Search results

It seems like everyone is angry if they opose you. You can taunt us about being blind and idolatrous and that is cool. But when we call out your insults we are angry. You lost the debate a long time ago. Now you are back to avoidance and derailing.

Totally agree.

The context of this is your false labelling of Amils as Replacement Theologians that you deliberately and constantly do despite being shown what we believe. We can only conclude you do it as a slur so as to agitate your opponents. If you were sincere here you would stop your false accusations.

Matt 27:44-57 35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots… 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth...

Who is jabbing now?

I am not thinking the worst. I have no desire to jab. I would like you to be fair and objective, even if the evidence is difficult for your case. What is more, I am furnishing you with research that has taken considerable study and do not appreciate your constantly overlooking it when it is at...

I am done talking with you. You cannot even address the initial post i gave that showed that Paradise = the third heaven = the New Jerusalem. This demolished your whole thesis. Once that was gone you had nothing. Thanks!

You just avoided the evidence presented and are now attempting to deviate off in another direction. That is always a sign of concealing error. Please check your NT before coming out with stuff like this. I should not need to show you this if you have a NT at home. Jesus said in Matthew 22:32...

I'm not sure who has taught you this or whether you have truly tried to put the inspired dots together but this is totally unbiblical. Let us let Scripture speak for itself. It shows that paradise = the third heaven = the New Jerusalem In the New Testament, Paradise becomes synonymous with...

The historic facts contradict your opinion: The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house." Now we were the vessels...

This is simply not true. Like ancient and modern Amillennialists, Irenaeus believed in the current binding of Satan. He believed this happened through the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. He also believed in the destruction of Satan at the second coming. This meant he did not see him...

The Church without any division is a distinct unitary nation. It is a holy nation. Natural ethnicity means nothing within it. Christians have their spiritual citizenship in heaven. There is no such thing as Christian nations today in the NT. That is your own invention. The problem with your...

It is not my aim to be disrespectful. I am here to engage with those who want to address the issues. It is hard to interact with you due to the tactics you employ. You are constantly avoiding the historic data or twisting it to suit your theological purposes. If the facts don't support what you...

Where does it mention "Christian nations" in the Bible? This seems to be another invention of your.

Not true. You are an out-and-out advocate of RT and religious apartheid. · Who are the European "Christian" nations that you speak about? · Maybe you could name these "entire nations" that "have [supposedly] professed the Gospel, and ... can be considered to have been part of...

1. Irenaeus makes no mention of the second coming. Where is it? Please stop avoiding this! 2. Irenaeus makes it abundantly clear here that “the foe [Satan] was conquered.” He was not describing some future event. He was looking at a past victory which has resulted in an incredible ongoing...

This is another cop-out. You cherry-pick what you respond to, twist what exposes your error and duck around the overall message. That is the only way your thesis survives. Amils reject the apartheid you promote under the new covenant. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect...

LOL. Brilliant! I need to use that one!

Where in any of the writings of the ECFs do they teach 2 bindings? Nowhere! You are inventing that to suit your argument. That is what you do. You cannot even quote one reference to the binding of Satan at the second coming, because you do not have it. When i have showed you multiple quotes from...

I will take this as an admission that you have nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. That sums up your whole opposition on this thread. Where is the silver bullet? Nowhere! It does not exist. As the reader can see: · Your fight is with Irenaeus. · Your fight is with the facts. ·...