Search results

What I have said, Davy, very clearly, several times, is that the events of Revelation 19:11-21 are the same events — described differently, but the same events — described in Revelation 20:7-10. You obviously don’t have any trouble seeing Christ’s return ther in Revelation 19, but you should see...

Yes, but not with regard to time, but rather who is... actually seems to be... in control. Now, if you want to say, with regard to time, what is eternal and of God rather than temporal and fallen... which is to say of the present age rather than the age to come (eternity), THEN I would agree...

LOL! Well, you're kind of driving me crazy, so to speak, and in some instances, all I can do is laugh. So yeah... LOL! Nope... Absolutely not... You agree with nunc-millennialists that there is not a third coming of Christ. Goodness gracious. No, again, your thinking about my thinking is...

There is no significant elapsing of time between Jesus's second coming and the New Heaven and New Earth... much less a thousand years, as post-millennialists hold. Well, literally destoyed in the sense of ruination, not annihilation, which we agree on. No need to keep harping on this, right...

Interesting. So, how much time do you think will elapse between Christ's second coming and the ushering in of the New Heaven and New Earth? And why? I do. I am asking you why you think it is false. I think I know, but I'm not going to put words into your mouth. I would like to hear your...

Well yes, among other things... Hmmm... Now, here, by "types of the future resurrection," are you referring to the first and second resurrection of Revelation 20? Or are you talking about all being resurrected either to eternal life or to judgment, as Jesus says in John 5:28-29, and...

No, the record is clear. I guess you're just too lazy to review it. That's okay; t is what it is. That's somehow "coded"...? LOL! Dude. Come on. So yeah, absolutely no substance to anything you have said so far... Continued...

The record is clear, Davy. You can go back through this thread and see, if you want. Something tells me you won't bother, and that's fine with me. But the record is clear. I wouldn't call it a "doctrine," really, it just is. Good, and this is what I said. Not using those exact words, but...

I would certainly agree that God is not aloof or uncaring. 'Uncaring' is the opposite of love, and, as you know, I'm sure, God is love. NOTE: 'hate' is not opposed to love ~ there is a righteous, holy hate attributed to God (He even attributes it to Himself) regarding certain things. To...

LOL! You have no idea how much I don't care. Goodness gracious. Certainly, He did. Goodness gracious. John's Revelation is filled with it. You see it as such, too, Scott, although not as much of it as you should. Which is kind of funny, since you said it was me who was "picking and...

Okay, well, you're wrong. I don't agree with you on your take on what Scripture says about these things. Again, in principle, we agree, on them, but on the true nature of them not so much. No, I don't Scott. I don't. I say you don't understand... well, Revelation 20:7-15 (and other passages...

No, you don't, for sure; I'm very much not accusing you of such. But you do misunderstand... and that's quite a different thing than, well, "making up stuff"... <smile> And even so, that's not any kind of insult to your intelligence... you know, just in case you were to think you perceive...

I agree, of course, but the issue is the... understanding (or misunderstanding, actually)... of this being "gathered up" and "thrust into" the "lake of fire," and the "lake of fire" itself, and the "burning by God." John's Revelation should not be read like a Dick and Jane first grade primer...

Hmmm... well in a sense, it's not controversial at all; we agree. But in a different sense, we don't, and it apparently is... LOL! Well, I'll agree that they don't want to, because it's only after a protest of sorts (weak as it is) that they go. But they don't then say, "No way, man, I'm not...

Scott, in Matthew 25:41 ~ which you seemingly rather "conveniently" cut out of your quote ~ Jesus says to them, "depart from me" (also in Matthew 7:23). Now, why would he tell them to depart from Him if anyone was really going to "cast them in" in the way you're suggesting? I would just say...

Good. Right. Hmmmm, well, you might read Matthew 25, especially Jesus's directive to them in verse 41, and then what Jesus says is their subsequent action in verse 46. I mean, I'm sure you have before, but-tuhhhhh... <smile> Well, that none will be remaining here, among us who will have...

The millennial reign is now, Scott. I thought that was your understanding as well. Now, His millennial reign surely doesn't look like we want it to look right now, but that doesn't mean He's not reigning now... and His eternal reign certainly will. I ask you, Scott, right now, Who is your...

Agree, but... <smile> We disagree on the nature of this fire. I would encourage you to do, using a good concordance, a wordsearch on 'fire' and 'consume' throughout the Bible. Right, in the sense that everything will then be completely refined... made pure. Now, heaven... I mean, where God...

Agree. Grace and peace to you, Jack.

Absolutely. But what it really looks like we cannot really know. Speaking of Jesus... <smile>... He also spoke of this place as a place of darkness, even outer darkness (in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30), which must be really, really, REALLY dark. Like extra-specially, super-dee-duper dark...