Search results

Not just that, but it was still the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, so Him referring to it as "the holy place" at the time He was speaking does not mean it still had to be considered "the holy place" when the prophecy was fulfilled.

LOL. Ridiculous. God has already given many Israelites a new heart and a new spirit in the past almost 2,000 years. You're out of touch with reality.

Wrong. I don't dismiss any passages. I interpret them differently than you do, obviously.

That is absolutely false. Where did you get that idea that I was saying it isn't a true story? I'm not. I'm just saying it's not a parable because Jesus's parables contained fictitious people and places that represented things in reality. Hello? I didn't say otherwise. But, what about people's...

Exactly. Premills contradict 1 Corinthians 15:50 by having mortal flesh and blood people inheriting the kingdom of God because that is how they interpret this passage: Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne...

That means he will fit in well with the other Premills here. He comes out of nowhere to post on here and the reason seems to be just to show that he hasn't changed at all.

I always prounounced your name in my mind as Diva D. sml

You are delusional. Those arguments destroyed Premill, not the other way around. And they still do today.

This is complete nonsense. It clearly applies to both Jews and Gentiles. You quoted Romans 9:24, but did you even read it? That verse alone refutes everything you're saying. It shows that God calls not "the Jews only, but also...the Gentiles".

Why in the world did you think you needed to explain this to me, an Amillennialist? Of course. Do you just enjoy wasting your time telling people things that they obviously already know? My mind is just boggled. Do you actually think I don't already know all of this? No, I don't. Only the OT...

Are you unable to answer simple questions with simple answers? I asked if you base your belief in future animal sacrifices partly on Ezekiel 45:15-17? Yes or no? It seems that your answer is yes, but how hard is it to just say yes or no? The sacrifices being for their sake or not is completely...

None of that says anything about animal sacrifices ever being reinstated in the future. I believe your argument is extremely weak and does not take into account many other scriptures, including Hebrews 8-10 which says that Jesus made animal sacrifices and offerings obsolete forever by way of His...

Well, it's unfortunate that you think something that makes no sense whatsoever. You think that the disciples asked Jesus the same exact questions twice, which means you think that the disciples weren't listening the first time that Jesus answered them. Please ask God for wisdom about this (James...

Yes, he omits that because he knew that it does not happen after Christ's return. But, because you are so biased, you have decided to insert something into the text that doesn't belong. No, we know that it does not if we take ALL of scripture into account, which you do not. I agree. He does...

Explain your last statement here. What lies do you think I'm saying Jesus told in Luke 16:19-31? Regardless of whether you consider it to be a parable or not, He clearly indicated that people are conscious in heaven and hell. Do you deny that? The question mark should have been enough to tell...

You have no discernment whatsoever. Jesus will never reign over any earthly kingdom. Christ's kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world. You ignore what Jesus Himself said about His kingdom.

Yes, you are proof of that. No kidding? Hello? But, what you miss is the part that says "He seeing this before". Who seeing what before? David seeing Christ raised up to his throne. What does verse 31 tell us about that? It tells us that what David foresaw in relation to Christ being raised up...

It's incredible how dishonest these Premills are with this text and many other texts. Verse 31 makes it abundantly clear that the way in which God the Father would "RAISE UP Christ to sit on" David's throne was by way of "the RESURRECTION of Christ". This is very clear to any unbiased person...

Says the guy who displays his Biblical ignorance with almost every post he makes. Are you even reading the passage? In verse 31, Peter explained how it came about the God the Father would "RAISE UP Christ to sit on" David's throne. He said that was talking about "the RESURRECTION of Christ"...

We were talking about Zechariah 13:7. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ's return. To believer otherwise is beyond foolish. What do you mean "As for Zechariah 13:7?". That's what we were talking about. What were you referring to in your statement above? LOL. You probably think Paul...