HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT: Why I believe this about the timing of the NHNE

[Zao is life]

Of course it is not literally meaning the feast of tabernacles. Some Premils might believe it is, but I don't. Yet I still believe some of Zechariah 14 is meaning post the 2nd coming, the fact verse 9 can't be fulfilled until verse 12 is fulfilled, and that verse 9 can't be fulfilled until Revelation 11:15 is fulfilled.

Yes but as you are aware I believe that the NHNE and the millennium both commence immediately after the second coming of Christ. So I have no problem with seeing the feast of tabernacles etc as symbolic. As for "the rest of the dead" in Zechariah 14;16, then we need to ask ourselves if it's correct to assume that Revelation 14:16 is NOT referring to the saved remnant of those citizens of the nations who came against Jerusalem, i.e those who were believers before the second coming.

Because if that is indeed the case then "every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem" is referring to the Christian remnant in the nations. I don't see it implied that they supported what their governments and armies were doing in attacking Jerusalem.

What I don't agree with, is that Revelation 11:15 is meaning 1 Corinthians 15:24, where it appears that @Spiritual Israelite says that you agree with him about. Except no matter how one looks at it, 1 Corinthians 15:24 can't even get fulfilled until the great white throne judgment is fulfilled first. Do you agree with him about those things? Or is he lying about that?

I don't see a problem with resurrected saints who had overcome the beast and who have the promise that the second death will have no authority over them, reigning with Christ under the authority of God the Father. Joseph reigned under the authority of Pharaoh and he no doubt had Egyptian servants.

like Adam did - and like the second Adam and the Son of man will.

Rev 11:15: He shall reign to the ages of the ages.
Rev 20:6 They shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Rev 22:5 They shall reign to the ages of the ages. (who are they?).

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

Only Pharaoh was excepted in respect of Joseph's absolute authority. I believe this is a type of Christ.

Question: When Christ begins to reign to the ages of the ages (Revelation 11:15), it means that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms

-- of whom?

Of our LORD and of HIS CHRIST (that's what it says).

So I have no problem with saints reigning with Christ under His authority for a thousand years, and Christ handing all authority back to God the Father, and God being all in all.

It's the way it was in Eden before Adam sinned.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15)

Not surprisingly the Amil who's always full of joker wiseguy remarks among us calls that "word salad". But he can never explain the massive holes scripture punches into his beliefs. So I'm not bothered about what he thinks, because it's based on fallacies and logical fallacies by the dozens.

 

[Zao is life]

Were his questions too difficult for you? How about you just answer 2 or 3 of them? The fact that you don't even attempt to answer one of them says a lot about your lack of being able to back up what you believe.

No it says a lot about his own inability to back up what he believes which is why he asks questions which pertain to whether or not someone believes in the gospel, so that he can twist the gospel (as you and he both often do), to support your Amil false doctrine.

I do not answer to people who list a long list of questions which pertain to whether or not I believe the gospel. I do not need to because I believed the gospel before I started studying scripture and I started studying scripture because I believed the gospel, and I believed the gospel through reading through scripture not because I was studying it to find the gospel but because someone told me there's a reference to reincarnation in scripture, which I believed in at the time so I wanted to use that "against" the beliefs of the Christians I knew.

Instead, I found the gospel.

I do not answer to people who list a long list of questions which pertain to whether or not I believe the gospel. They have no right to ask questions like that and the fact that they do in a Christian forum shows their desperation in their failed attempts to back up what they believe about the millennium without twisting the scriptures in order to make the scripture comply with Amil - which is what both of you are very good at (aside from continuously patting one another on the back).

Talking to the two of you is often like dealing with junior high school children who'd only recently 'learned everything".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No it says a lot about his own inability to back up what he believes which is why he asks questions which pertain to whether or not someone believes in the gospel, so that he can twist the gospel (as you and he both often do), to support your Amil false doctrine.

