Search results

You're not getting it. It is not talking about a literal physical stone throne. It is long gone. It is talking about the kingship of David - Israel's true kingship. It is talking about Him assuming David's place of authority over true Israel.

Peter disagrees with you in Acts 2:29-36, saying: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit...

These Scriptures forbid Premil. They make it impossible. The end is the end.

Why can you not just admit the real issue is: you have no rebuttal (and you know it)? Because of that, you have to deflect blame and take offence.

It doesn't matter what we deem heresy. It matters what Scripture deems heresy. Most orthodox believers consider the denial of the future physical return of Christ as heresy, including the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked and the judgment of both. 1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto...

Where is it required to put @ when communicating with someone? Are you saying Full Preterism is not heresy?

He already said that above. You need to read people's posts before you rebuke them.

First of all, I did address it to someone. You obviously missed it. I quoted: IndianaRob. Secondly, I've been interacting with him and cutting across his full Preterism, which is recognized throughout the broad Christian family as heresy (a denial of the literal, physical, visible future return...

You are identifying one difference with Chiliasm, as if that was it. But there are multiple differences between ancient Chiliasm and modern Premillennialism, a way more than what separates Amillennialism from Postmillennialism. Chiliasm and Premillennialism are completely different animals -...

The reality is: the ancient promoters of your error are all heretics. None of the early Chiliasts taught it. Quite the opposite! That is because it is unbiblical. The evidence is in the Op. There is no denying it. Facts are stubborn things. It is crystal clear. I also suspect you privately know...

In your estimation, is current ethnic Christ-rejecting Israel God's chosen people?

This is simply not true. Every time you claim this you are actually saying the opposite. You are totally anti-Amil. There is no reasoning with you. There is no objectivity in your arguments. You have zero corroboration for your view of Revelation 20. You also spiritualize away multiple literal...

Go away!

LOL. The insults were your own words. You are sinking yourself.

You are describing yourself.

David said: "I said the following to Chatgpt earlier: It seems to me then that Irenaeus' theology can't fully fit a Premil nor an Amil framework. Because, what Premil today would agree that Revelation 20:2 is meaning at the cross? And what Amil today would agree that the millennium doesn't...

2 of your fellow Premil (Shepherd and David) actually acknowledged that their interpretation of Irenaeus in Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7 was wrong. They apologized for not being honest to the text and twisting it to support their own position. It is time for you to do the same. For...

So, you have no evidence to rebut my claims! That is what I have been saying. That is because there is no evidence. That may indeed explain your constant frustration on this subject. The evidence does not back up your claims.

I simply called out your constant avoidance. You took unnecessary offence. This has become a pattern over years. If you can move on, and grow up, we can restart a conversation. My suspicion is: you wanted out of this discussion because you were out of your depth, and were twisting what the early...