Search results

Here's what I was basically saying to @Douggg in that post where I was using a bit of sarcasm to try and make my points. Keeping in mind, @Douggg is a Premil, not an Amil. ------ I find it troubling that you're emphasizing 2 Peter 3:12 and connecting it to Revelation 20, but seem to be...

Unfortunately, someone has to fulfill this--those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition(John 17:12). Where Judas is being used as an example of those meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the son of perdition. A lot of interpreters apparently don't notice...

Maybe you are just looking at some of it somewhat wrong? That's possible, right? Maybe verse 15 is not being applied to the NHNE in the future but is being applied to the here and now spiritually? Let's look at things a bit closer. Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments...

Unlike man, the devil was obviously created immortal. Therefore, since satan is unable to die, and that man is able to die, it literally means what it says about satan, that he shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. Nowhere in Revelation 20:10 does it ever call that the 2nd death...

Both Amils and most Premils insist 2 Peter 3:10-12 is meaning Revelation 20:11. In Revelation 20:11 the Greek word for fled away is 'pheugo'. But where is that same Greek word also used in 2 Peter 3:10-12 anywhere?

IOW, let's just ignore verse 10 in that same chapter. Let's just pretend that verse 12 is not meaning verse 10. Let's just pretend that the day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night per verse 10 is not the same day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night per 1 Thessalonians 5:2...

ECT = eternal conscious torment, this view clearly meaning they are conscious and being tormented forever without end. Which is impossible for humans unless they live forever first. My point being, eating from the tree of life is connected with living forever. No human cast into the LOF is going...

Since you brought up John 1:1, well there is also verse 3 in that same chapter. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3 says Jesus made everything. It undeniably says nothing that was made came into being without him. Which would...

Do you think it's impossible to be saved if one is denying Christ's deity? Or maybe we should look at it from God's perspective not ours. Would God condemn every single JW to the LOF because they denied that Christ is God? Would that be a valid reason for God to cast all JWs into the LOF?

You can not have 2 Peter 3:10-12 meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD without having all of the preceding verses supporting that. For example. Does verse 3 support that? What about verse 4? What about verse 7 and verse 9? Should we understand verse 4 like such? And saying, Where is...

Adam obviously represents a literal single human being God created in the beginning. We can know that by the following. Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. Look what happens here if we take Adam to represent mankind rather than a...

My point though, immortality is connected with the TOL. Both Genesis 3:22 and Revelation 22:2 undeniably prove it. No human cast into the LOF is going to be eating from the TOL, let alone eating from it for forever. ECT in regards to humans is not logical unless they live forever. Look what...

You then want us to believe that Adam could have died without even eating from the forbidden tree first? Here is how I connect some of the dots. Might not be how others might, but it's how I do. And that I'm not seeing it leading to anything illogical by connecting the dots in this manner...

The way that sounds, it sounds like you are denying that Adam will be raised from the dead someday. Obviously, if he is raised from the dead someday, this equals he didn't die forever, where I'm taking that to mean remaining dead forever. Surely then, or at least hopefully, you weren't meaning...

The way I look at it is like this. Maybe it will make sense to you or maybe it won't. Or maybe it's basically the same thing you are attempting to convey? Adam and Eve initially possessed conditional immortality. Clearly, before the fall they were in an immortal state of existence. It would be...

Excellent point about those that insist the servants are the reapers, the angels. But even when one demonstrates how absurd that is, such as you clearly did here, still, these same ones will continue to insist the servants are the reapers, the angels, regardless. It's as if something that is...

You do not get it. The judgment only involves those that claim a personal relationship with Christ. Unbelieving Jews, for example, can't remotely claim a personal relationship with Christ, as in, He is their Lord, He is their Savior. Nor can unrepentant atheists, etc. Nor can someone such as...

Ignore what all I said about Revelation 20:9 and Revelation 19:20, since I now see it has no relevance to your view. If nothing else, as of this post I am at least finally beginning to understand your position, I think. What I have to question first is your understanding of Adam's state when he...

If one is taking the tares to mean all the lost in general, it is absurd to then insist tares can't be saved. Per that scenario, of course they can be saved. Yet it makes nonsense out of the parable by viewing it in that manner. It is not until the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit...

You clearly said no except you actually meant yes, yes tares can be saved. How do I know you meant yes? Simple. You have the tares meaning all the lost in general and that you wouldn't dare propose that none of the lost can be saved, since that would contradict that you were lost before you were...