Search results

part 2... Nature of the Resurrection For clarity, the statement in question is: "If you don't believe that the resurrection is a literal event in which we rise from the earth, then you don't believe in a resurrection at all. Jesus leaves no room for a metaphorical interpretation." Obviously...

I should mention, before I start that I very much appreciate your replies. They have been thoughtful, informative, and written in a kind way. We may disagree on a lot, but I think this conversation has been fruitful. I think you may agree with this, but I highly doubt that this is a...

Thank you for your thoughtful response. In my estimation, however, you used some of the weaker texts you could have used to demonstrate the time statements. I doubt absolutely none of the texts you listed in that post. It seems the vast majority of the texts you provided fall into the following...

I should say for the record that I agree with a good amount of things that you stated. I mentioned the millennium because most preterists I know believe we are in the millennium. Either way, it is tangential to the discussion, so Il save that for another time. Regarding this age and the age to...

You keep saying that it is about the end of the Old Covenant. That seems the be the foundational piece of your argument. Regrading specific statements like "End of the Age" and "this age" vs "the age to come," what evidence do you have that these terms are about the Christian vs the Jewish age...

Well, I agree that there will be wickedness on all of the earth. Im sure a lot of scholars believe this to be a persuasive case. I'm more interested in their arguments than which scholars believe the view. At best, I think this could be used as a supporting argument for a cumulative case.

Now I agree with you that the last days will be very evil, but I think it is a mistake to use this passage to prove it. Analogies can be only taken so far. Consider a similar example: Matthew 12:40: For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the...

Well I first heard of the idea from Kenneth Gentry, although I am not a preterist. I continued to investigate the idea, and it seems to be the strongest connection to forehead and hand, considering the themes of both "Marks" are the same.

I can see where you are coming from. It certainly looks like at least some of the nations are being deceived by Satan, so where do we get the idea that he is bound? First, I want to address the argument that God is somehow weak if he gives Satan a long leash. This seems like just as poor...

I'm going to go ahead and move on from the physical vs spiritual argument, since I've said what I want, and it is at best a tangential issue. The Real issue is whether or not the binding is literal. I am not a preterist, so I don't know why you are trying to prove a futurist second coming to...

I think the Mark clearly is not literal when looking at the context. I consider it to be a Satanic counterfeit of the Seal on the foreheads of the faithful. I think John intended us to see this, which is why the heavenly seal appears immediately after the description of the Mark. I also consider...

I actually worded my statement very carefully to include the possibility of manifesting a physical form, because I was keenly aware for the passages you brought up. This is precisely why I added the words "per se". In other words, I'm arguing that Satan is not a physical being intrinsically...

No lol I mistyped. 2 Peter 3:10-13

Fair enough. I don't deny that the whole world includes the whole planet; I just don't think it has to mean the whole planet. Everything in Revelation is Jerusalem-centric. I also don't know how literally to take Seal 6. I guess I will know when I see it.

Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that Satan is indeed bound in some sense. What exactly to you think the scripture means when it says that Satan is bound? I also don't know what you mean by the binding of Satan being physical since he isn't really a physical being per se. Why should we take...

Before I comment on your overall interpretations, would you also explain what you believe 1 Peter 3:10-13 means?

Actually you and I are in full agreement about the millenium, although I'm more pessemistic about how long we have left. It also sounds like you are more Amillenial like me rather than postmillenial like many preterists. I am still wondering on which of Luke 21, Matthew 24, 1 Thess 4-5, 2 Thess...

Maybe this was answered earlier, but I'm late to the party here: 1) Are you a partial or full pretetist? 2) Which of the following do you consider completely fulfilled: Luke 21, Matthew 24, 1 Thess 4-5, 2 Thess 2, 1 Cor 15?

You had me scratching my head for a bit thinking about your placement of the palatial tents. Turns out my translation said "between the Sea and the glorious holy mountain" which I assumed to be the Mediterranean. Yet, it can also be translated "between the Seas, at the glorious holy mountain"...

Yes, I'm certainly aware of this. However, Paul said that the gospel had gone out to the whole world, even when he knew it hadn't gone literally everywhere. This is because the word for world also means land. If I say the whole land, that doesn't imply the whole globe, even in English. I agree...