Search results

I'm sorry, what is your point? You seem to think you clarified it, but I don't have a clue of what your point is here. I showed that the clothes are only a symbolic reference, as is clearly seen in Revelation 19:8. You are trying to deny this? Good grief. John made it clear that the fine linen...

Yes, the Jews of that time had such a great track record for accurately understanding the future. :rolleyes: ;)

Jesus said the sheep will inherit "eternal life" in "the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt 25:34,46). That is what you call being in torment? And since when does "eternal life" equate to 1,000 years? :jest::Laughingoutloud:

So, you left out the part that refutes your understanding of the passage because...? I guess it was just a coincidence that you left that part out that shows Jesus being led into the presence of the Father which is something that clearly relates to His ascension rather than His second coming.

In my view you are just completely disregarding what Peter taught in favor of your understanding of OT text. He said the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. That is a clear statement, isn't it? No need to look at the OT text to understand what he was saying there. So, how can a...

Did you read my post or not? I think I was clear. You misused the word consummation. Do you understand that now or not?

You deny the truth that Jesus is God and created all things. You have no credibility whatsoever.

He explained what the prophets wrote in a straightforward way. That's what you're not getting. You should listen to him. You need to learn to allow the NT to interpret the OT for you.

Many does not have to mean not all. Daniel 12:1-2 is talking about the same thing as John 5:28-29 where Jesus said a time is coming when ALL of the dead will be raised. The word "many" in Daniel 12:2 refers to the number of those who will be resurrected (many, a multitude) and not to a subset of...

You are an immature child that I can't take seriously.

We won't face judgment in terms of condemnation, but we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of ourselves (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Matthew 25:31-46) and that is probably what he was talking about.

You can't possibly be any more blind than someone who denies that Jesus is God. You lost all credibility once you revealed that.

It tells us that. Your attention to detail is lacking. Revelation 19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.) It's not talking about literal fine linen here. The fine linen symbolically represents "the righteous...

This is weak. You should not have left that out. It talks about Jesus being led into the presence of the Father and Him then being given "authority, glory and sovereign power", which, according to Ephesians 1:19-23, is exactly what He was given when He ascended to heaven and was placed at the...

I don't believe you can support your beliefs with NT references. It figures that you would try to say that you don't need to do that. I believe that you do if you want to be taken seriously. Buddy, you talk about others being rude and acting like "a gang of thugs" and then you say something...

Why did you act like you were being clear then? You came across like I should have known what you were talking about. Where are you seeing that He calls His church up to heaven to put on heavenly clothing? Where are we told that? Of course, Randy. You don't need to explain that to me. No...

Yep. Where else would Jesus be led into God the Father's presence than in heaven? That Daniel 7:13-14 passage lines up perfectly with other scripture that refers to His ascension like Ephesians 1:19-23 and the passage you referenced in Revelation 5.

It was a very questionable thing to do, to say the least. Did he not include that part because he knows that part doesn't support his doctrine? I think so.

And you conveniently left out the part that does not support the points you're making. Why did you resort to such a dishonest tactic, Randy? That does not reflect well on your character at all. He's not doing that. He only said what he did because he didn't realize you didn't quote the whole...

He wasn't quoting from a bad translation. He just left some of it out. He did not quote the entire passage. He left out the part about the Son of Man (Jesus) being led into the presence of the Ancient of Days (God the Father). You have to wonder why he did that. The passage is clearly about the...