I do not answer to people who list a long list of questions which pertain to whether or not I believe the gospel. I do not need to because I believed the gospel before I started studying scripture and I started studying scripture because I believed the gospel, and I believed the gospel through reading through scripture not because I was studying it to find the gospel but because someone told me there's a reference to reincarnation in scripture, which I believed in at the time so I wanted to use that "against" the beliefs of the Christians I knew.

Instead, I found the gospel.

I do not answer to people who list a long list of questions which pertain to whether or not I believe the gospel. They have no right to ask questions like that and the fact that they do in a Christian forum shows their desperation in their failed attempts to back up what they believe about the millennium without twisting the scriptures in order to make the scripture comply with Amil - which is what both of you are very good at (aside from continuously patting one another on the back).

Talking to the two of you is often like dealing with junior high school children who'd only recently 'learned everything".

Are you paranoid or something? None of the questions pertained to whether or not you believe the gospel. Here are the questions again for reference:

1. Do you believe that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11)?
2. Do you believe that God's “counsel shall stand” and He “will do all” His good “pleasure” and because He has “spoken it’ He “will also bring it to pass” and because He has “purposed it” He “will also do it” (Isaiah 46:9-11)?
3. Do you believe “what” God’s “soul desireth, even that he doeth” – “he performeth the thing that is appointed for me” (Job 23:13-14)?
4. Do you believe that God “doeth according to his will … and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:34-35)? Or as the NKJV says: “No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"
5. Do you believe that Jesus currently possesses “All power [or authority] … in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18)?
6. Do you believe that “All things that the Father hath are” Christ’s (John 16:15)?
7. Do you believe that the Father has indeed given Jesus “power over all flesh” (John 17:2)?
8. Do you believe that “All things are delivered” unto Jesus of His “Father” (Matthew 11:27) and that He has “given all things into his (Christ’s) hand” (John 3:35 and John 13:3)?
9. Do you believe that Jesus “is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10)?
10. Do you believe that “angels and authorities and powers [are] being made subject unto him” (1 Peter 3:22 says)?
11. Do you believe that Christ has become "the ruler of God’s creation" (Revelation 3:14)?
12. Do you believe that our Lord is indeed "the ruler of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5)?
13. Do you believe what it says in 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 and Ephesians 1:20- that God “hath put (present tense) all things under his feet” and what Hebrews 1:8 tells us that He “hast put all things (present tense) in subjection under his feet”?
14. Do you believe that Jesus has already "spoiled principalities and powers ... made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it (the cross)" (Colossians 2:15)?
15. Do you believe that Christ currently “openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth" (Revelation 3:7)?

Which of these questions are asking if you believe the gospel or not? I don't see any like that. I think you don't want to answer them because they reveal flaws in your doctrine.

 

[Zao is life]

1. Do you believe that God's “counsel shall stand” and He “will do all” His good “pleasure” and because He has “spoken it’ He “will also bring it to pass” and because He has “purposed it” He “will also do it” (Isaiah 46:9-11)?
2. Do you believe “what” God’s “soul desireth, even that he doeth” – “he performeth the thing that is appointed for me” (Job 23:13-14)?
3. ​

Do you believe that God's “counsel shall stand” and He “will do all” His good “pleasure” and because He has “spoken it’ He “will also bring it to pass” and because He has “purposed it” He “will also do it” (Isaiah 46:9-11)?

Whatever God does, He does by His Word, and Christ is the Word of God. The gospel is by the Word of God.

None of the above questions are talking about the coming millennium. Only junior high-school students and people who find reincarnation in the scriptures would believe that linking the above questions to the coming millennium or to a symbolic millennium lasting thousands of years.

And only paranoid people like yourself who are good at patting one another on the back resort to nonsense like the above when desperate to find scripture in support of Amil, when without twisting scripture, there is none.

Now you answer your own questions and let your buddy answer his own questions and stop wasting my time.

 

[David in NJ]

I believe the above words without corrupting their meaning. You believe the corruption of the above words.

Being born is not being raised from the dead - whether of the flesh, or being born anew of the Spirit.

