Search results

LOL. Go ahead and keep embarrassing yourself with this nonsense if you insist. No one can stop you. Peter said "this is that". You say that he said "this is not that, but something else like that". LOL. Total insanity.

You made a blanket statement that I said I don't understand the OT prophets. That is a lie. So what if I use the NT to help understand them? That's a wise thing to do. You should try it some time. I have read all of the OT, so your last comment is just another lie. You are a liar.

Not surprisingly, no Premills have even attempted to explain how they can reconcile the scriptures I posted with their doctrine other than one weak attempt to explain 2 Peter 3:13 away. How can they? The scriptures very clearly support Amillennialism and not Premillennialism.

If any of them believe that, then I'd like to see exactly how they interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13. I would say that also.

That isn't what I said at all. Any other lies you'd like to tell? Yes, it most certainly does. Peter clearly says we should be looking for new heavens and a new earth in fulfillment of Christ's second coming. The new heavens and new earth are ushered in after the thousand years. Premills say we...

The two witnesses symbolize the church. The camp of the saints symbolizes the church. It makes no sense to think that a number of people "as the sand of the sea" will all go to Jerusalem to attack two individuals. Revelation 20:7-9 is related to the increase in deception, wickedness, the mass...

Yes you were. Does the text say "this is that" or "this is like that"? Be honest for once.

I confessed no such thing, liar. I have said that I use the NT to help understand the OT prophets. All you have to offer are lies. You literally have nothing else to offer on this forum, as you prove over and over again. You're a lying heretic who denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

I have yet to see any Premillennialist give an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-13 that makes any sense whatsoever. Would any Premills here like to give it a shot? The passage clearly supports Amillennialism. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the...

The camp of the saints is a figurative reference to the church. His rod of iron is used to break (destroy) the heathen (His enemies). Who is saying that is happening yet? Have you ever actually even read Psalm 2? Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son...

Do you believe that Jesus will return before or after the thousand years?

Can you explain why people would again be required to go to Jerusalem to worship in light of what Jesus said here.... John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men...

But, what Premills should note about what happens in fulfillment of that passage Paul was referencing from Isaiah 25 is that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in at that time. Isaiah 25:8 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail...

Oh, really? So, why do you think that the ten horns/kings will only receive power for literally one hour (60 minutes)? That's not very long at all. Revelation 17:And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with...

Right. Premills are not looking for the same thing that Abraham and the other Old Testament saints were looking for as they are looking for an earthly city and country instead of a heavenly city and country like they should be. Then there's this, too... 2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that...

So, what happens to that stuff when Jesus comes then? I think the point is that you think it will still be here on the earth. But, it will go unused?

Okay, we will! Thanks! But, seriously, isn't it true that you believe all our stuff will be left on the earth after we are raptured and we would at least potentially be able to use it again when you come back to the earth? That seems to be the point Scott is making.

Look at you arguing with another Post-trib Premill again. Isn't that hilarious, Davy? Just like you find it to be funny when Amills argue about something?

It was only temporary so that salvation would then go to the Gentiles who, in turn, would provoke those Israelites to jealousy so that they too would want to be saved. And Paul wanted to lead some of those who were blinded to salvation, which shows that their blindness was not permanent. Romans...

Are you claiming that when God blinded the unbelieving Jews in Paul's day that their blindness was permanent in terms of them being blinded the rest of their lives? That seems like what you're saying, but that is not the case since Paul himself wanted to leave some of those who were blinded to...