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:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
This does not address the problem. This addresses it. Find one scripture saying a gap of unlimited duration exists between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks.
Here's a good article. https://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2012/04/why-gap-in-daniels-70-weeks.html
Without reading it, I'll bet no direct scripture reference exists saying there is a gap.........If it's there post it.
There is also no direct Scripture saying there isn't one. But the article actually gives textual evidence that there is so you should read it.
So martians exist since scripture doesn't say they do not?
Did you read the article or are you just going to insist on throwing out stupid statements?
I am not planning to invest any time in the article. If you can lift one scripture from it directly stating a gap exists, I'll devote time to it.
I'll note you aren't actually interested in discussing truth and are closed-minded into your own understanding of Scripture whether it is correct or not. What are you scared of? Are you scared that your understanding of the Bible might not be correct?
I know what scripture says in this matter, and I am bored stiff wading through unnecessary reading.
You know what Scripture says? Or you know what people have told you the Scripture means? The Scripture isn't very specific about what the 70 weeks are. And there is textual evidence in Daniel 9 to suggest there could be a gap.
No direct scriptural support = no gap = false prophets proclaiming such
-
An argument from silence is a logical fallacy. And a case can be made for Scriptural support.
-
If you kicked a horrible habit, why would you want to return?
-
We aren't asking you to return to whatever crazy things you were taught that call themselves Dispensationalism but were nothing of the sort of mainstream dispensationalism.
-
@reformed said:
We aren't asking you to return to whatever crazy things you were taught that call themselves Dispensationalism but were nothing of the sort of mainstream dispensationalism.
Gap = false prophet no matter ho "progressive" they might be.
-
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
-
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
If they cannot produce direct quotes saying there is a gap, it is just more of the same with a better and more cunning smoke screen to hide the false prophecy they spew.
-
@reformed said:
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.No, the Trinity doesn't exist because Jesus said so .... cp Joh 17:3.
If one is ALONE true God, then there can not be two or three who are true God. -
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
-
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
-
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
-
@Dave_L said:
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God.Yes
(2) The Father is God.
Yes ... the Father is that One
(3) The Son is God.
No scripture support for this idea, which flat out contradicts Jesus' very own words
(4) The Holy Spirit is God.
Actually, the Father, Who alone is that One true God, is both Holy and Spirit; and thus is sometimes referred to in Scripture as "the Holy Spirit". Just as He is the one Who created heaven and earth and therefore is called "the Creator". Just as He is all powerful and thus is called "the Almighty".
However, neither "the Holy Spirit", nor "the Creator", nor "the Almighty", etc are some kind of fantasy "Godhead person"".(5) The Father is not the Son.
That is obvious ... and because only the Father is true God, therefore the Son is not God.
(6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit.
This is equally obvious
(7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
In those passages where "the Holy Spirit" is a reference to the true God (similar as with "the Creator" or "the Almighty", etc.) the Holy Spirit is actually reference to the Father, Who is the true God.
In other contexts, "the holy spirit" is a reference to the gift God gives to believers, or a reference to the power of God by which He, the Father, the true God works and communicates. -
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God.Yes
(2) The Father is God.
Yes ... the Father is that One
(3) The Son is God.
No scripture support for this idea, which flat out contradicts Jesus' very own words
(4) The Holy Spirit is God.
Actually, the Father, Who alone is that One true God, is both Holy and Spirit; and thus is sometimes referred to in Scripture as "the Holy Spirit". Just as He is the one Who created heaven and earth and therefore is called "the Creator". Just as He is all powerful and thus is called "the Almighty".
However, neither "the Holy Spirit", nor "the Creator", nor "the Almighty", etc are some kind of fantasy "Godhead person"".(5) The Father is not the Son.
That is obvious ... and because only the Father is true God, therefore the Son is not God.
(6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit.
This is equally obvious
(7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
In those passages where "the Holy Spirit" is a reference to the true God (similar as with "the Creator" or "the Almighty", etc.) the Holy Spirit is actually reference to the Father, Who is the true God.
In other contexts, "the holy spirit" is a reference to the gift God gives to believers, or a reference to the power of God by which He, the Father, the true God works and communicates.This isn't about the trinity But:“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your 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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about 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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
-
@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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
You don't have direct quotes for the Trinity either so you can't argue that.
-
@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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
You don't have direct quotes for the Trinity either so you can't argue that.
Trinity is not in the bible.
-
@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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
You don't have direct quotes for the Trinity either so you can't argue that.
Trinity is not in the bible.
Exactly, yet you believe it. So why must the specific gap be explicitly stated with regard to the 70 weeks? That's a double standard.
-
@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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
You don't have direct quotes for the Trinity either so you can't argue that.
Trinity is not in the bible.
Exactly, yet you believe it. So why must the specific gap be explicitly stated with regard to the 70 weeks? That's a double standard.
It's not the same. As I pointed out scripture directly says the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Scripture says nothing directly about the gap.
-
@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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
You don't have direct quotes for the Trinity either so you can't argue that.
Trinity is not in the bible.
Exactly, yet you believe it. So why must the specific gap be explicitly stated with regard to the 70 weeks? That's a double standard.
It's not the same. As I pointed out scripture directly says the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Scripture says nothing directly about the gap.
It is exactly the same because the verses don't say those are three in one directly. It's a double standard Dave. There are things you believe that are not explicitly written in Scripture. By your own standard, you should throw those beliefs out.
-
@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:
Trinity affirms One God, but that is off-topic.
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
And I provided an article to show evidence of that. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary other than evidence from silence which is not evidence at all.
By your logic, the Trinity also doesn't exist because no verse talks about the Trinity.
Scripture directly supports this: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
And there are people who claim it says otherwise. The point is, it does not DIRECTLY say there is a Trinity does it? So you can't say that because there is not a verse that directly says there is a gap that it doesn't exist.
Scripture directly supports all of what I posted. Call it anything you like.
I can also say Scripture directly supports a gap in the 69th and 70th week. So where do we go from here? You don't have a verse that directly says there is a Trinity and I don't have a verse that directly says there is a gap.
So you either need to change your argument or read the evidence I gave of the gap.
But, you cannot provide scripture to back your claim.
I did, in the article that you refuse to read.
What direct quotes do you have?
What direct quotes do you have for the Trinity? See how this works Dave?
Any Christian with even a casual reading of the scriptures can easily spot these passages. I'm surprised you would need to ask this.
That's not the point Dave. The point is you don't have an argument and refuse to look at evidence given to you because you think it is a waste of time.
This is about direct scriptural support for the gap that is nowhere to be found. But where's the support for a 7 year tribulation? Or a pre-trib rapture? Or a restored Roman Empire? Or a physical millennium? While your at it?
I'll tell you what, you read that article and comment on it, then I will happily give you direct references for those things, although I'm not sure we dispensationalists believe in a restored Roman Empire the way you are talking about it.
Without direct scripture quotes supporting a gap, it's just another song and dance routine they wouldn't need if they had direct quotes.
You don't have direct quotes for the Trinity either so you can't argue that.
Trinity is not in the bible.
Exactly, yet you believe it. So why must the specific gap be explicitly stated with regard to the 70 weeks? That's a double standard.
It's not the same. As I pointed out scripture directly says the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Scripture says nothing directly about the gap.
It is exactly the same because the verses don't say those are three in one directly. It's a double standard Dave. There are things you believe that are not explicitly written in Scripture. By your own standard, you should throw those beliefs out.
You don't know your bible.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)