Search results

That means to be made free from the wages of sin, which is the second death (Revelation 20:15) which is in contrast to the gift of God which is eternal life (Romans 6:23). The gift of God is salvation by His grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-10). You make salvation by works and...

What's this "IF IF IF" stuff"? God's promises to Abraham and his seed apply to Christ and those who belong to Christ, right? As Galatians 3:16 and Galatians 3:29 indicate.

Yes, and then what does it say in Hebrews 11:8-16? Did you read it? It says he and the other OT saints who died were strangers on this earth and looked for a city whose builder and maker is God and for a better, heavenly country. What do you think that means?

You needed to keep reading from there. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Good insight here. It doesn't relate to Daniel 9:27, but this is a good insight nonetheless. Interesting.

You're trying way too hard here. A lot of people take things too literally, but you are going too far the other way. When it talks about the end coming by way of a flood there, what is it referring to? The end of the city and the sanctuary which was just mentioned in the verse before that. It...

Why don't you do us a favor and exegete Matthew 25:1-13 for us. Deal? Show us exactly how you interpret it and why and then we can discuss it. That's the kind of discussion we're looking for here.

LOL!!! You responded with scripture and no exegesis of that scripture. What good is that? Anyone can just quote a bunch of scripture. But, you need to show how exactly that scripture supports your doctrine. So, can you do that? This shows you don't even understand what people like us believe...

The KJV says "they lived" rather than "they came to life" because it's translated from the Greek word "zao" which does not mean "to come to life". That word means to be alive or to live. In verse 5 that Greek word "anazao" is used to describe the rest of the dead coming to life. That word does...

LOL. There's nothing simple about your doctrine. I prefer to go by John's understanding of the time of the end, which began long ago already. 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know...

That passage says absolutely nothing about some Antichrist being resurrected from the dead in the future. Only God resurrects the dead and He will not be resurrecting anyone form the dead until Christ returns. Your doctrine is complete sensationalistic nonsense. Might make for a decent movie...

Whatever. I don't really care what you call it, but calling it the anytime rapture view seems disingenuous because you I don't think you really believe it could happen any time. Let's say it happened today. I know you believe that Jesus will return in 2037. Do you really believe there could be...

Because I don't think what he said is clear at all. Am I not allowed to think that? Is there some rule where I'm not allowed to find someone's opinion to be funny? I think the scenario he laid out there is utterly ridiculous and sensationalistic. Is it okay with you if I think that way?

His chart is hilarious. Shows some dead guy who will supposedly be resurrected. Only God can resurrect the dead, so he'd have to explain why God would want to resurrect that guy. Which he can't do, of course. His doctrine and his charts a convoluted, unintelligible mess.

LOL. Are you backtracking now? You said you believe that the rapture will happen before "the great tribulation". That's a pre-great trib rapture. Okay, so you believe in a pre-transgression of desolation act by the Antichrist rapture. Wow, that doesn't have much of a ring to it, does it.

Once again a Premil references a passage that makes NO reference to Jesus being on the earth as evidence that Jesus will come to the earth. That is weak. You are not able to support your doctrine with any clear scripture. It's all based on assumptions. Using Zechariah 14 to support your premil...

Right. I don't believe he is a Hebrew or Greek expert, so how can he have any understanding of scripture when he also doesn't trust any English translations? Such nonsense. No wonder he is so deceived.

Not all of Matthew 24 is about that, though. Tell me why only Luke would have recorded Jesus's answer to the disciples' question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time. Why would Matthew and Mark not have also recorded His answer to that question?

LOL

Clear as mud. You get all this, marks? LOL.