Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[CadyandZoe]

Did you see where this guy claimed that Peter said "This is LIKE that"? The dishonesty of some of these people with their willingness to blatantly change scripture is just unbelievable.

You admittedly confessed to not understanding the OT prophets. Who are you to criticize?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did you see where this guy claimed that Peter said "This is LIKE that"? The dishonesty of some of these people with their willingness to blatantly change scripture is just unbelievable.

I was not being dishonest as you falsely claim. Individuals who delve into the study of prophecy often develop a deeper understanding of the distinction between what constitutes an "event" and what is classified as a "phenomenon." An event in a prophetic context typically encompasses multiple phenomena, suggesting a complex interplay of various signs, occurrences, or manifestations that are interrelated. In other words, while a phenomenon may stand alone as a singular occurrence, a prophetic event is characterized by a series of these phenomena coming together to create a broader and more significant narrative or message. This understanding is crucial for interpreting prophetic texts and discerning their implications within a larger spiritual or historical framework.

Peter asserts that the extraordinary events witnessed during Pentecost are analogous to the prophecy articulated by Joel. However, he does not contend that Pentecost completely realizes the predictions made by Joel. This is because the prophecy encompasses a variety of phenomena that were not present during the Pentecost experience.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You admittedly confessed to not understanding the OT prophets. Who are you to criticize?

I confessed no such thing, liar. I have said that I use the NT to help understand the OT prophets. All you have to offer are lies. You literally have nothing else to offer on this forum, as you prove over and over again. You're a lying heretic who denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I was not being dishonest as you falsely claim.

Yes you were. Does the text say "this is that" or "this is like that"? Be honest for once.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I confessed no such thing, liar. I have said that I use the NT to help understand the OT prophets. All you have to offer are lies. You literally have nothing else to offer on this forum, as you prove over and over again. You're a lying heretic who denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

Yes, you confessed that the OT is incomprehensible without the NT, that the OT doesn't stand on it's own. I doubt that you read the OT, because if you did, you wouldn't believe the false Amillennial doctrine.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes you were. Does the text say "this is that" or "this is like that"? Be honest for once.

Peter's comment is understood as a comment about the phenomenon Joel described, not a claim that Joel was being fulfilled.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, you confessed that the OT is incomprehensible without the NT, that the OT doesn't stand on it's own. I doubt that you read the OT, because if you did, you wouldn't believe the false Amillennial doctrine.

You made a blanket statement that I said I don't understand the OT prophets. That is a lie. So what if I use the NT to help understand them? That's a wise thing to do. You should try it some time.

I have read all of the OT, so your last comment is just another lie. You are a liar.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Peter's comment is understood as a comment about the phenomenon Joel described, not a claim that Joel was being fulfilled.

LOL. Go ahead and keep embarrassing yourself with this nonsense if you insist. No one can stop you. Peter said "this is that". You say that he said "this is not that, but something else like that". LOL. Total insanity.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You made a blanket statement that I said I don't understand the OT prophets.

It is not a lie because I have seen your posts that completely misunderstand and mischaracterize them. And you admit that you don't understand them as you confess below.

So what if I use the NT to help understand them?

So you admit that the OT is incomprehensible without the NT.

That's a wise thing to do. You should try it some time.

No, it is a foolish thing to do since it obscures the meaning of the OT, which is undoubtedly the reason why you mistakenly believe the Amillennial point of view.

I have read all of the OT, so your last comment is just another lie. You are a liar.

I never said that you haven't read it. You admit that you don't understand it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. Go ahead and keep embarrassing yourself with this nonsense if you insist. No one can stop you. Peter said "this is that". You say that he said "this is not that, but something else like that". LOL. Total insanity.

This is another example of your lack of understanding. Any fair-minded person who compares Peter's message with Joel's message will clearly see Peter's meaning. His point is to say that the phenomenon happening at Pentecost is the same phenomenon that Joel predicted. He is NOT, however, saying that Pentecost fulfilled Joel's predicted event because Joel's predicted event involves many other phenomena.

 

[Davy]

Sun, moon, and stars will all go out and no longer shine in the sky as Christ descends from Heaven.

Darkened does not mean they actually go out, like being extinguished.

