Search results

This is completely incomprehensible. You have a doctrine all your own.

Because it isn't. There isn't anything in one of the passages that contradicts anything in the other. Both refer to the day that Christ returns and the dead in Christ are raised from the dead. How can you not see that they are the same event? That's a better question. How are you coming to this...

So, your question was nothing? You asked if I was a protestant and I asked how you defined that. After you defined it I said I guess I am then (according to you definition). Is this too hard for you to follow? I did answer your questions. Why are you lying? Something is very, very wrong with you.

LOL. Look at your last sentence here. Just complete unintelligible gibberish. What in the world does "Thousand Years isn't literal earthly time, it expiring is spiritual symbolic" mean?

Just stop your rhetoric already and talk to me like an actual adult for once. Are you capable of that? Can we reason together without the unnecessary insults? I know I can do that. Are you interested? What do you think it means when it mentions the thousand years expiring? Your view is that it...

You seem to have a lot of trouble expressing your beliefs sometimes. This comes across as complete gibberish. I need a translator who can tell me what in the world you were trying to say here. It seems like you're saying that Satan's little season is part of the thousand years and ends when the...

It can be done. It helps to actually put him on your Ignore list like I did. :)

Exactly. He couldn't find anything to support his ludicrous view that the new covenant is only partially in effect so he resorted to bringing up something that wasn't related to the new covenant to try to support his view instead. Such a desperate attempt to keep his false doctrine afloat.

Are you capable of reading what others are saying and then specifically addressing what they say? It seems that you never do that. Where does Satan's little season fit into your understanding of things? Can you please address that? Am I asking too much of you?

You need to take an English course. It very specifically indicates that Satan's little season begins AFTER the thousand years ends. Why do you ignore that? Your view does not even allow for the possibility of Satan's little season to occur. Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit...

That is not talking about a different event than 1 Thess 4:14-17. It only matters if there are conflicting details in one passage that contradict details in another passage. In that case, they can't be speaking of the same event. But, that is not the case in the passages that talk about the...

Nonsense. The reason that the old covenant is called old is because it was made old and obsolete and replaced with the better new covenant. Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better...

Because of what you said and the fact that you sighed. What did you mean by what you said? I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you if you also believe that the new covenant was not in effect. I didn't say that you did. I don't know. That's why I asked. Say what now? Why would any...

I couldn't care less about that since that topic is not very important to me and, as I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another. Did you miss that I said that? Do you not have a strong opinion on the things we talk about on this forum? If not, why are you here to talk about...

What kind of response is this? Since you are not willing to even attempt to back up your beliefs with scripture, this comes across to me as an admission that you are not able to back up your beliefs with scripture. I think Isaiah 14 may indicate that Satan's name was Lucifer before he sinned...

I understand that you are completely incapable of backing up your beliefs with scripture and I understand that you are not willing to specifically address the points that others are making and you'd rather just ignore them instead.

Are you okay? That must have made you exhausted to actually give scripture references. Now, can you take the next step and show us where exactly in Isaiah 11 or Isaiah 2 that it teaches what you believe? Or is that too much to ask?

It's supposedly there, but you can't be bothered to show us even one place where it is there. LOL. Give us a break with this nonsense, please.

What? Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. You are trying to tell me that this is not referring to the physical birth of Jesus? Who is the "man child" here if not Jesus? Are...

Do you also believe that the new covenant is not in effect? I believe that is a non-Christian belief. It's like saying that Jesus has not shed His blood for our sins. Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured...