Search results

Hello? Did you not read what I said? Ezekiel 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but...

It's a very good thing that you're comfortable with that.

So, at least we agree on something (lol). We may agree on other doctrines besides those related to eschatology, but I'm not sure what you believe besides your end times beliefs.

What do you mean by that exactly?

You mean like you're doing repeatedly? That is exactly what you are doing, so this is very ironic coming from you. That is not what I'm doing at all. I'm showing scripture in its proper context while not ignoring or dismissing ANY of it. You, on the other hand, cherry pick scripture while...

You mean you already made up your own definition for the word that doesn't exist. It NEVER means specifically. I refuted your understanding of Acts 25:26 by showing the context. The "you" there refers to those who Paul was brought before and verse 23 shows that he was brought before King...

You mean what exactly would cause that? As an Amil, I believe it will be caused by Satan and his demons no longer being bound by God from preventing the preaching of the gospel in the world. I relate that time period to Satan's little season. It's a time that we're probably already in now where...

I don't buy any of this at all. To me, the time periods are clearly symbolic and they are contained within the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture. Agree to disagree. We couldn't be further apart in our understanding of eschatology if we tried.

That is talking about being granted the opportunity to believe in Christ and to suffer for His sake. He does not make anyone believe and does not make anyone suffer for His sake. People must choose to do so willingly. Joshua was certainly not a Calvinist. Joshua 24:14 Now therefore fear the...

Nope. You didn't address my points at all and just ignored them, as you typically do. You are butchering the text to make it fit your doctrine, as I already showed. The Greek word "malista" never means specifically. It is a word used to contrast one thing with another. You are trying to create a...

Why did you say I'm denying God's clear words then? What exactly do you think I'm denying? You had previously said this: What did you mean by this? You come across as if you're saying the second coming of Jesus happened in 70 AD.

According to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 there must first be a mass falling away from the faith before the day that Jesus comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night which would coincide with wickedness no longer being restrained. So, that day that Jesus comes to take vengeance on all of His enemies...

Jesus didn't come in 70 AD. Until you acknowledge that, I have no reason to take you seriously.

You say you don't twist scripture, yet you are doing it over and over again. No matter how much you twist scripture, you can't change the truth which is that God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and that is why He offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11) and why He commands all...

Jesus didn't die to sin in the way that His followers do. That verse is obviously talking about His physical death there and it is talking about Him, in His physical death, taking our sins upon Himself "once for all". Read the verses which immediately follow and you can see it's not talking...

Right. So, interpret Revelation 12:10 accordingly so that you stop contradicting scripture.

Paul does not mention any resurrection after Christ's future second coming, so you are trying to add something to the text that isn't there. Your 3 comings of Christ and 3 resurrections theory is a joke.

If you address what I said about Revelation 12:10 in post #104, then I'll address this post. I have told you many times that I'm not interested in a one way discussion where I am the only one who addresses any points that are made or answers any questions that are asked. Do you deny that...

I believe you are a dispensationalist. That's my opinion and I have a right to that opinion. I'm not stating it as a fact.

How about addressing what I said in my post, Douggg? Is that too much to ask of you? I can't take you seriously when you repeatedly ignore my points and don't address them. I can only assume that you know you can't address what I said, so instead of acknowledging that you can't refute what I...