A verdict in search of evidence.
Comments
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say 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:
@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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on (theologically) in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
So in other words you used that as a distraction as opposed to attacking the fact that I showed your double standard. Is this because you couldn't combat my charge of the double standard and therefore your argument against my theology falls apart without a better 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:
@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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
So in other words you used that as a distraction as opposed to attacking the fact that I showed your double standard. Is this because you couldn't combat my charge of the double standard and therefore your argument against my theology falls apart without a better one?
Any Sunday School boy can pick out verses identifying the Father as God, the Son (word) as God, and the Holy Spirit as God.
-
@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:
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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
So in other words you used that as a distraction as opposed to attacking the fact that I showed your double standard. Is this because you couldn't combat my charge of the double standard and therefore your argument against my theology falls apart without a better one?
Any Sunday School boy can pick out verses identifying the Father as God, the Son (word) as God, and the Holy Spirit as God.
And you go back to that argument. Which, of course, I have already countered that you can't find a single verse that says all three of those are the same. You have to piece it together from various parts of Scripture. The same is with the gap in Daniel's 70th week. Therefore, you have 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:
@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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
So in other words you used that as a distraction as opposed to attacking the fact that I showed your double standard. Is this because you couldn't combat my charge of the double standard and therefore your argument against my theology falls apart without a better one?
Any Sunday School boy can pick out verses identifying the Father as God, the Son (word) as God, and the Holy Spirit as God.
And you go back to that argument. Which, of course, I have already countered that you can't find a single verse that says all three of those are the same. You have to piece it together from various parts of Scripture. The same is with the gap in Daniel's 70th week. Therefore, you have a double standard.
Scripture supports God being one, having three persons. The historic creeds know nothing of Dispensationalism. And those sects teaching it cannot support it with any direct quotes from 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:
@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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
So in other words you used that as a distraction as opposed to attacking the fact that I showed your double standard. Is this because you couldn't combat my charge of the double standard and therefore your argument against my theology falls apart without a better one?
Any Sunday School boy can pick out verses identifying the Father as God, the Son (word) as God, and the Holy Spirit as God.
And you go back to that argument. Which, of course, I have already countered that you can't find a single verse that says all three of those are the same. You have to piece it together from various parts of Scripture. The same is with the gap in Daniel's 70th week. Therefore, you have a double standard.
Scripture supports God being one, having three persons. The historic creeds know nothing of Dispensationalism. And those sects teaching it cannot support it with any direct quotes from scripture.
Except they can, and do. I sent you an article on it that you refuse to read. That's dishonest Dave.
And I'm going to challenge you on Dispensationalism not being found in the Early Church.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=pretrib_arch
-
One thing you can count on. Dave WILL have the last word until he can no longer fog a mirror. Logic or reason or biblical backing are of no apparent interest in his arguments. Ya just shoot all kinds of stuff out there shotgun style and have the last word and you have done your duty.
-
@GaoLu said:
One thing you can count on. Dave WILL have the last word until he can no longer fog a mirror. Logic or reason or biblical backing are of no apparent interest in his arguments. Ya just shoot all kinds of stuff out there shotgun style and have the last word and you have done your duty.Lets see direct scripture proof for any Dispensationalist claims outlined above. That remains the question even if I say nothing more.
-
@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:
@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.
What makes you say that?
The things you say.............
Such as?
All of the above. But you are good on politics...........
What do you mean all of the above?
Anything bible related in this conversation shows false indoctrination on your part. You need to step back and question all that you have been taught.
So far the only thing you and I disagree on in this particular thread is Daniel's 70 weeks. So are you referring to that or something else?
That's our main contention. So it is this I refer to.
So in other words you used that as a distraction as opposed to attacking the fact that I showed your double standard. Is this because you couldn't combat my charge of the double standard and therefore your argument against my theology falls apart without a better one?
Any Sunday School boy can pick out verses identifying the Father as God, the Son (word) as God, and the Holy Spirit as God.
And you go back to that argument. Which, of course, I have already countered that you can't find a single verse that says all three of those are the same. You have to piece it together from various parts of Scripture. The same is with the gap in Daniel's 70th week. Therefore, you have a double standard.
Scripture supports God being one, having three persons. The historic creeds know nothing of Dispensationalism. And those sects teaching it cannot support it with any direct quotes from scripture.
Except they can, and do. I sent you an article on it that you refuse to read. That's dishonest Dave.
And I'm going to challenge you on Dispensationalism not being found in the Early Church.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=pretrib_arch
There is nothing dishonest about refusing to listen to false prophets. I call it wisdom.
-
Dave, rather than invent a strawman theology and ask others to defend some elusive imaginary moving target, why don't you provide a specific element of Dispensationalism that concerns you? Then we have something to discuss.
-
@GaoLu said:
Dave, rather than invent a strawman theology and ask others to defend some elusive imaginary moving target, why don't you provide a specific element of Dispensationalism that concerns you? Then we have something to discuss.Straw man? Only if you have scripture that directly supports Dispensationalists claims.
-
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Dave, rather than invent a strawman theology and ask others to defend some elusive imaginary moving target, why don't you provide a specific element of Dispensationalism that concerns you? Then we have something to discuss.Straw man? Only if you have scripture that directly supports Dispensationalists claims.
You won't read our explanations so why should we bother?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Dave, rather than invent a strawman theology and ask others to defend some elusive imaginary moving target, why don't you provide a specific element of Dispensationalism that concerns you? Then we have something to discuss.Straw man? Only if you have scripture that directly supports Dispensationalists claims.
You won't read our explanations so why should we bother?
If you or they cannot provide anything more than a song and dance routine, why waste valuable time on it? No direct scriptural support for any of their claims listed above..........= false prophets.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Dave, rather than invent a strawman theology and ask others to defend some elusive imaginary moving target, why don't you provide a specific element of Dispensationalism that concerns you? Then we have something to discuss.Straw man? Only if you have scripture that directly supports Dispensationalists claims.
You won't read our explanations so why should we bother?
If you or they cannot provide anything more than a song and dance routine, why waste valuable time on it? No direct scriptural support for any of their claims listed above..........= false prophets.
How would you know if there is direct scriptural support or not? You haven't even read it. So no false prophets, just one person speaking falsehoods about others. You.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Dave, rather than invent a strawman theology and ask others to defend some elusive imaginary moving target, why don't you provide a specific element of Dispensationalism that concerns you? Then we have something to discuss.Straw man? Only if you have scripture that directly supports Dispensationalists claims.
You won't read our explanations so why should we bother?
If you or they cannot provide anything more than a song and dance routine, why waste valuable time on it? No direct scriptural support for any of their claims listed above..........= false prophets.
How would you know if there is direct scriptural support or not? You haven't even read it. So no false prophets, just one person speaking falsehoods about others. You.
They would have presented it centuries ago if it exists.
-
@Dave_L You are judge men dead and alive and we don't even know what for. Could you tell us? Is it just the word Dispensationalism that you hate so badly? This is getting interesting.
-
Are false prophets ever acceptable?
-
If you actually have answers, why do you never answer questions?
-
@GaoLu said:
If you actually have answers, why do you never answer questions?The ball is in your court. No direct scripture to support Dispensational claims = false prophets.
-
Not true. We already submitted the evidence but you refuse to even look at it. So stop lying.
-
Scripture is the only credible source in this matter.
-
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
-
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
