Search results

Thank God that none of the Reformers were dispensational futurists. The Protestant Church and forums such as this would not exist without their faith, vision, and sacrifice.

A literalist castigating others for being literal! Imagine that.

You didn't answer the question. You claim to be literal, so where did you find the literal snake?

Where did you find the snake?

So you, as someone who believes the Bible literally, believe that Genesis 3:15 has come to pass literally. Would you care to cite the Scriptures which show that Genesis 3:15 has come to pass literally? For a start, of course, you'll have to locate the actual snake that God was talking to. But...

So you, as someone who believes the Bible literally, believe that Genesis 3:15 has come to pass literally. Would you care to cite the Scriptures which show that Genesis 3:15 has come to pass literally? For a start, of course, you'll have to locate the actual snake that God was talking to. But...

It has not come to pass literally. It has come to pass spiritually.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Scripture does not say this has come to pass.

Yes, that was Irenaeus' understanding. However, he derived that understanding independent of Luke 21:20, for he makes no mention of the Roman armies referenced in that verse. There are three inter-corroborating texts: Daniel 9:26-27, Matthew 24:15, and Luke 21:20. Matthew 24:15 refers to...

Irenaeus got the years right. But he neglected to read Luke 21:20 to identify the abomination of desolation.

There is no "antichrist" in the text. That is modernist dispensational futurist delusion. There is no "Titus" in the text. That is modernist dispensational futurist delusion. There is only one individual identified as a prince in the passage. He is Messiah. You're spouting the classic...

Untrue. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think...

Amillennialism, in recognizing the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God in Christ and His Gospel since His first coming (Mark 1:14-15), is the antithesis of futurism. It was the dominant view of the Reformers.

Infant baptism is a farce, but your second cutoff of Messiah is not a farce?

Tell us about your second cutoff of Messiah.

Daniel 9:27a: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week... The grammatical antecedent/referent of "he" in Daniel 9:27a is the "prince" in Daniel 9:26, whom you claim is Titus. What covenant did Titus confirm with many for one week?

Until you can cease your blasphemous attempts to contort Christ into antichrist, you should leave this prophecy to the united testimony of historic Christianity and those who have faithfully proclaimed and adhered to it for two millennia.

He is already called Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25. Capitalization is irrelevant. :laughing: So Anti-Christ is a CATCH ALL for Messiah in Daniel 9:26. Riiiiiiiiight. There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9:25-26. He is Messiah. The grammatical...

You falsely believe that Messiah is cut off again in your false fantasy future. AKA a one-man cult.

Not in Revelation 1:5. Identify the word "Anti-Christ" in the verse. Then identify the OT Hebrew or Aramaic word for "Anti-Christ". Then throw your Scofield RB back in the round file from whence it came.