Search results

LOL. What a weak response. If God's Word supposedly teaches that Jesus will sit on David's literal, phsyical throne then you should be able to tell us where it is and show us pictures of it. That proves NOTHING! Where is David's throne referenced there? NOWHERE. And you continue to ignore...

You only included the last 2 of the 4 definitions from Webster's. Why? I got mine from the first one that came up in a search which was the Google Dictionary provided by Oxford Languages. Those definitions from there are valid definitions of the word, so I'm not sure why you're questioning...

LOL!!! Not even close, bud. Leave the Amil vs. Premil debate to people who actually know what they're talking about and stick to defending post-trib instead. You're not half bad at doing that. Comments like this are an utter WASTE of time. Your time. So, if you insist on wasting time like...

Yes, I considered that and determined that is not the case here. It's definitely a case of you not being clear. Which is nothing unusual for you. Yah... LOL. You are such a comedian. Look at you having to resort to definition d when you know darn well that when people think of the word literal...

You know a lot about being a vain talker and teaching things which you ought not, like Premillennialism.

Great question. It's hilarious whenever I see someone try to claim that Jesus will literally sit on David's literal, physical throne. Hello? That is utter nonsense of epic proportions and is not even possible.

Now I'm the one LOL at YOU because I never said that you said that. I'm the one who said that! You have HORRIBLE reading comprehension skills. I mean just TERRIBLE. You prove that over and over again. Please find a class somewhere that teaches you how to comprehend what you read. Hey, bud! Why...

No, it does not prove that at all. You need to keep reading the next 2 verses after that where he indicated that he WAS talking about himself. 2 Corinthians 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of...

You just failed once again to refute Amillennialism. Where does Revelation 3:9 say that those who say they are Jews, and are not, will come and worship before the feet of those believers in the church of Philadelphia for a thousand years? Nowhere. That will happen at the judgment AFTER the...

That's fine if you disagree, but I think Genesis 25:21-23, which Paul referenced in that Romans 9 passage, couldn't be clearer that the context of what Paul was talking about was in relation to God choosing one nation (Israel) over another (Edom) to be the one through which salvation would come...

Good point. He, of course, won't acknowledge it, but that Joel 2:31 verse does refute his belief that Matthew 24:29 will occur AFTER the day of the Lord and says indicate it will occur BEFORE the day of the Lord instead. What is described in Matthew 24:29 will not happen long before the day of...

Absolutely not. What truth do you think I negated? That's not what the text says. If you read Genesis 25:21-23, which Paul was referencing in Romans 9, you should see it only relates the elder serving the younger to the two nations and two manner of people in Rebecca's womb. It says nothing...

Both believers and unbelievers will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee...

No, that great multitude is the souls of the dead in Christ. Do you not believe there is a great multitude of souls of the dead in Christ in heaven?

That is not taught anywhere in scripture. Where are you getting that from? Certainly not from Romans 11 since Paul did not make any such claim there. It's incredible that you agree that a regrafting has been going on already for almost 2,000 years and then you turn around and try to say that...

Does context matter to you? Matthew 16:28 refers to Peter, James and John getting a foretaste of the second coming of Christ by seeing Jesus in His glory at His transfiguration, which is described immediately after that verse. Clearly, Luke 17:30 has nothing to do with His transfiguration.

Let us reason together here. I know that one of the people you have in mind here that supposedly thinks that Jesus did not think what Paul described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is significant is me, but I believe Jesus did refer to what 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is about, but not in the same verses that...

I see no basis for the distinctions you are making here. All who are mentioned in verses 12 and 13 are judged within the jurisdiction of the books based on their works. Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was...

Yes, election to salvation is an individual thing, but that particular passage is not about election to salvation. When it refers to "the children being not yet born...", the children being referred to there are Jacob and Esau, not Isaac and Jacob. What Paul is saying there is that before Jacob...

LOL. You know someone is clueless about scripture when they claim it needs no interpretation. 1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak...