Skip to comments.The Second Coming Happened Already
Posted on 03/25/2009 1:14:14 AM PDT by OPREV
click here to read article
Thank you for the caution and the wise words I will take them to heart. Shalom
1. I spoke of hell’s intent regarding the perspective, the ideas in the OP. I didn’t speak of the Original PostER. I don’t know the original poster. . . . besides it being against the rules.
2. You are welcome to make of my posting style etc. whatever you will.
3. The lack of a clue about me is persistently comforting in such cases.
4. My writing AND my style continue to result in plenty of confirmation.
5. Many, if not most, naysayers hereon will likely find that incomprehensible this side of eternity.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
I may try and get back to it and ponder each point more thoughtfully. I just found myself a bit shocked that you of all people said some of those things! LOL.
Thanks for the
REPLACEMENTARIAN, AMIL, POST-MIL et al
POSTER BOY PHOTO.
There is more pointing to a first century return than not.
I still find it shocking that anyone calling themselves a Christian could say such a thing with straight fingers.
Ahhhhhhhhh . . . and what training has there been in the diagnosis of psychosis?
MORE UNMITIGATED HOGWASH.
How can anyone read Revelation and even stretch their
around even 1/50th the contrary Biblical facts in Revelation alone—not to mention Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the shorter prophets etc.
I never realized that Biblical ignorance; Biblical denial; Biblical blindness was so pervasive—particularly amongst conservative “Christians.”
REPLACEMENTARIANS, AMILS, POST-MILS
have this chronic, genetic, compulsive blindness to the fact that God Almighty seems to have a LOT of fun with time elements in Scripture.
Didn’t Noah preach about an imminent flood—for at least a hundred years or so?
And didn’t God more or less have everyone from Adam on looking at THEIR sons to see if perchance one of them was THE MESSIAH?
Oh, right, Don’t confuse the terminally confused further with Biblical facts.
WELL PUT BIBLICAL TRUTHS.
Of course, naysayers don’t seem to be much acquainted with the Bible and certainly not with Biblical Truth.
From who’s perspective?
I doubt the Pharisees thought Jesus’ rebukes of them were very “LOVING.”
Yet, they were precisely the most loving thing GOD HIMSELF could deliver to them.
even God, by HIS NATURE . . . is prevented from engaging in nonsense.
YOU HAVE THIS HABIT OF BEING ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT SUCH MATTERS.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
AND THAT’S JUST ONE GLARING BIBLICAL TRUTH TOPPLING THEIR WHOLE SKYSCRAPER OF STINKING CARDS PERSPECTIVE.
THERE ARE MANY DOZENS OF OTHERS—ANY ONE OF WHICH SHREDS THEIR WHOLE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE FOUNDATION UP.
Yeah, would have been mentioned! Along with all the other fulfillments of Biblical prophecy—many many dozens of which have NOT YET been fulfilled as a matter of the historical AND BIBLICAL record.
My favorite trick question is how many generations are the in Christ when they bring the generation question.
>> 1. I spoke of hells intent regarding the perspective, the ideas in the OP. I didnt speak of the Original PostER. I dont know the original poster. . . . besides it being against the rules. <<
I don’t know what to make of this. I pointed out to you that the post was a vanity, something you could easily confirm. Yet you separate the original poster from the original post as if they are unrelated.
>> 2. You are welcome to make of my posting style etc. whatever you will. 3. The lack of a clue about me is persistently comforting in such cases. <<
I’m obliged not only by FR rules, but by my own conscience to be charitable in my inferences about you. That’s not to say that you cause people to form impressions.
>> 4. My writing AND my style continue to result in plenty of confirmation. 5. Many, if not most, naysayers hereon will likely find that incomprehensible this side of eternity. <<
Incomprehensible? You write that as if you expect you’ve handed some great wisdom down to fools who can’t begin to fathom it. In fact, the “confirmations” remind me of nothing so much as dufflepuds from C.S. Lewis’ “Voyage of the Dawn-Treader.”
I don’t understand this assertion:
No Quix it is only one of them that they have not addressed. And yes there are many that they can not address and have not addressed.
Interesting question. Your answer?