Search results

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...

You are correct. Do you know what "a lot" means? It doesn't mean "all". I disagree with A LOT or MOST of what a typical preterist believes as it relates to eschatology. Are you able to understand what I'm saying?

I don't know what you mean. Please explain.

You obviously have Amils like me in mind here, so let us reason together. You are misrepresenting my, and many other Amils, understanding of what is going to occur. You are acting as if we believe that God will take His time burning up the earth and that people will be running around on fire and...

Sure. Why not? Destroying (not annihilating....always need to clarify that, apparently) the earth is obviously something that God has done before. And sending fire down on earth is also something He has done before, but just not the entire earth. How else is He going to remove the wicked and...

Please learn how to communicate. Take a class on it or something. You strongly implied that the basis for giving less weight to Matthew 24:35-25:46 than Matthew 24:4-34 was because it was mostly parables. What do you think I'm supposed to take away from that? Why? Why not look at the entire...

I've been telling you over and over again why I don't buy what you're selling and you still have to ask me? I'm not saying those words don't have multiple definitions. What I have been telling you repeatedly is that I don't buy your understanding of Matthew 24:4-34 because you have decided to...

Tell me about it. Couldn't agree more. That's all you ever say no matter what I do. I'm not going to waste my time much longer talking to someone who just claims that I misrepresent all of his arguments while he either ignores or misrepresents most of mine. What are we doing? We just think too...

Agree with your last two words of the first line. Plus, I've explained my view of this on this forum many times before, so didn't think there was a need to do it again. And the flood was mass, global destruction and didn't result in annihilation, so...yeah. Whatever, though.

That's not what I'm doing. Someone attributed a comment that I didn't make to me, so I was correcting that. I only said I thought you were the one who said it, but I wasn't sure. How does that equate to me "hankering" for conflict. I'm not.

Okay. But, my post must have spawned yours, at least, since no one was talking about 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 before I mentioned it. So, it came across that you thought when I said the earth would be destroyed that I was saying it would be annihilated and I wanted to clear that...