Search results

Are you saying you believe that Jesus gave the discourse recorded in Matthew 24 on a completely different day than He gave the discourse recorded in Luke 21? What evidence do you have to back that up? That would mean the disciples on two separate occasions marveled at the temple buildings and...

Absolutely. And then there is this passage which shows that being a true Jew has nothing to do with anything physical, either. Romans 2:28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and...

If that was the case it should be easy for you to refute my claims, yet you are completely unable to do so. You are an immature child and everyone here can see that. And LOL at you calling anyone else rude and elementary. That's a good one.

No, I fail to take you seriously, which is a good thing.

Show me where in Revelation 19 that Jesus said He would return before the thousand years. Which verse? It looks like you're lying again. You do know that lying is wrong, right? Or don't you?

He was Amil, but I doubt he participated in Amil vs. Premil debates at the time. Anyway, for some reason he didn't realize that some Premils are not aware that the word "thousand" is sometimes used figuratively in scripture. It depends on what you mean. When you say "literal binding" are you...

Typical immature response. This is all you have in response? I guess you don't care about what is written in the NT in regards to OT prophecies? I can't take you seriously and will not waste any more of my time on a child like you. Regardless, you have convinced me that you have a low level of...

LOL! Are you for real? He is condemning his own Amil view, eh? No, he's not. Why do you have to lie all the time? I'm truly amazed at how some people on here are willing to blatantly lie about what others are saying and what they believe. You do know that lying is wrong, right?

Well said. You had made a great point and, as usual, it was ignored. Paul clearly indicated that Satan is the one who is behind the man of sin's activities and he is the one who leads many to fall away from the faith during the time period just before the return of Christ. That shows he is...

Similarly, I don't interpret the thousand years of Revelation 20 in isolation, but based on the whole counsel of Scripture based on all verses that talk about Christ reigning, His people reigning as priests, the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment. Why would that be? I don't believe...

That is not true. Why are you lying like this? Here is how the verse is written in the KJV: 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the...

No, I don't. Show me where I indicated that. Good luck. What? You speak unintelligible gibberish. God was just making a joke? What in the world? What do you think "a thousand generations" means in Deuteronomy 7:9? What do you think "a thousand hills" means in Psalm 50:10? Why would I think...

You missed the point. I was talking about this verse: 2 Peter 3:13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. I assume you understand "his promise" refers to the promise of His coming that was first mentioned in 2 Peter...

That is simply not true. We can't use any grammar rules or anything else to determine whether the thousand years is literal. We need to use spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit and we need to use other scripture to help us so that we don't interpret it in such a way that contradicts other...

I don't ask questions for no reason, so of course I'm interested in what scriptures you base your beliefs on. For reference, this is what I had said that you responded to here: So, in particular, I'd like you to show me the verses which show the purpose of the offerings you believe will be made...

Where did Jesus claim that He would return before the thousand years?

LOL. You can't be taken seriously when you try to say that Adam was 1,930 years old when he died. Not that you could be taken seriously, anyway, but things like this just make it impossible to take you seriously.

You understand that I'm not saying that it can't refer to a time period, right? I believe it is referring to a time period in a verse like Revelation 17:10 rather than a literal one hour (60 minutes). The point here is that you seemed to think that there is something in the text itself which...

Yes, shameful. You are trying to change the definition of the word "after" to fit your doctrine. No, they are not. Him being cut off AFTER the 69th week, as Daniel 9:26 says, moves His death and resurrection into the 70th week. Not shameful at all. Quite the opposite because I'm not resorting to...

Who is spiritual Israel replacing, keeping in mind that he's not saying that there is only one Israel which is the church. He (and Amils in general) is saying that there is spiritual Israel, which is the church, but then there is also the separate entity of national Israel.