I believe the Word of God and I believe IN the Word of God and I know that my soul was not "resurrected from the dead" when the eternal Spirit of God gave me eternal life IN CHRIST in the day I was born of His Spirit.

You continue to hang onto the false doctrine that equates the above with a resurrection from the dead. No one's going to stop you.

Well, what is this supposed "corruption" of the words of JESUS ???

 

[Zao is life]

Well, what is this supposed "corruption" of the words of JESUS ???

You identified your corruption of the words of Jesus already by asserting that being born of the Spirit of God is the same as a human spirit or soul being "raised from the dead" 'spiritually'.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you believe that God's “counsel shall stand” and He “will do all” His good “pleasure” and because He has “spoken it’ He “will also bring it to pass” and because He has “purposed it” He “will also do it” (Isaiah 46:9-11)?

Whatever God does, He does by His Word, and Christ is the Word of God. The gospel is by the Word of God.

None of the above questions are talking about the coming millennium.

They all relate to whether or not you understand that the thousand years began with Christ's resurrection because that is when He began to reign. Your unwillingness to answer even one of them is very telling.

Only junior high-school students and people who find reincarnation in the scriptures would believe that linking the above questions to the coming millennium or to a symbolic millennium lasting thousands of years.

LOL. Your posts lately are just pure nonsense. I wonder if you have maybe lost your mind. Anyone who believes in a ridiculous theory that the dead will be raised to have their faith tested has no business trying to mock what others believe. Scripture is very clear that this lifetime is the time that people have to repent and believe or not. It teaches that today is the day and now is the time of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2) and not after people die.

And only paranoid people like yourself who are good at patting one another on the back resort to nonsense like the above when desperate to find scripture in support of Amil, when without twisting scripture, there is none.

Now you answer your own questions and let your buddy answer his own questions and stop wasting my time.

Translation: You are afraid to answer the questions because they expose your lack of understanding of Revelation 20.

 

[David in NJ]

You identified your corruption of the words of Jesus already by asserting that being born of the Spirit of God is the same as a human spirit or soul being "raised from the dead" 'spiritually'.

Is that not what JESUS specifically stated?

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

3Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

5Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

 

[WPM]

That's your problem, and the reason why I don't read what you say. You just proved yet again that you do not have enough respect for the scriptures not to realize it's not a matter of playing chess. Hence your abuse of the way you use scripture, in that most of the time the scriptures you quote do not say what you assert they are saying, but you assert the false doctrine based on your seemingly deliberate misinterpretations anyway, because you love your false doctrines more than scripture, and you think the Bible is your chess board.

LOL. No. Your doctrine cannot abide the scrutiny of Scripture. You know it! It is there for all to see. That's why you always run. That's why Premillennialist have to run from every conversation. Pick a subject and the reader will see that for themselves. Premil is extra-biblical. It is dead!

 

[David in NJ]

LOL. No. Your doctrine cannot abide the scrutiny of Scripture. You know it! It is there for all to see. That's why you always run. That's why Premillennialist have to run from every conversation. Pick a subject and the reader will see that for themselves. Premil is extra-biblical. It is dead!

Premillennialist have to run from every conversation.

lol

 

[Davidpt]

They all relate to whether or not you understand that the thousand years began with Christ's resurrection because that is when He began to reign. Your unwillingness to answer even one of them is very telling.


LOL. Your posts lately are just pure nonsense. I wonder if you have maybe lost your mind. Anyone who believes in a ridiculous theory that the dead will be raised to have their faith tested has no business trying to mock what others believe. Scripture is very clear that this lifetime is the time that people have to repent and believe or not. It teaches that today is the day and now is the time of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2) and not after people die.


Translation: You are afraid to answer the questions because they expose your lack of understanding of Revelation 20.

Actually, if Amil is true, the only thing that can possibly make sense out of those in Revelation 20:8 during the millennium, is that these are among the ones saved during the millennium, thus not deceived during the millennium. Then after after the millennium they are tested. The ones that are devoured by fire are the ones that fall away after the millennium. But per your view, you apparently have these already deceived during the millennium. You have no one that can fit anyone that falls away after the millennium. Can't be meaning anyone in verse 8 during the millennium, if during the millennium they are already deceived the fact they are not saved during the millennium.

Nor can those that fall away be meaning any of the camp of the saints after the millennium, the fact none of the camp of the saints meant get devoured by fire in the end. But the same wouldn't be true of anyone that falls away after your millennium, except during the millennium you apparently don't have anyone in verse 8 meaning anyone saved during the millennium. Therefore, your view can't even explain those that fall away after the millennium, what their status initially was during the millennium.

When I brought up things like this to you in the past on that other board you and I are members of, you indicated that it literally gave you a headache, that I was making this more complicated than it actually is. As if, assuming Amil is true, no one meant in Revelation 20:8 was ever saved during the millennium, therefore, there is actually no such thing as falling away after the millennium, which would equal NOSAS, since they were never saved to begin with, which then logically equals only OSAS is Biblical, NOSAS isn't. Which then contradicts that you agree NOSAS is Biblical.

In the event you can't quite follow me here, submit what I said to chatgpt and let it make it clear to you what all I am meaning here. Unlike some of us not being able to follow each other at times, it doesn't seem to be as affected by things like that.

IMO, what @Zao is life appears to be proposing is basically the same thing I'm proposing if Amil is supposed to be the correct position. Of course though, per Amil no initially saved that end up falling away would already be in immortal bodies when they fall away.

Obviously, @WPM is going to strike down my proposal the fact he does not believe NOSAS is Biblical. Which then makes me question what in the world does he then take falling away to mean? How can anyway fall away from something unless they were initially part of that something? 2 Thessalonians 2:3 alone defies his reasoning that NOSAS is not Biblical. He is reasoning through 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in the same manner that a Pretribber does. The latter has falling away meaning departing the earth during a secret Pretrib rapture. The former has it involving ones that were never saved to begin with. Neither the former nor the latter is remotely making sense of what falling away means in that context. But instead of high fiving me from time to time, continue high fiving @WPM instead, who is opposed to NOSAS not in agreement with it instead.

 

[Zao is life]

Actually, if Amil is true, the only thing that can possibly make sense out of those in Revelation 20:8 during the millennium, is that these are among the ones saved during the millennium, thus not deceived during the millennium. Then after after the millennium they are tested. The ones that are devoured by fire are the ones that fall away after the millennium. But per your view, you apparently have these already deceived during the millennium. You have no one that can fit anyone that falls away after the millennium. Can't be meaning anyone in verse 8 during the millennium, if during the millennium they are already deceived the fact they are not saved during the millennium.

Nor can those that fall away be meaning any of the camp of the saints after the millennium, the fact none of the camp of the saints meant get devoured by fire in the end. But the same wouldn't be true of anyone that falls away after your millennium, except during the millennium you apparently don't have anyone in verse 8 meaning anyone saved during the millennium. Therefore, your view can't even explain those that fall away after the millennium, what their status initially was during the millennium.

When I brought up things like this to you in the past on that other board you and I are members of, you indicated that it literally gave you a headache, that I was making this more complicated than it actually is. As if, assuming Amil is true, no one meant in Revelation 20:8 was ever saved during the millennium, therefore, there is actually no such thing as falling away after the millennium, which would equal NOSAS, since they were never saved to begin with, which then logically equals only OSAS is Biblical, NOSAS isn't. Which then contradicts that you agree NOSAS is Biblical.

In the event you can't quite follow me here, submit what I said to chatgpt and let it make it clear to you what all I am meaning here. Unlike some of us not being able to follow each other at times, it doesn't seem to be as affected by things like that.

IMO, what @Zao is life appears to be proposing is basically the same thing I'm proposing if Amil is supposed to be the correct position. Of course though, per Amil no initially saved that end up falling away would already be in immortal bodies when they fall away.

