What is the difference in the rapture and the second coming?

[Guest shiloh357]

Asking her to back up her facts isn't bullying.   It's calling on her to prove her case instead of ignoring the same questions over and over.

[JohnD]

If Satan is bound, then I should not have to resist him.   If Satan is bound, then why does the Bible say he prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour???    If satan is bound in this present age, how did he tempt Annias and Sapphira to lie to the Holy Spirit???

 

 

You are the one unwilling to face facts, and your constant wacky theology proves it.

 

The question in Acts 5 was posed to A & S idiomatically. No mention of going to the abyss or any other mention is made than they were struck dead.

 

The account of Judas was a description of an actual event (two places in scripture) along with other texts I supplied in the posts you cannot be bothered to read... I'll cite them for you here: Acts 1:25 / Revelation 9:11, John 17:12 / 2 Thessalonians 2:3,  Revelation 20:1-3 Revelation 20:7-10...

[JohnD]

Asking her to back up her facts isn't bullying.   It's calling on her to prove her case instead of ignoring the same questions over and over.

 

Asking once as you imply is not bullying.

 

Still waiting...

 

is bullying and you owe her an apology rather than trying to excuse your way out of it.

[Guest shiloh357]

None of those verses answer the questions I posed.   And to say that  Peter was only speaking idiomatically is jut a cop out.   You completely skirted around the questions I posed with long, multiple posts that have nothing to do with I asked.

 

You can't answer the questions.   All you can do is avoid and offer up  non-answers.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am still waiting for her to answer the questions regarding her claims.   She avoids questions just like you do.   Neither of you are willing to give straight answers to questions that should be easy to answer if what either of you claim has  any truth to it at all.    the reluctance of both of you to answer the questions posed demonstrate the falseness of your claims.

[JohnD]

None of those verses answer the questions I posed.   And to say that  Peter was only speaking idiomatically is jut a cop out.   You completely skirted around the questions I posed with long, multiple posts that have nothing to do with I asked.

 

You can't answer the questions.   All you can do is avoid and offer up  non-answers.

 

I've been giving you too much credit here...

 

Sorry you cannot understand the difference between Ananias and Sapphira, and Judas Iscariot. Despite the scriptures shown you repeatedly.

 

You're problem is within yourself.

 

Please read my footnote by my avatar:

 

I am unable or unwilling to police each posting to answer **every subsequent point** brought up by opponents.

So sometimes they will appear to have the "last word."

But notice the difference is I have cited and quoted scriptures as opposed to the mere opinion / belief of my opponent.

 

I cannot persuade one who will not be persuaded by the facts.

[JohnD]

I am still waiting for her to answer the questions regarding her claims.   She avoids questions just like you do.   Neither of you are willing to give straight answers to questions that should be easy to answer if what either of you claim has  any truth to it at all.    the reluctance of both of you to answer the questions posed demonstrate the falseness of your claims.

 

Keep telling yourself that.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, you just can't answer the questions and all you can offer is cop outs and you quote verses that have nothing to do with the questions I asked.   So typical...

[Ezra]

Many will point out that the millennial kingdom ends when Christ hands control back to His Father before the new heavens & earth are created .. thus they will say it can not be eternal so it must not be what we who acknowledge it as being is & that we are mistaken.

The best way to view the future Millennial Kingdom is to see it as Phase I of the literal, physical, perfect Kingdom of God on earth for eternity. 

 

As we see in Revelation 20, there is a hiatus during which the battle of Gog and Magog occurs, followed by the Great White Throne judgment.  But the Kingdom of God on earth will indeed be an eternal and physical Kingdom, after the New Heavens and the New Earth comes into existence. 

 

The kingdom of Israel on earth will also be an eternal, physical kingdom, with David as the "prince" over Israel, and Christ as King.  And eventually Christ will hand back the Kingdom of God to the Father, as Scripture reveals, so that God is all in all.

 

Amillenialists rooted in Reformed Theology reject a literal future Millennium on earth, and have opted for a fantasy instead. That is their choice and no one is going to convince them to look at the reality.  However, the truth must be upheld regardless of how well it is received.

[thereselittleflower]

 

Revelation 20 is NOT the present age.  Satan is not bound.   That  is complete nonsense.   Isa. 65 is Revelation 20.

 

Oh?

 

Then I await your proof.

 

Just saying "that is complete nonsense" will not cut it either.

 

Good for the goose good for the gander.

 

 

 

I'm just so puzzled why shiloh will not, or cannot provide actual proof that his claims of interpretation are correct.

 

Simply saying this is what it says because this is what it says, because this is what it says is nothing more than a circular argument.    Circular arguments are logically invalid as they don't prove anything.   For an argument to have any logical validity, it must be linear.   if A then B, if B then C, if C then D and so forth.    God does not ask us to check our intellect and logic and reason at the door.  He says to us  'Come let us reason together.'

 

All I see happening in his posts are  If A then B, If B then A, if A then B and we just go round in circles over and over again, and get nowhere.   This makes it extremely frustrating to have a logical, intelligent conversation, so I try to ask questions to get more clarity, and instead of clarity all I get is more of the same circular reasoning and attempts to shift the burden to answering questions to myself, even though I'm not making my own claims, simply questioning his.

 

The more I question this the more I I find I am lashed out at with outbursts of anger, unkindness, hostility, accused of calling God a liar, or being hateful, not being a christian, etc.     The more I ask for for evidence  and his sources, the more I see a retreat into another tactic, shifting the burden of proof, then more accusations, etc for not accepting this shift in burden.

 

Is this the fruit of the Spirit?    When I read the scriptures, I see the fruit of the spirit described and contrasted thus:

 

 

 

Galatians 5

19 [n]Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, 21 occasions of envy,[o] drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ [Jesus] have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit. 26 Let us not be conceited, provoking one another, envious of one another.

 

I am deeply concerned by what I see - I am always concerned when I see an elevation of an individual's personal opinion and interpretation to so high a level it borders on infallibility even if they deny it, for all I see is his equating his personal interpretation with the divine word of God - his interpretation is right simply because he says so.  When I see people accuse others of calling God a liar simply because they have a different pov than the other person does,  this demonstrates an elevation of their own opinion so far above anyone else's that might disagree with them, that it raises it to that of divinely inspired interpretation.   

 

He acknowledges with his words he is not infallible, yet his behavior towards those who disagree with him and don't submit to his opinion suggest otherwise.

 

If someone truly believes their personal interpretation may not be free from error, then they would approach others with gentleness, meekness, and humility, not with such overt hostility.