Like the following verse, it simply means the brightness of God's future glory there will be brighter than the sun or moon...

Rev 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
KJV

 

[Davy]

And there is no temple, HaHa, no temple and there will be no millennial Temple of God either.

You are definitely... wrong about that above.

Obviously, you don't know your Old Testament Scriptures.

The Ezekiel 40 through 47 chapters are all... about Christ's future "thousand years" reign WITH A TEMPLE, called the "sanctuary" and as God's "house"!

Remember John 14 with Jesus telling His disciples that He goes to prepare a place for them in The Father's House, wherein there are "many mansions" (actually abodes per the Greek)?

Now AFTER... the "thousand years" of Rev.20, that sanctuary in the holy land will no longer be needed, which is what Revelation 21:22 is pointing to, i.e., the new heavens and a new earth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is not a lie because I have seen your posts that completely misunderstand and mischaracterize them. And you admit that you don't understand them as you confess below.

No, I do not admit that, liar. Stop lying. I couldn't care less if you think I misunderstand them because you have no spiritual discernment whatsoever. Disagreeing with your false interpretations of them is not the same as saying I don't understand them.

So you admit that the OT is incomprehensible without the NT.

No, I do not. Another lie. You just make these blanket statements all of the time as if my saying something about a particular OT passage or teaching applies to what I think about the entire OT.

What I do say is that there are some things in the OT that were purposely made obscure by God and then clarified in the NT such as the fact that the promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). And the promises are applied to those who belong to Christ as well (Galatians 3:29).

Do you see anything in the OT which clearly says anything about God's promises to Abraham and his seed being made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ, along with those who belong to Christ?

No, it is a foolish thing to do since it obscures the meaning of the OT, which is undoubtedly the reason why you mistakenly believe the Amillennial point of view.

Your Premillennial point of view can't be supported at all by the NT, so it's no wonder that you ignore the entire NT. You are a Pharisee.

I never said that you haven't read it. You admit that you don't understand it.

No, I do not admit that, liar. You have nothing to offer but lies.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are definitely... wrong about that above.

Obviously, you don't know your Old Testament Scriptures.

The Ezekiel 40 through 47 chapters are all... about Christ's future "thousand years" reign WITH A TEMPLE, called the "sanctuary" and as God's "house"!

Remember John 14 with Jesus telling His disciples that He goes to prepare a place for them in The Father's House, wherein there are "many mansions" (actually abodes per the Greek)?

Now AFTER... the "thousand years" of Rev.20, that sanctuary in the holy land will no longer be needed, which is what Revelation 21:22 is pointing to, i.e., the new heavens and a new earth.

You are wrong about so many things that I've lost track of how many things you're wrong about. But, this is one of them.

Ezekiel 45:15 And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord God. 16 All the people of the land shall give this oblation for the prince in Israel. 17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

How can you be a Christian and not be aware that animal sacrifices and offerings were only performed to foreshadow Christ's sacrifice which made animal sacrifices and offerings obsolete forever (Hebrews 8-10)? What more reconciliation is needed apart from the reconciliation that Christ's sacrifice provides? To think that future animal sacrifices would be performed "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" is an insult to Christ and His "once for all" sacrifice which made reconciliation for the house of Israel and the rest of the world long ago.

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, I do not admit that, liar. Stop lying. I couldn't care less if you think I misunderstand them because you have no spiritual discernment whatsoever. Disagreeing with your false interpretations of them is not the same as saying I don't understand them.

Really? Did you just discover that today?

No, I do not. Another lie. You just make these blanket statements all of the time as if my saying something about a particular OT passage or teaching applies to what I think about the entire OT.

You believe the Amillennial view because you don't believe the OT has anything to say to you.

What I do say is that there are some things in the OT that were purposely made obscure by God and then clarified in the NT such as the fact that the promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). And the promises are applied to those who belong to Christ as well (Galatians 3:29).

There, you see. You just admitted that the OT scriptures are made purposefully obscure. No wonder you don't read it.

Your Premillennial point of view can't be supported at all by the NT, so it's no wonder that you ignore the entire NT. You are a Pharisee.

And here you believe that the Premillennial view must be supported by the NT as if the OT is an unreliable source of God's will.

