Search results

In scripture? It doesn't tell us that specifically in scripture. There is information given online about what happened to those churchest, so you can look that up for yourself. They obviously don't still exist today. What is your point here? Stop playing games and get to the point.

Agree. These scriptures you're sharing are very clear and straightforward. Premils deny that and twist and blatantly manipulate those passages to say something completely different than what they clearly indicate. And, when we look at the parallel account of that same event that Paul gives in 1...

Notice how his view is based on major assumptions that he makes about passages that make no mention of the rapture whatsoever. His beliefs come only from his imagination. Premils on this forum prove the point I made about the difference between Premils and Amils over and over again. Premil (and...

Why is that? Are you somehow not aware that the disciples were mistaken about a number of things at that time? Should we go by their understanding at the time or by what Jesus understood instead? For example, the disciples at that time probably would have assumed the gathering of the elect would...

As is typical of you, you completely ignored my argument and didn't address it at all. You are completely ignoring the context of what Hebrews 10:37 is referring to. The "little while" is not in reference to how long it would be until Jesus came, but rather would be the time of God's wrath that...

He actually thinks that the things he imagines in his mind are all the evidence he needs to back up his opinions. He would make for a terrible lawyer. He would just make claims without providing any evidence and think that would be enough to win the case.

That's true. It is designed to assume that the one giving the input actually has an idea of what they're talking about and it gives feedback according to the biased input being fed to it that manipulates it to agree with the person using it.

Matthew 22:1-7 and Luke 19:41-44 make it abundantly clear that the destruction of Jerusalem was God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews. Douggg just has a habit of denying the obvious because he only goes by whatever he wants scripture to say.

So many words to say nothing while denying the obvious, which is that Jesus DID answer their question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. I've never seen a more blatant twisting of scripture than this while denying something so obvious just to make the text say what you want it...

You have no understanding of Bible prophecy whatsoever. You prove that over and over again. You make up new definitions for words to make scripture say what you want it to say, such as when you define the word generation as the average human life span to support your false understanding of...

He is replacing the Holy Spirit with AI as His source of spiritual wisdom. When I read a passage like 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 I don't see any mention of needing to rely on AI for spiritual wisdom. Right. It simply returns feedback based on whatever it finds on the Internet. It is 100%...

LOL. What is your point here? You think you're proving something because scripture doesn't talk about what happened to those churches after Revelation was written? What a joke! Are you for real? You said you believe they were seven actual churches, so what is the point you're trying to make here?

LOL. Matthew 22:1-7 and Luke 19:41-44 both clearly show that the unbelieving Jews would be punished for their rejection of Christ. Jesus said "They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 19:44). Clearly, what happened in 70 AD...

He won't address what those Chiliasts actually wrote. He just assume that it's not possible that they could have believed something that doesn't make sense to him, but they did. They didn't base their doctrine entirely on Revelation 20 like modern Premils do, but he doesn't even understand that...

It's a complete joke. He thinks his baseless claims that he makes while providing no evidence whatsoever to back them up are facts. It's utterly ridiculous. How can anyone take him seriously?

You make claims as if they are facts while providing ZERO evidence to back them up. Why should anyone just take your word for anything? You are being lazy and not making any effort to provide any evidence at all to back up your assumptions.

You are agreeing with someone who, unlike you, is able to discern that the rest of the beasts are the first three beasts that represent the ancient Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Greek empires. He is not agreeing with you that those empires continue to exist after Jesus returns since they are no...

LOL. You say "Yep"? You said the rest of the beasts were Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece. So, you are saying "yep" to those empires still existing after Jesus returns like the person you're saying "Yep" to is claiming? World empires that are long gone? I can't imagine you agree with him about...

So, why do you think Daniel 7:12 has anything to do with Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece existing after Christ returns? I clearly have nothing to learn from you, so you can keep that imaginary knowledge to yourself.

The four beasts refer to four successive kingdoms (world empires), so Daniel 7:12 is a parenthetical verse describing what happened to the previous kingdoms which were already gone before the fourth beast is destroyed. They are not four kingdoms that are in power at the same time. Daniel 7:7...