A verdict in search of evidence.
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
-
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
-
@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:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
-
@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:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
-
@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:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
-
@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:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
It didn't exist as a body of doctrine until the Jesuits propagated it. To remove the papacy from his role as Antichrist in the public eye.
And the 1000 years = Satan's binding, not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end (no longer exist).
-
@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:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
It didn't exist as a body of doctrine until the Jesuits propagated it. To remove the papacy from his role as Antichrist in the public eye.
That's what you been told, but not exactly true.
And the 1000 years = Satan's binding, not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end (no longer exist).
That's not what it says.
-
@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:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
It didn't exist as a body of doctrine until the Jesuits propagated it. To remove the papacy from his role as Antichrist in the public eye.
That's what you been told, but not exactly true.
And the 1000 years = Satan's binding, not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end (no longer exist).
That's not what it says.
If any, no matter how little Jesuit involvement exists, it should be enough to discourage any from taking the bait. Clarence Larkin (Dispy Yoda) says it is true in writing.
-
@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:
@reformed said:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
It didn't exist as a body of doctrine until the Jesuits propagated it. To remove the papacy from his role as Antichrist in the public eye.
That's what you been told, but not exactly true.
And the 1000 years = Satan's binding, not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end (no longer exist).
That's not what it says.
If any, no matter how little Jesuit involvement exists, it should be enough to discourage any from taking the bait. Clarence Larkin (Dispy Yoda) says it is true in writing.
Um, what about the church fathers? You still have not explained how Revelation 20 is not a physical reign of Christ either.
-
@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:
@reformed said:
@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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
It didn't exist as a body of doctrine until the Jesuits propagated it. To remove the papacy from his role as Antichrist in the public eye.
That's what you been told, but not exactly true.
And the 1000 years = Satan's binding, not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end (no longer exist).
That's not what it says.
If any, no matter how little Jesuit involvement exists, it should be enough to discourage any from taking the bait. Clarence Larkin (Dispy Yoda) says it is true in writing.
Um, what about the church fathers? You still have not explained how Revelation 20 is not a physical reign of Christ either.
After some time the church officially rejected premillennialism in the Nicene Creed.
"and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
Amillennialism became the accepted eschatology and remains so. Even though many premillennial sects exist.
Jesus was Amillennial mentioning only a present spiritual kingdom that would find completion in the New Heavens and earth.
-
@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:
@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:
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.
Let's not criticize creeds when we call ourselves "Reformed" based on nothing but creeds.
Dave is again moving the goalposts....you know if you just read the articles I submitted as opposed to going at great lengths to not have honest and open debate then we would be having meaningful discussion.
If you are so sure of your interpretation then there is no reason to not read those articles as you would easily be able to refute them.
Articles = crackpot interpretations trying to cover the fact they have no direct quotes from scripture saying most of what Dispensationalists say. = False prophets from the word go...........
Do you read study bible articles?
Do you watch everything that's on TV?
Can you not answer a straight question? Do you read study bible articles?
Only selectively. I do not read cults and sects however.
So you do read things other than the Bible. Therefore I can throw out 95% of the junk you have spouted off in this thread. Read the articles I submitted that have SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT AND EXPLANATION or else admit that you didn't really want a discussion after all.
I do not read lengthy posts. I might skim them. If you cannot say it simply in a few words, you do not understand it. I also do not read material contrary to clear bible teaching.
- You don't know it contradicts the Bible if you haven't read it. So that doesn't make any sense.
- Your response is just not true. If it is true, explain the Trinity in a few words. If you can't you don't understand it. Explain the love of God in a few words. Explain creation in a few words. Explain Christ in a few words.
What a stupid comment.
Do you read JW literature?
You are dodging again...
I'm saying I don't read anything coming from JW's or Dispensationalists. Both are false prophetic groups according to scripture.
JW yes, Dispensationalists, no.
Neither have solid scriptural backing for their claims. Both came out of the "prophecy outbreak) of the 1800s along with the Millerites, Mormons and other crackpot cults.
Actually Dispensationalism was present in the early church. It does have Scriptural backing. You however, claim there is no 1,000 year reign despite it being explicit in Scripture that there is one.
It didn't exist as a body of doctrine until the Jesuits propagated it. To remove the papacy from his role as Antichrist in the public eye.
That's what you been told, but not exactly true.
And the 1000 years = Satan's binding, not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end (no longer exist).
That's not what it says.
If any, no matter how little Jesuit involvement exists, it should be enough to discourage any from taking the bait. Clarence Larkin (Dispy Yoda) says it is true in writing.
Um, what about the church fathers? You still have not explained how Revelation 20 is not a physical reign of Christ either.
After some time the church officially rejected premillennialism in the Nicene Creed.
"and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end."
Amillennialism became the accepted eschatology and remains so. Even though many premillennial sects exist.
Jesus was Amillennial mentioning only a present spiritual kingdom that would find completion in the New Heavens and earth.
The Nicene Creed does nothing of the sort.
-
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".
-
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
The 1000 years are Satan's binding by the Saints. They are not the kingdom, still present after the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when the years end.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
The 1000 years are Satan's binding by the Saints. They are not the kingdom, still present after the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when the years end.
Dave there is no hope for you to have open and honest conversation is there?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
The 1000 years are Satan's binding by the Saints. They are not the kingdom, still present after the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when the years end.
Dave there is no hope for you to have open and honest conversation is there?
Where does scripture say the 1000 years are the "eternal Kingdom"? Scripture says the 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end, Satan is loosed to attack the "Kingdom".
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
The 1000 years are Satan's binding by the Saints. They are not the kingdom, still present after the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when the years end.
Dave there is no hope for you to have open and honest conversation is there?
Where does scripture say the 1000 years are the "eternal Kingdom"? Scripture says the 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end, Satan is loosed to attack the "Kingdom".
What is your point here? Either way it is a physical 1,000 years on earth. You can't get around that. So, for at least 1,000 years, the Kingdom is spiritual AND physical.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
The 1000 years are Satan's binding by the Saints. They are not the kingdom, still present after the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when the years end.
Dave there is no hope for you to have open and honest conversation is there?
Where does scripture say the 1000 years are the "eternal Kingdom"? Scripture says the 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end, Satan is loosed to attack the "Kingdom".
What is your point here? Either way it is a physical 1,000 years on earth. You can't get around that. So, for at least 1,000 years, the Kingdom is spiritual AND physical.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They symbolize Satan's binding by the saints who rule with Christ.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
"Kingdom without end" is not "kingdom for a measly 1000 years".Context Dave. Notice what comes BEFORE that line. Christ will return. And nobody said the kingdom is only for 1,000 years. Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom ends after 1,000 years.
This is just further proof you are attacking a theological system when you don't even know what it believes/teaches.
The 1000 years are Satan's binding by the Saints. They are not the kingdom, still present after the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when the years end.
Dave there is no hope for you to have open and honest conversation is there?
Where does scripture say the 1000 years are the "eternal Kingdom"? Scripture says the 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end, Satan is loosed to attack the "Kingdom".
What is your point here? Either way it is a physical 1,000 years on earth. You can't get around that. So, for at least 1,000 years, the Kingdom is spiritual AND physical.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They symbolize Satan's binding by the saints who rule with Christ.
That is your opinion.