No, I do not admit that, liar. You have nothing to offer but lies.

You can't help supporting my charge against you even as you say I am speaking lies. Why is that? You are embarrassed to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Really? Did you just discover that today?

No, I discovered that you are a liar long ago.

You believe the Amillennial view because you don't believe the OT has anything to say to you.

Another lie. All you can do is lie, liar.

There, you see. You just admitted that the OT scriptures are made purposefully obscure. No wonder you don't read it.

Stop making blanket statements like that, liar. I'm saying SOME of them were, not ALL. And that is obviously true. Do you deny this? Or is it clear to you somewhere in the OT that God's promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ, and to those who belong to Christ?

And here you believe that the Premillennial view must be supported by the NT as if the OT is an unreliable source of God's will.

LOL! Anyone reading your comments has to just be scratching their heads and wondering what in the world goes through your mind. Why in the world would the NT have nothing to say about a supposed future earthly kingdom on the earth after Christ returns? That makes sense how exactly? The NT has plenty to say about the future, but nothing about that? LOL. Get serious.

You can't help supporting my charge against you even as you say I am speaking lies. Why is that? You are embarrassed to admit that you are wrong.

You are lying because you're saying things about me that aren't true. It is not true that I don't accept what the OT teaches as you falsely claim. That I use the NT to help me understand the OT is not some kind of weakness as you falsely imagine. It's what we all should do. How else would we know who God's promises made to Abraham and his seed apply to, for example?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm saying SOME of them were, not ALL.

And you ignore the rest, which is why you and your group refuse to answer whether a prophecy has been fulfilled and when.

Do you deny this? Or is it clear to you somewhere in the OT that God's promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ, and to those who belong to Christ?

Yes, it says it in the OT. Why do you think Paul said it as if his readers should already know it.

You don't have a grip on the NT, how can you understand the OT?

Why in the world would the NT have nothing to say about a supposed future earthly kingdom on the earth after Christ returns?

The NT speaks about the future earthly kingdom, but you can't see it, and you refuse to consider it. But you aren't interested in knowing the answer. Everyone knows that your questions are intended as "gotcha" questions. You and your group have no legitimate interest in an honest, objective discussion.

You are lying because you're saying things about me that aren't true. It is not true that I don't accept what the OT teaches as you falsely claim.

Really, you already confessed that you want everyone to provide our answers from the NT. The very demand itself belies your NT bias and lack of true understanding of the OT.

That I use the NT to help me understand the OT is not some kind of weakness as you falsely imagine. It's what we all should do. How else would we know who God's promises made to Abraham and his seed apply to, for example?

That isn't the issue, and you know it, though you can't bring yourself to admit it.

The destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE and the subsequent exile of the Jewish people were pivotal events that deeply influenced theological interpretations, including allegorical readings of the prophets. These events challenged traditional understandings of God's covenant with Israel and the role of the Temple in worship. As a result, early Christian theologians, such as Origen and Augustine, began to interpret prophetic texts allegorically, seeing them as symbolic of spiritual truths rather than literal predictions.

This shift allowed for a broader application of the prophecies, emphasizing themes like the spiritual reign of Christ and the universal nature of God's kingdom. The destruction of the Temple was seen as a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and a sign of the transition from the old covenant, centered on the Temple, to the new covenant, centered on Christ and the Church.

The year 1948 marked a significant turning point that challenged the tenets of Amillennialism. This was the year when the nation of Israel was re-established as a sovereign state, returning to the land that many believe was promised to them historically and biblically. This restoration of Israel to its homeland raises critical questions about the traditional allegorical method of biblical interpretation, which often downplays the literal events and significance of such fulfillments. Given this unprecedented development, it is crucial to reexamine the perspectives held by Amillennialists and consider the implications of a physical Israel existing again in the promised land. This event suggests that interpretations of biblical prophecy may need to be revisited and reassessed in light of contemporary realities.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And you ignore the rest, which is why you and your group refuse to answer whether a prophecy has been fulfilled and when.

No, I do not. That is another lie from you. You are a big fat liar.

Yes, it says it in the OT. Why do you think Paul said it as if his readers should already know it.

