A verdict in search of evidence.
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
You have been insulting me in this thread for days!
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
You have been insulting me in this thread for days!
I have not insulted anyone. I'm speaking the truth about false prophets. Only a false prophet would find that insulting.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
You have been insulting me in this thread for days!
I have not insulted anyone. I'm speaking the truth about false prophets. Only a false prophet would find that insulting.
No you aren't. You aren't speaking truth at all. You haven't even read what was presented so you have no idea if it is true or not.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
You have been insulting me in this thread for days!
I have not insulted anyone. I'm speaking the truth about false prophets. Only a false prophet would find that insulting.
No you aren't. You aren't speaking truth at all. You haven't even read what was presented so you have no idea if it is true or not.
I know Dispensationalists have no direct scripture support for most of their claims.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
You have been insulting me in this thread for days!
I have not insulted anyone. I'm speaking the truth about false prophets. Only a false prophet would find that insulting.
No you aren't. You aren't speaking truth at all. You haven't even read what was presented so you have no idea if it is true or not.
I know Dispensationalists have no direct scripture support for most of their claims.
No you don't because you don't even know what we believe.
-
There is a kind of people that are all mouth and no ears. This can result from past wounds.
-
@GaoLu said:
There is a kind of people that are all mouth and no ears. This can result from past wounds.And a dose of plain old pride and stubbornness.
-
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.
-
@GaoLu said:
There is a kind of people that are all mouth and no ears. This can result from past wounds.If you knew what you believed, you'd have solid scriptural support for it.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
You cannot provide direct quotes for a Gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, a 7 year tribulation, a pre-trib rapture, a revived Roman Empire, a physical millennial kingdom, and more.
You, likewise, cannot provide direct quotes for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you adhere to it. You have to piece multiple things together. That is a double standard.
Besides, The Nicene Creed rules out Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) showing that Amillennialism is the historic eschatology of the Church. "..according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
The Nicene Creed is not Scripture so, therefore, you just broke your own rules.
The doctrine of the trinity has plenty of direct support in scripture. You just won't find the word trinity in scripture.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of direct quotes from scripture. Dispensationalism doesn't even have a creed it is so full of holes.
Ok, clearly you don't want to have an honest discussion. Just admit it.
I would like nothing more for you to prove how honest you are by backing your claims with direct quotes from scripture.
I already have but you will not read it.
I'm not interested in your false prophets. If they had anything beyond smoke and mirrors you would have posted it by now.
That makes no sense. You aren't interested in truth or debate. You aren't even interested in Scripture. You are interested in your own ideas and what you believe to be true whether it is true or not.
Why not ask me to read something the Pope or Benny Hinn wrote while you're at it?
That's just insulting. Go back to Dave's world where you don't associate with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you and doesn't care whether or not something is supported by Scripture if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
False prophets are false prophets and nothing more.
And you sir are borderline.
I thought the forum was moving away from insults........
You have been insulting me in this thread for days!
I have not insulted anyone. I'm speaking the truth about false prophets. Only a false prophet would find that insulting.
No you aren't. You aren't speaking truth at all. You haven't even read what was presented so you have no idea if it is true or not.
I know Dispensationalists have no direct scripture support for most of their claims.
No you don't because you don't even know what we believe.
Anyone with a TV knows what you believe. It's all they hear and spend millions each year deceiving themselves.
-
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
I'm the one asking for scriptural support for your claims. Is that too much? Obviously....
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
I'm the one asking for scriptural support for your claims. Is that too much? Obviously....
Obviously not since I already posted it. Apparently, it is too much for a self-righteous person to read them though.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
I'm the one asking for scriptural support for your claims. Is that too much? Obviously....
Obviously not since I already posted it. Apparently, it is too much for a self-righteous person to read them though.
I want scripture, not a song and dance. I am no more interested in your propaganda than I am in the Benny Hinn's or the Pope's. If you can't stick to the bible, it says a lot about your beliefs.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
I'm the one asking for scriptural support for your claims. Is that too much? Obviously....
Obviously not since I already posted it. Apparently, it is too much for a self-righteous person to read them though.
I want scripture, not a song and dance. I am no more interested in your propaganda than I am in the Benny Hinn's or the Pope's. If you can't stick to the bible, it says a lot about your beliefs.
How do you know I didn't stick to the Bible Dave? And this is funny coming from someone who used the Nicene Creed earlier in this thread. Last time I checked that Creed isn't part of the Bible.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
I'm the one asking for scriptural support for your claims. Is that too much? Obviously....
Obviously not since I already posted it. Apparently, it is too much for a self-righteous person to read them though.
I want scripture, not a song and dance. I am no more interested in your propaganda than I am in the Benny Hinn's or the Pope's. If you can't stick to the bible, it says a lot about your beliefs.
How do you know I didn't stick to the Bible Dave? And this is funny coming from someone who used the Nicene Creed earlier in this thread. Last time I checked that Creed isn't part of the Bible.
How can you be "Reformed" without a creed?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I like all the dodges and maneuvers you boys substitute for not having direct scripture quotes to support you claims. Asking any "christian" for direct scriptural support for his beliefs and getting diversion instead suggests many things, none of which are good.The only one dodging in this thread is you Dave.
I'm the one asking for scriptural support for your claims. Is that too much? Obviously....
Obviously not since I already posted it. Apparently, it is too much for a self-righteous person to read them though.
I want scripture, not a song and dance. I am no more interested in your propaganda than I am in the Benny Hinn's or the Pope's. If you can't stick to the bible, it says a lot about your beliefs.
How do you know I didn't stick to the Bible Dave? And this is funny coming from someone who used the Nicene Creed earlier in this thread. Last time I checked that Creed isn't part of the Bible.
How can you be "Reformed" without a creed?
What does question have to do with anything? I'm not the one that claimed if you have to use other sources other than the Bible it says a lot about your beliefs. Now, you are the one that said that and then you broke your own rule and used the Nicene Creed which is a source other than Scripture.
