Search results

It is a totally destructive climactic return. There is no space for your paradigm. That is why you ignore so much Scripture. Your rebuttal is your own opinions.

You totally skipped round every single Scripture I presented. Premils have to! You seem to make it up as you go. This is ludicrous. Zero support. All we have is your private interpretation. No evidence.

Ok!!! Yes it does! The reference relating to those who desire deliverance from the present condition of “the bondage of corruption” is not restricted to the redeemed of God alone (those who “have the firstfruits of the Spirit”). The hope is more comprehensive. This passage tells us that the...

You keep throwing out these evasive sweeping personal statements without any type of biblical support. That is because you're just voicing your own opinions. Where is your evidence? I just gave you clear and compelling other Scripture that supports the Amil view of Rev 20. Where is yours?

You are just admitting what the rest of us already know: Premil is a non-corroborative doctrine. It enjoys zero support elsewhere in Scripture. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 is unbiblical and contradicts numerous climactic Scripture. You interpret every Scripture through the lens of...

What other Scriptures corroborate your opinion of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct future resurrection days separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Revelation 2:25-27: “And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end [Gr. telos], to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule [Gr. poimaino] them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be ‘broken to shivers’ [Gr. suntribo]: even as I received of my...

So, what "portions of Scripture" do I reject?

Speak for yourself. You are unable to rebut my claim. If you had supporting Scripture, you would doubtless present it. I am willing to give you support for Amil's placement of everything. But the burden of proof is with you to show us corroboration for all your main tenets. All I see for your...

We have the "last days" (plural) which refer to the intra-Advent period and the "last day" (singular) that refer to resurrection/judgment day. This is the end.

Premils constant avoidance of the Op (and Amil arguments) only serves to reinforce the fact that the Op is pretty watertight. That alone is a testimony to the strength of the Amil position and the great lack in the Premil position. Revelation is full of recaps. Revelation 20 is the last of 7...

Peter is directly responding to the wicked in this narrative. That is the context here. He is directly responding to the derision of "the last days scoffers." His whole writing here is a solemn warning to them of the folly of their mocking. Like Christ and the other New Testament writers, Peter...

This is what i previously asked: where is your support for your opinion of Revelation 20? Where? Corroboration to Premils tend to be interpreting their opinion of Revelation 20 by their opinion of Revelation 20. It is ridiculous. That is all they have. I am happy to show you why Revelation 20...

This is more proof of how Premils force a square peg into a round hole. It simply doesn't fit. You prove my thesis: you interpret every Scripture through the lens of your mistaken view of Rev 20. That is your misguided obsession. Amils prefers what Paul the apostle in their hermeneutics: "what...

The Scripture I presented forbids your thesis. All you are bringing to the table is your mistaken location of Revelation 20 which contradicts all the Scripture. Where is your support for your opinion of Revelation 20?

I refer you back to the Op. I am not interested in your personal attacks. That seems to be all you want to do here. If you are interested in discussing Scripture then do that. If not, then I do not know why you are here, apart from attack fellow believers or derail the thread.

What is "personal" in the Op? Nothing! Again, if you had something you would quote it. I suspect your avoidance/frustration emanates from the fact that the Scriptures presented are so clear and compelling. You can certainly challenge my opinions, but, I do not know how Premils could refute (or...

I take this as a compliment. If there were holes in the Op you would be the first to expose them.

How about addressing the Op instead of trying to belittle others?

Can you address the fiery second coming passages I presented that challenges your claims.