Search results

I believe it is foolish to interpret scripture no differently than "all other written materials" as if the Bible is just another book like all other books. We must have spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit in order to discern whether any given text is literal, figurative, poetic, symbolic...

Are you forgetting that Jesus taught that His kingdom is spiritual and said that His kingdom does not come with observation? Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be...

Has Christ not been reigning for a long time already? He most certainly has. Have believers not been priests of God and of Christ for a long time already? They most certainly have. So, YOUR understanding of the timeline of prophecy is messed up. You don't allow what scripture teaches as a whole...

Yes, I agree with that. Did you think otherwise? LOL. You are the one who is implying that because of how you interpret Isaiah 65:17-25. You contradict yourself. You say that Isaiah 65:17-25, which is about the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth, refers to the thousand years time...

Nonsense. You set the OT and NT against each other, but amil reconciles them together. For the most part we should use the NT to help interpret the OT whenever possible. The NT authors frequently gave their understanding of OT prophecies. So, why not allow them to tell us what those OT...

Do you not accept that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Christ and those who belong to Christ, as Paul taught? Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ...

Well done, David. I agree. Acts 4:25-31 clearly shows the context of Psalm 2:1-3 and it obviously has nothing to do with what Doug said it did. Doug never interprets scripture with scripture which is why he is wrong about everything.

He obviously doesn't have a clue about what Amils believe and he definitely has no clue about our interpretive approach to scripture which he badly misrepresented in another thread that he started.

It started being a reality a long time ago is what I meant. If you actually read everything I said, you would know that's what I meant. People spiritually have part in the first resurrection every day and that occurs every day throughout the symbolic thousand years that began around the first...

This is ridiculous. John did not say that only immortals won't die once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. He said there will be no more death at that point. Period! You are making Revelation 21:1-4 say what you want it to say. The thousand years and new heavens and new earth are not...

I do not claim that the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ doesn't happen at the last trump at the last day. So, it's clear that you just don't understand Amil for whatever reason. To claim that something you don't even understand is false makes no sense. Why don't you put more effort...

LOL. I was just saying that the rest of the dead do not refer to those who have part in the first resurrection. The ones who have part in the first resurrection are specifically referred to in verse 4. So, "this is the first resurrection" refers back to those John described in verse 4 and not...

As I said in the other post, we do NOT claim that those who have part in the first resurrection had part in it when Jesus was resurrected. We claim that those who become saved have part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) each day throughout the symbolic thousand years as each...

Those who have part in the first resurrection are not referenced there in that verse. You understand that, right? The rest of the dead do not have part in the first resurrection. Unfortunately, the statement "this is the first resurrection" was oddly placed right after the description of those...

That's Ephesians 2:11-12, not Galatians. Yes, they were and they still are today! Paul says Gentiles believers are "fellowheirs" of God's promises. Why are you trying to make it so that they are not fellowheirs? That mystery was there, but hidden in the OT and revealed in the NT. It isn't that...

2 Peter 3:10-13 seems pretty simple to me, but okay.

So you like to make false accusations about Amil. That's typical of Premils who can't refute Amil. Our understanding that the saved will not be resurrected 1,000+ years before the lost is based on straightforward scripture like this: John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the...

Your comment said otherwise. You said that I said the first resurrection of Jesus was the resurrection of the dead in Christ and I never said any such thing. So, no, I don't think you do understand what we're saying. Which you are clearly not able to prove, so saying that means nothing. You...

Earthly Jerusalem. Why do you ask? Are you able to confirm that with NT scripture which shines light on the OT scriptures? Is there some reason why you're not answering my question? How do you interpret the following passage? 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the...

Jesus indicates that the ones figuratively represented as the sheep, which He calls "the righteous" in Matthew 25:46, inherit "life eternal" in " the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". How can that not be the eternal state? How can "the kingdom prepared for you from the...