Search results

That's not what it says! That's what you want it to say. But, that contradicts much other scripture that you twist to make it say that you want it to say. The few left that survive His second coming are those Christians who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord (1 Thess 4:14-17). You...

That has nothing to do with anyone being bodily resurrected unto bodily immortality. Your interpretation goes against Paul saying that the order of resurrections is Christ's first and then next those who are His at His future second coming (1 Cor 15:22-23). So, I'm not going to read any more of...

LOL. You come on here yesterday as if you've studied this topic in depth and you argue with us about it and then you proceed to change your mind. Okay then. Maybe you should think about it some more before you say any more about this.

There is no particular scripture which explicitly says that demons are fallen angels. However, the fallen angels are referred to as the devil's angels (Revelation 12:9, Matthew 25:41). The following makes it clear that the fallen angels were still active as of whatever time you think this...

You're always using ridiculously biased logic. Daniel's 70 weeks have a beginning and ending and you don't interpret that to be a literal 490 days. So much for your man-made rule. You can throw that in the garbage. Is the following verse referring to a literal one hour? Revelation 17:12 And...

There's no need to do that. It doesn't just mean one thing. It can be used figuratively or literally. We need to use discernment to determine which is which is any given verse. It can mean that or it can be literal. You have to discern which is which. I don't determine that from Revelation 20...

This is a ridiculous thing to say. As if you are the only premillennialist in the world. LOL. Sorry, buddy, but if Amil is a doctrine of men, then so is Premil. And I am taught by Jesus Christ as well. So, apparently, making that claim doesn't automatically mean you believe the truth. I back up...

No, your doctrine forces Isaiah 65:17-25 to contradict 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1-4 and Isaiah 24:6 to contradict Matthew 24:35-39, Luke 17:26-37, 1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 19:17-18. I already have. It's LUDICROUS to think that there would be people...

Yes, and it arrives unexpectedly during a literal 24 hour day at which point "sudden destruction" by fire comes down on all of Christ's enemies from which "they shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12). You foolishly have this SUDDEN destruction lasting for a whole year, which is...

What is your point in saying this? Yes, there are 5 wise virgins and 5 foolish virgins in the parable in Matthew 25:1-13. And? This sums up your doctrine. You just say things and do nothing to explain your doctrine and nothing to back it up. You're all hot air and no substance.

Definitely. He can't hide his frustration any longer because he knows he can't present a coherent argument to back up his doctrine. That is quite obvious.

This is just stupid. As if the way you interpret the passage supports your doctrine? Not at all! So, I don't know what you're trying to pull here, but you're being deceptive by acting like the way you interpret the passage supports your doctrine, which it doesn't, and the only reason Amils...

I do not believe he was attempting to deceive others. What proof do you have of that? Why would he do that when there's no need to change the text to make it support Amil? If you're going to make this accusation you should have some kind of proof to back it up. Can you find any other examples of...

This is just ridiculous. The context of John 6:39 is the bodily resurrection of the dead. No one will be resurrected from the dead until Jesus returns in the future. You have no idea of what you're talking about whatsoever. 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be...

Luke 21:33-36 definitely doesn't support your doctrine regardless of how he presented it, so you need to stop acting as if it does. What promise are you talking about exactly and who are God's chosen?

No, you didn't misunderstand me. Are you somehow not reading what I'm saying about John 6:39-40? The last day will be the day that Jesus returns in the future. John 6:39-40 go hand in hand, as I said. It refers to the bodily resurrection of all believers on the last day when Jesus returns in the...

Your premil doctrine is pathetic. Your denial of the current reign of Christ is pathetic. Your denial that all believers, dead or alive, are now priests of God and of Christ and are reigning with Christ is pathetic. Your hyperliteral approach to highly symbolic books of prophetic scripture is...

You're always pitting one scripture against another like you do with Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-4. You need to reconcile them together instead of making them contradict each other. There is no way in the world that any mortal can survive what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. It is...

You know we can edit our posts, right? You could have just edited that post. Thanks for the clarification, regardless.

Nope. Scripture never talks about resurrecting Old Testament saints separately from New Testament saints. No, John 6:39-40 are referring to the same people. John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day...