they are wrong. <smile> That Christ's millennial reign is still in the future, and that the thousand years begins at His future return, and then... I think I understand you to be saying there is a 1,000-year separation between His return and the ushering in of the new heavens and...

I love that GIF... <smile> Therefore, what you're saying holds no water. Is this not what I just said, pretty much? It is, David. I'm glad we agree on this... <smle> What I said was that the old Sabbath ~ the seventh day of the week, Saturday, the day God rested from His work of creation...

It has. We disagree. Once again, I think you will find it in what Paul says about the two in Colossians 2:11-12. Historians are often wrong... or misunderstood... or both. No, but I don't cherry-pick, either. <smile> Fair enough. Grace and peace to you.

Disagree. "is all..." <chuckles> It is no trivial thing. Was, not is. Was. God, as I said above, is making all things new. Christ Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and since His resurrection, the old Sabbath is now the Lord's day, Sunday, the first day of the new week. And in this way, it is...

Nowhere, of course. Nowhere, of course. So, just generally speaking (to neither one of you in particular), how does one not understand the "eighth day" to be the first day of the new week? As we know, God is making all things new (Revelation 21:5). And that began when Jesus ~ Who Himself is...

Not conflating, but baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Conflation is a merging of two different concepts, and replacement is a discontinuation of one for the other. You know that. If something is replaced, it is impossible to conflate those two things...

Newborns were not members of the household of the father? They were, Ronald. They were. Again, going back to the Old Testament and circumcision, the former sign and seal of the covenant (replaced as such by baptism in the New Testament), that sign and seal was to be performed on eight-day-old...

Okay, we disagree. It's your whole issue, or what you perceive to be the whole issue; with that I would agree. But that's... well, the issue here <smile> And we are disciples ~ followers of Jesus ~ also, so, by extension, He was speaking to us, in that what He said to them was directly...

Right, but regarding those who come to believe... why do they believe? Remember what Jesus said to a group of unbelieving Jews in John 10... They said to Jesus, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” And how did Jesus answer? He said to them, “I told you, and you do not believe... you do...

Well, true Jews of God, and Paul defines who those people are in Romans 2:28-29... "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not...

Infants are sons and daughters, and sons and daughters are infants. They are only infants for a time, of course. But yes, even infants will eventually prophesy/testify. Absolutely. And in the case of infant baptism, parents are trusting in through faith, that God, in His time, will cause to...