Search results

There is no difference between being "in Jesus" and "in Christ" since Jesus is the Christ. To suggest there is a difference is what is complete nonsense and ridiculous. And everyone here knows that except you.

What? Are you saying we CAN talk face to face here? Is calling someone "delusional" addressing the teaching or the teacher? Don't think you are fooling anyone here. You are a hypocrite. You have nothing to say to anyone else about a lack of humility and grace. Stop being so hypocritical...

What scripture do you have to back this up? Look at this verse: Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. So, this...

I said that you "just spout a bunch of opinions without any scripture, which isn't going to convince anyone of anything.". Is there something hard to understand about what I said? Do you think your opinions alone mean anything without scriptural support? They don't. LOL. You are incapable of...

Mostly agree, but I would say that the wall makes more sense than he does.

You showed me that you don't have a clue about Scripture and that you are willing to go to any length, including inventing this nonsense about there being a difference between being "IN Jesus" and "IN Christ", to keep your doctrine afloat. Now you're resorting to lying? I would never think it's...

You have nothing to say. You can't be taken seriously at all. You say the first resurrection is future. That would mean the thousand years would have to be future as well because the text indicates that those who have part in the first resurrection reign with Christ for a thousand years, after...

This is an online forum. We can't talk to each other face to face here. And you have given a lot of personal insults on here. You say you don't care about that, yet you reported me for doing that. Looks like you do care about that. I would say everything I've said on here right to your face...

Haha. No kidding. Hilarious.

Agree. His doctrine is completely messed up because it mixes Premil and Amil beliefs together into a unique doctrine all his own.

Rev 20:5 is not saying that the first resurrection occurs when the thousand years are finished. The first sentence in verse 5 is a parenthetical statement and has nothing to do with the first resurrection. Instead, it has to do with the resurrection of "the rest of the dead". The rest of the...

Yep. That's what he does. He thinks it's enough to just reference chapters and verses, but he does nothing to show how those verses supposedly support his doctrine. Anyone can just list verses, but that means nothing if you can't show how they support your doctrine.

How can you be an Amil and say this? Those who have part in the first resurrection reign with Christ during the thousand years, so if the first resurrection didn't happen until the future then the thousand years would have to occur afterwards as Premils believe.

What is that supposed to mean? Not even close. I am an Amillennialist. You clearly have no idea of what I believe.

I understand that you have trouble communicating clearly for some reason.

Yeah, I see that. What was your point in posting it? No. That is clearly not the case. How in the world can you think that a book that talks about things like a lamb standing amongst seven golden lampstands, a dragon and a beast who both have seven heads and ten horns, a woman who is also a...

Good grief. Are you for real? Do you really want to waste time with semantics? I don't and I'm not going to. I don't care what you want to call it. They can be considered metaphors or symbols. Figurative text. Whatever you want to call it. The point is that it's not literal. Here is one...

LOL. Only a few signs? Wow. This is the problem with Premils. They think most of the book of Revelation is literal with a little bit of signs/symbolism thrown in, but the reality is that it's mostly filled with signs/symbols with some literal text mixed in.

Are you even thinking about this? Jesus is a firstfruit in the sense of being the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. The firstfruits in James 1 were the Jewish believers that James was writing to. They were the firstfruits in the sense of being the first Christians.

LOL!!!! It's a complete waste of time to refute this ridiculous nonsense that only you believe. By making this ludicrous differentiation between being in Christ and being in Jesus, it shows that you will go to any length to try to keep your false doctrine afloat.