Search results

There's no literal 1,000 years referenced in Genesis. Trying to act as if there is anything in Genesis about a supposed 1,000 year time period after Jesus returns is what causes confusion. You have no clear, straightforward scripture to support your Premil belief.

No, he's mocking the ridiculous claims made by 3 Resurrections in this thread. Jesus did not come bodily or in any way, shape or form in 70 AD and there was no bodily resurrection of the dead in 70 AD. Such a claim is utterly ludicrous and deserves to be mocked.

The Greek word translated as "short" (oligos) in Revelation 12:12 is a different Greek word translated as "little" (mikros) in Revelation 20:3. The Greek word oligos can refer to a relatively, but not literally, small number. Such as in Matthew 22:14 when Jesus said "many are called, but few are...

LOL. You will go to any length to deny the truth. Only the 12 apostles/disciples of Christ were at the Last Supper and Lazarus was not one of them. What makes you want to believe things that are not taught in scripture? Just an uncontrollable desire to be contrary or what?

It's a complete waste of time to debate about something so clear as this. He obviously believes in a lot of fairy tales, including the fairy tale of Lazarus being at The Last Supper (LOL!) having written Revelation (Double LOL!), and there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. He insists...

Yes, it absolutely was. He will return in glory and He appeared at His transfiguration in glory. You continue to display your utter lack of discernment with every post you make. Ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7). Christ did not return in the first century. You continue to babble about this made...

There is a lot of SCRIPTURAL evidence to show that this thread is nonsense. No amount of supposed archaeological evidence can change the truth taught in scripture.

Well, you need to pray harder or something because your beliefs right now are far from the truth. If there were 3 resurrections, as you believe, then Paul clearly knew of no such thing or else he would have written about that in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. But, instead, he only wrote of Christ's...

This is ludicrous. You really need to stop and ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7). If Lazarus was bodily resurrected with an immortal and incorruptible body, then it wouldn't be true that Jesus Christ Himself was the first to be resurrected with an immortal and incorruptible body, but that is what...

In Matthew 16:28 Jesus refers to His transfiguration which is described immediately following that verse. That gave some of the disciples standing there (Peter, James and John) a preview of the Son of Man coming in His Father's glory when He will come with His angels and reward everyone...

It absolutely does not teach a second and third coming of Christ and you have done NOTHING to prove otherwise. I didn't say salvation is dependent on this, but doctrine matters and your false doctrine is just downright embarrassing and ridiculous. Scripture teaches that He would come a second...

You have to be kidding us with this nonsense. A preterist trying to tell everyone about proper hermeneutics? LOL. Get real.

You need to stop this foolishness. Your preterist beliefs are every bit as off base as dispensationalism, so you have no room to talk. Matthew 24:34 relates to the second coming of Christ which has not yet occurred. He was talking about this same generation He referred to in verse 33 that would...

You failed to look at the context of the verse. That verse partly refers to Isaiah 26:20 and when looking at that verse you can see that the little while relates to the amount of time that Christ's wrath will occur when He comes. Hebrews 10:37 has nothing to do with how long it would be until...

Nowhere does scripture teach a second and third coming of Christ. That is foolish nonsense that can't be taken seriously whatsoever. Stop the madness.

That's what this nonsense deserves. Scripture does not teach that Jesus would return bodily more than once and He will definitely bodily return in the future, so you're trying to disprove scripture with supposed archaeological evidence, which is foolish. No, it does not. You are being foolish...

You're not being entirely clear here. Do you or do you not believe that one's eschatology can be used to show whether they are a true Christian or not? Do you believe that someone can be a dispensationalist or a preterist and be a Christian? Do you believe that anyone can have a different...

The evidence brought forth is a pile of garbage and isn't worth addressing. Jesus did not return in 70 AD. You can't prove it with scripture, so now you're resorting to archaeology. LOL. Give up the charade already.

LOL. What a bunch of utter nonsense. Preterism is complete foolishness. Jesus did not return in 70 AD and there is NOTHING you can do to prove otherwise. We still look forward to His glorious return.

Why are you adding 1260 days + 42 months? I don't see any scripture doing that. You base everything on your faulty understanding of the 70th week, so you try to make it fit that. You don't even think of why it refers to 1260 days, 42 months or a time, times and half a time. If it was being...