Obviously, @WPM is going to strike down my proposal the fact he does not believe NOSAS is Biblical. Which then makes me question what in the world does he then take falling away to mean? How can anyway fall away from something unless they were initially part of that something? 2 Thessalonians 2:3 alone defies his reasoning that NOSAS is not Biblical. He is reasoning through 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in the same manner that a Pretribber does. The latter has falling away meaning departing the earth during a secret Pretrib rapture. The former has it involving ones that were never saved to begin with. Neither the former nor the latter is remotely making sense of what falling away means in that context. But instead of high fiving me from time to time, continue high fiving @WPM instead, who is opposed to NOSAS not in agreement with it instead.

@WPM does not believe scripture. He believes what he makes of scripture, according to his own will and fancy. So it's not surprising that he does not believe in NOSAS. What is also not surprising is the amount of pats on the back he gets from @Spiritual Israelite, LOL.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Actually, if Amil is true, the only thing that can possibly make sense out of those in Revelation 20:8 during the millennium, is that these are among the ones saved during the millennium, thus not deceived during the millennium.

You don't even understand Amil, so why do you try to comment on it as if you understand it? You have proven many times that you don't.

There is nothing taught in Amil which demands that those who number "as the sand of the sea" in Revelation 20:8 are all saved during the millennium. Where are you even getting that idea from? Certainly not from any Amils.

Then after after the millennium they are tested.

What Amil claims this? Why do you constantly misreprsent Amil while acting as if you have any idea of what we believe? I'm tired of your constant nonsense and constant misrepresentations of Amil.

The ones that are devoured by fire are the ones that fall away after the millennium.

What Amil claims this?

But per your view, you apparently have these already deceived during the millennium.

So what? Amils do not see Satan's binding as referring to his general ability to deceive. Why do you not address what we actually believe? You have no idea how to debate. You are absolutely horrible at it. In order to debate an opposing view, you need to try to look at how those who hold the opposing view look at things and then address that. But, you never do that.

You have no one that can fit anyone that falls away after the millennium. Can't be meaning anyone in verse 8 during the millennium, if during the millennium they are already deceived the fact they are not saved during the millennium.

According to your flawed way of looking at things, maybe that would be true, but I couldn't care less about that. Obviously, if your belief that Satan's binding results in him being completely incapacitated and unable to deceive people or do anything at all was true, then Amil couldn't be true, but you are wrong about that. You need to look at what ALL of scripture teaches in order to understand what Revelation 20 is about. But, instead, you interpret Revelation 20 in isolation and that manipulate the rest of scripture to fit your understanding of Revelation 20.

Nor can those that fall away be meaning any of the camp of the saints after the millennium, the fact none of the camp of the saints meant get devoured by fire in the end. But the same wouldn't be true of anyone that falls away after your millennium, except during the millennium you apparently don't have anyone in verse 8 meaning anyone saved during the millennium. Therefore, your view can't even explain those that fall away after the millennium, what their status initially was during the millennium.

Yes, it can, but since you don't even understand my view, and clearly never will, it's pointless for me to try to explain it to you again. As long as you refuse to look at things from my perspective, you can't possibly understand what I believe.

When I brought up things like this to you in the past on that other board you and I are members of, you indicated that it literally gave you a headache, that I was making this more complicated than it actually is.

And I see that you still are doing that and you probably always will.

As if, assuming Amil is true, no one meant in Revelation 20:8 was ever saved during the millennium, therefore, there is actually no such thing as falling away after the millennium, which would equal NOSAS, since they were never saved to begin with, which then logically equals only OSAS is Biblical, NOSAS isn't. Which then contradicts that you agree NOSAS is Biblical.

LOL. You are being foolish. Why would I contradict my own beliefs? Stop spewing stupid nonsense like this. When have I ever said that no one could fall away after the millennium? Never. I actually believe that apostasy increases after the millennium and have said so many times. You just don't understand what I believe, so stop commenting on it. You just make a fool of yourself when you misrepresent what I believe constantly.

