Search results

This is just yet another of your weak arguments that aren't supported by scripture. And you noticeably didn't even bother addressing what I said in my post. Is that because you know you can't deny what I said? I will assume so. I'm trying to get you to support your claims with scriputre and you...

You need to get some help with reading comprehension. Take a little more time to read posts so that you don't miss things all the time. We both pointed out that Jesus is the one opening the seals in heaven and it shows Him as opening the seventh seal. Where does He open the seals? In heaven...

LOL. What kind of an argument is this? Both passages talk about His coming from heaven. Your argument seems to be that they can't be the same event just because they don't contain all the same details. What nonsense. Are there any contradictory details between the two passages? No. So, what is...

You understand that we all believe that, right? Who are you arguing with here? Amillennialists agree with that (no general resurrection until after the thousand years)

What was your reasoning for pointing that out? When it says that the dead in Christ will rise first it's talking about them being resurrected, right? So, what different does it make if the word "resurrection" was used there or not?

Say what now? Not sure what you're talking about. It hasn't gone anywhere. Do you think you display that on this forum all the time? Hardly. Don't judge me, Randy. Deal with yourself first. Is that how you think you come across on here? LOL. Hardly. Please don't preach to me, Randy. I don't need...

LOL. You have nothing to back this up. Other scripture like 2 Thess 1:7-10 and 2 Timothy 4:1 indicate that he will be judging unbelievers at His second coming as well. So, why deny that? Why do you not want to use clear scriptures like these as the part of the foundation of your doctrine...

Then prove it! You're all talk. You do NOTHING to back up your claims. Matthew 25:31-46 SPECIFICALLY says it's about His coming with His angels and you still deny that it's about His second coming! Unbelievable! You lost all credibility with that one. If you had any to begin with. You are all...

Right. 2 Thess 1:7-10 shows Him rewarding believers and punishing unbelievers on the day He returns just like Matthew 25:31-46 portrays. The only way someone could deny that Matthew 25:31-46 will occur at His second coming is due to desperation to keep one's doctrine afloat.

No one is going to listen to you after this thread. Your nonsense has been exposed. Denying that Matthew 25:31 is about the second coming takes the cake. No one can take you seriously after that claim. Are you going to claim that Matthew 25:1-13 and Matthew 25:14-30 are also not about the second...

Have you ever seen someone deny that Matthew 25:31 is about Christ's second coming before? It smacks of complete desperation.

But, that is exactly what Jesus taught. And that is exactly what Peter taught as well. 2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things...

LOL! This is doctrinal bias at its absolute worst. For anyone to say that Matthew 25:31 is not the second coming requires someone to throw away all logic and common sense and to be as biased as possible. Is Jesus going to be coming in His glory with His angels multiple times in the future...

Yet, you acknowledge by your interpretation of Matthew 13:47-50 that the GWTJ will occur at the end of the age. Jesus will return at the end of the age. You're not putting two and two together here because you base your interpretation of the rest of scripture on your interpretation of Revelation...

It's so clear. But ewq has no grasp of the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture, so that's why he can't see how this scriptures are directly related.

Can someone die after putting on immortality? If not, does that not mean they are immortal, which just means they can't die? You waste so much time with these useless arguments over semantics. It's all you have. You're unable to form a coherent argument to back up anything you say, so you resort...

Yes, they are. You are clueless. Why does it have to be the entire earth burned up and annihilated? Peter also talked about the earth being destroyed by the flood, but does that mean the earth was annihilated? Try something else. This argument you're trying to use is as weak as can be.

You can see that Matthew 13:47-50 is about the end of the age, right? You don't believe that Jesus will return at the end of the age? That is implied in the Olivet Discourse. Do you think He was asked 3 different questions in the Olivet Discourse (one about the timing of the destruction of the...

I couldn't care less if you do or not. I'm not closed-minded on this. I have told you, what, 4 or 5 times now, why I view it the way I do. So I put more stock into what Justin Martyr said then what you do. So be it. But, that doesn't mean I'm closed-minded. Well, I'm glad that you don't have a...

This is all assumptions on your part. Nothing more. Where else are the souls of the dead in Christ except in heaven? You are clueless. In 2 Peter 3:5-7 the scope of this event is compared directly to what happened with the flood, so I think it's a reasonable assumption that it's talking about...