Search results

That's a good point. The reference to "the natural man" is obviously not referring to an individual man. That's my understanding of "the man of sin", also. Good catch. The man of sin is also referred to as "that wicked" in 2 Thess 2:8. Again, that does not have to refer to an individual man...

Please don't confuse people who are not aware of what others believe. You are only talking about partial preterist amills here, not all amills. Many amills, like me, do not believe that Jesus came in 70 AD in any way, shape or form.

Right. That is my issue as well. I'm completely fine with it if he doesn't have time to respond to us, because other things are more important, but it would be better for him not to make long, detailed posts if he doesn't have time to follow up to the responses he gets to them.

I have a ton of stress in my personal life, so this has nothing to do with that. If you don't have time to follow through on these discussions, then just let us know so that we can know not to respond to all of your points while expecting you to do the same. If we know in advance that you are...

Jesus was not talking about the greatest tribulation of all-time in terms of one that would kill the most people. Read the text. He said it would be unlike any other great tribulation. Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world...

So, you see 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 20:9 as all referring to figurative fire relating to the dissolving of the heavens and the elements and the burning up of the earth and all the things on the earth. We see the end result as being the same, so it's not something to have a big debate...

How did you just completely miss the point of my post? Did you not read what was being discussed? My point is that agreeing with a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon that Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead does not make you a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. I was saying that in response to...

Then why do you so often try to turn the Amil vs. Premil debate into a OSAS vs. NOSAS debate? A lot of the Calvinist vs. Whatever debates center around that. You accept his Amil view of Zechariah 14 as being viable? If so, then why do you argue so much against Amil? Zechariah 14 seems to be...

So, you're only wanting to be more respectful with me and not with him? Why not try to be more respectful with everyone? I addressed a post you made about Matthew 19:28, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 3:21 and all I hear is crickets in response. That's what frustrates WPM and I about you. We...

What I was talking about is something completely different than someone trying to completely change the subject of a thread for no good reason, as you did. You are so ignorant that you posted something describing what preterism is and you couldn't even see that it doesn't describe me at all. It...

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...