In the event you can't quite follow me here, submit what I said to chatgpt and let it make it clear to you what all I am meaning here. Unlike some of us not being able to follow each other at times, it doesn't seem to be as affected by things like that.

LOL. No, I'm not going to waste my time doing that.

IMO, what @Zao is life appears to be proposing is basically the same thing I'm proposing if Amil is supposed to be the correct position. Of course though, per Amil no initially saved that end up falling away would already be in immortal bodies when they fall away.

Obviously, @WPM is going to strike down my proposal the fact he does not believe NOSAS is Biblical. Which then makes me question what in the world does he then take falling away to mean? How can anyway fall away from something unless they were initially part of that something? 2 Thessalonians 2:3 alone defies his reasoning that NOSAS is not Biblical.

You trying to always make it about OSAS vs. NOSAS is just downright stupid. It's not about that. I am sick and tired of your foolish nonsense.

He is reasoning through 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in the same manner that a Pretribber does. The latter has falling away meaning departing the earth during a secret Pretrib rapture.

He does not interpret 2 Thess 2:3 to be talking about departing from the earth. Where do you come up with this insanity? And what in the world does this have to do with Amil vs. Premil? What a joke.

The former has it involving ones that were never saved to begin with. Neither the former nor the latter is remotely making sense of what falling away means in that context. But instead of high fiving me from time to time, continue high fiving @WPM instead, who is opposed to NOSAS not in agreement with it instead.

LOL. Have you not seen me debate him on here in relation to his Calvinist beliefs? I have done that a couple times. We have agreed to disagree. But, you want me to debate him about that again on this Eschatology forum? This is not the Soteriology forum. I'd prefer to discuss eschatology here and soteriology on that forum. How about you start a thread on the Soteriology forum and we can discuss OSAS vs. NOSAS there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@WPM does not believe scripture. He believes what he makes of scripture, according to his own will and fancy. So it's not surprising that he does not believe in NOSAS. What is also not surprising is the amount of pats on the back he gets from @Spiritual Israelite, LOL.

Are you jealous that I agree with his eschatology so much? LOL. You and Davidpt don't agree on everything, yet you pat each other on the back when you do agree. But, of course, that's okay if you do that despite disagreeing on other things. So hypocritical.

 

[Zao is life]

Are you jealous that I agree with his eschatology so much? LOL. You and Davidpt don't agree on everything, yet you pat each other on the back when you do agree. But, of course, that's okay if you do that despite disagreeing on other things. So hypocritical.

Except that half the time he pats you on the back not for your eschatology but for your sarcasm and sarcastic insults used against people who disagree with you, and then you pat him on the back not for his eschatology, but for patting you on the back.

Like I said, it's like talking to junior high school students who only recently discovered that "they know it all"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Except that half the time he pats you on the back not for your eschatology but for your sarcasm and sarcastic insults used against people who disagree with you, and then you pat him on the back not for his eschatology, but for patting you on the back.

Awwww. Are you going to cry? As if you haven't made many insults yourself? Give me a break with your hypocrisy already.

Like I said, it's like talking to junior high school students who only recently discovered that "they know it all"

Oh, there's nothing sarcastic about that statement, right? Maybe you shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Premillennialist have to run from every conversation.

lol

Finally, you have said something that I agree with.

 

[Zao is life]

Awwww. Are you going to cry? As if you haven't made many insults yourself? Give me a break with your hypocrisy already.


Oh, there's nothing sarcastic about that statement, right? Maybe you shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.

I'm not upset when I get no pat on the back from you. You're the last person who would upset me because of your absence of back-patting for my posts.

 

[Zao is life]

Premillennialist have to run from every conversation.

lol

He does not understand why Premils tend to stop reading his posts or responding to him. It's sad.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not upset when I get no pat on the back from you. You're the last person who would upset me because of your absence of back-patting for my posts.

I said nothing about you getting a pat on the back from me. You must be a narcissist.