Search results

Paul could hardly write, His words were hard to read. did that make him wrong? You keep trying to make excuses as to why you do not want to discuss what is being said.. Your making it hard to even desire to discuss anything with you. your stuck on a catholic doctrine my friend. You can not...

I can not agree. It says he was grabbed and bound, He is bound physically. and shut up so he can not deceive the nations. He is at work.. we are warned as much, when we are told he wants to devour us.

Did Antiochus destroy the temple and city? That is what we are talking about. plus it does not matter, I said it STARTED with babylon. It did. when he destroyed the city and sanctuary. thats all part of the cross my friend. we agree.

it is one of the first signs I look for when someone is trying to discuss something with me and trying to get me to see their view. If they can not take words as they are meant, and interpret it with that word in context. Red Flag

Should be quite clear amen!!

I am not a preterist. And I agree. the fled. So it is not a preterist event, it is a historical event. Jesus said when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (let the reader understand) run. That event has yet to happen, hence it is yet future. That is not a preterist...

with god all things are possible. The dragon, He was satan, a literal being He is said to be captured and placed in this place called the bottomless pit. If satan is literal. and can be grabbed, the bottomless pit is a literal place also.

Its prophecy. Prophecy speaks of LITERAL EVENTS. as PROVEN by the fact that JESUS and GENTILE NATIONS have LITERALLY FULILLED past prophetic events. I interpret prophecy by precedence. I look at past fulfille dprophecy. I see it was fullfilled to the T exacly as prophesied. If past prophecy...

Antiochus epiphanes did commit an abomination of desolation. when he slaughtered a pic in the holy place. He did not go into jerusalem, destroy the city and temple and murder most of the city, That was nebachadnezzer.. see Daniel 1.. as for jesus, the worse thing to ever happen to him was the...

He foretold an event which would happen in 70 AD and event which has not yet until this present day occured yet. Preterism, if I understand it right, claims everything happened in 70 AD and it is ALL past tense..

prove this.. if this is true. this is not prophecy, it is a parable.. John is not parabolic language

it does not matter if you use the word AND or THEN. in context. they both mean the same thing This happened AND or THEN this happened AND or THEN this happened all in chronology You just made my point for me, thank you

You have not done any such thing I did not ignore. I REJECTED the argument, because you can not show in CONTEXT that that is what is being said. You refuse to do that No you proved to me the fallacy of your argument and gave me no reason to change my view.

Thats not what the passage says, John says when he is losed he will ONCE again decieve the nations. By decieving them to go to war against Gods people. there is NOTHING in the passage which would lead any reader who reads the passage that it is just the gospel.. Yu have to read into it...

Your right, its symbolic. but with all prophecy, we are told what the symbol is, in this case, it is satan. Symbolic of what. Satan was a person. Is not the bottomless pit also a place? Is God unable to create a place where he can BIND an Angelic being in order to BIND HIM, SHUT HIM UP. and...

yes they can EG posts the passage numerous times word for word. and goes through it. PM refuses to acknowledge it. and refuses to look at the passage itself.

my friend, this happened under nebachadnezzar back when Daniel was led exhile to babylon, and eventually given his prophecy of Daniel 9 which spoke of the destruction which occured in 70 AD. The destruction which would occure BEFORE the abomination of desolation. Which Jesu sspoke of in Matt 24...

lolol.. Your obsessed with some text. you are totally unable to look at the passage. No, I am not obsessed. I have been told I have interpreted it wrong. and I am demanding the one who accused me of such to prove to me IN THE TEXT how I am wrong. He has been unable to do this Actually I have...

you are really a hoot here my friend I am NOT discussing premil or amil I am DISCUSSING rev 20. what can;'t you still to the discussion? My friend, Our discussion if rev 20. You want to try to discuss a whole doctrine. We can do that if you wish. But lets first get rev 20 settled. You...

Ok, we need to put a stop right here my friend, You are not only being argumentative, you are being unfactual in your accusation. I AM THE ONE who has continually looked AT THE TEXT. Your the one who refuses to look at it and wants to go outside of the text to try to convince me you are...