Search results

No, certainly. Can't you ever be honest? If those were the only 2 chapters in scripture, sure. LOL! A more foolish statement has never been made. No, the onus is on all of us to interpret Revelation 19 and 20 in such a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture. I believe it does, but I...

Did you have a stroke? There was no hesitation. Where is this taught? Once the last Gentile is saved, what would be the reason for any delay of His second coming? All you do is just make claims that you can't back up. You're all talk. Where is the scripture that backs up what you're saying...

I don't think you qualify to lecture me about these things when you have never taken the log out of your own eye. We're all adults here. Do you see The Light getting offended at the way I talk to him? Not at all. He talks the same way. He's fine with it. That doesn't mean I should talk to...

LOL! Great job at proving my point! You couldn't just read Revelation 17:1-4 as written and know what it was saying. You had to look at other scripture to see what some of it means. That's called interpreting scripture with scripture. But, who or what is the beast that the woman sits on...

He hasn't the slightest clue what interpreting scripture with scripture really means. To him, it means any two verses that have similar wording are automatically talking about the same thing. This is how people end up thinking things like that Daniel 7:13-14 is about Christ's second coming...

Wow, you're actually addressing the original post finally! Was that so painful? But, wait a minute. This passage has the same context as the passage that comes just before it as evidenced by the fact that He starts out by saying "In that day". In what day? Are you telling me that you don't...

Did you read the entire original post? The context of what Jesus was talking about related to what he said about the flood and about what happened in Sodom. In those events everyone either survived or was killed and He said "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."...

No, you are not. Are you afraid to give you understanding of Luke 17:26-37? Why should I take you seriously when you are not even willing to show how you can reconcile Premil with that passage? LOL. You say some of the most foolish things I've ever seen in my life. Get serious! Why are you so...

You're not even reading the passage carefully at all. He is contrasting natural descendants of Abraham with spiritual descendants of Abraham and saying that not all natural descendants of Abraham are spiritual descendants of Abraham. Do you not know that all believers are children of the...

A vast majority of them. Exactly. And he probably thinks we don't notice that.

Agree! It's as if Premills have no idea of what effect Christ's life, death and resurrection had on Satan despite the many scriptures which tell us about that. Their ignorance about what is taught in the New Testament is unbelievable.

Right. I'm sure they believe in a spiritual reality, yet they don't really act like it. Well., what they mean by that is that they take scripture literally and we don't. Yet, clearly, not all scripture is literal text. We do take scripture as written. It's sometimes written in literal text...

That has been his pattern for at least the past 20 years. He comes on here thinking that he's making an irrefutable argument and then we proceed to thoroughly refute and destroy his argument and then he goes away again to try to dream up another supposedly irrefutable argument. Notice how no...

This statement contradicts your statement that "The most straightforward literal interpretation is that Jesus is ruling on earth for a thousand years.". That is not an objective statement.

To assume that what is described in Revelation 20 has to chronologically follow what is described in Revelation 19 is not exegesis. It's eisegesis. Clearly, the book is not all chronological. Also, we have to take the rest of scripture into account and the rest of scripture does not support...

Okay. So, they believed that Revelation 20:10-15 would occur before Revelation 20:1-9, which makes no sense at all. I see that you said "The unbelieving Jews believed in a future millennium, but it was not one where Satan was able to overrun it at the end" and Chiliasts were influenced by that...

This is completely ridiculous. What does this even mean? Do you accept the following EXACTLY as it is written? Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore...

This is 100% pure nonsense. The most straightforward literal interpretation is that Jesus is ruling in heaven with the souls of the dead in Christ because nowhere in Revelation 20 are they located anywhere else.

Right. But, I'm wondering about what those early Chiliasts like Justin Martyr believed in relation to Revelation 20:10-15. Justin Martyr said Jesus would cast "the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils" at His second coming, right? That is...

Right. They, like Amils, believed there would be no sin and death in the time immediately following Christ's return, unlike modern day Premills. It's ridiculous for modern day Premils to associate their doctrine with Chiliasm.