LOL. You are so dishonest, it's unbelievable. Did you think I wouldn't notice that you didn't bother indicating where it says in the OT that God's promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ, and those who belong to Christ?

Also, Paul didn't say it as if his readers should already know it. Where are you getting that idea from? Instead, it seems to indicate that he did not expect them to already know it as he had to clarify that Abraham's seed was one seed (Christ) instead of multiple seeds.

You don't have a grip on the NT, how can you understand the OT?

LOL. That is truly hilarious coming from you. I would be surprised if you even owned a NT.

The NT speaks about the future earthly kingdom, but you can't see it, and you refuse to consider it.

LOL. Again, you make a claim without providing any scriptural support for it. I can't take you seriously.

But you aren't interested in knowing the answer.

Wrong. I am interested in what NT scriptures you think support Premill. You seem to be too afraid to share them.

Everyone knows that your questions are intended as "gotcha" questions.

That's what someone who is paranoid thinks. Should I say the same to you about any of your questions? You are saying there are NT verses that teach Premill. So, which ones? This is not a "gotcha" question. Your response may expose that you don't actually have any NT verses to support your view, but I'm giving you a chance to share what they are.

You and your group have no legitimate interest in an honest, objective discussion.

That is another lie from you. Look, buddy. We both know that we each are set in our beliefs. We both know that you are not ever going to convince me to agree with you and vice versa. Does that mean we can't have an honest discussion about these things? No. But, you choose to lie repeatedly about what I believe instead of just sharing what you believe and addressing what I believe honestly. I don't care if you disagree with me. Just stop lying and misrepresenting what I believe.

Really, you already confessed that you want everyone to provide our answers from the NT. The very demand itself belies your NT bias and lack of true understanding of the OT.

No, it does not. You're misunderstanding the point of that. As I've shown, the NT sheds light on some OT scriptures. It's just plain ignorant to deny that. Also, the NT refers several times to a number of things that will happen in the future, such as the second coming of Christ, His people being gathered to Him, Him punishing His enemies, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment and so on. So, why would there be nothing about a future earthly kingdom after Christ returns? Why would the NT authors talk about everything that will happen in the future as it relates to Bible prophecy except for that one thing?

That isn't the issue, and you know it, though you can't bring yourself to admit it.

It is part of the issue as I see it. You don't tell me what I believe the issue is from my perspective.

The destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE and the subsequent exile of the Jewish people were pivotal events that deeply influenced theological interpretations, including allegorical readings of the prophets. These events challenged traditional understandings of God's covenant with Israel and the role of the Temple in worship. As a result, early Christian theologians, such as Origen and Augustine, began to interpret prophetic texts allegorically, seeing them as symbolic of spiritual truths rather than literal predictions.

Don't start with this nonsense that Amillennialism didn't start until those ancient dues taught it. I don't buy that nonsense at all. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, said that there were many true Christians who disagreed with his Premillennial view.

This shift allowed for a broader application of the prophecies, emphasizing themes like the spiritual reign of Christ and the universal nature of God's kingdom. The destruction of the Temple was seen as a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and a sign of the transition from the old covenant, centered on the Temple, to the new covenant, centered on Christ and the Church.

You're talking about how partial preterists see things. Yes, they are Amills, but I disagree with a lot of what they believe. For example, they try to say that the old covenant age ended in 70 AD. No, the old covenant ended at the cross and the new covenant was established when the veil was torn in two.

The year 1948 marked a significant turning point that challenged the tenets of Amillennialism.

LOL. Wrong.

This was the year when the nation of Israel was re-established as a sovereign state, returning to the land that many believe was promised to them historically and biblically.

Give me some evidence that what happened there was something God ordained. Most of them reject Christ, but you think that was a movement of God to fulflll prophecy? I completely disagree. The return of the Israelites to Israel from the Babylonian exile was clearly orchestrated by God. But, what happened in 1948? No.

This restoration of Israel to its homeland raises critical questions about the traditional allegorical method of biblical interpretation, which often downplays the literal events and significance of such fulfillments.

In your opinion, which I completely disagree with.

Given this unprecedented development, it is crucial to reexamine the perspectives held by Amillennialists and consider the implications of a physical Israel existing again in the promised land. This event suggests that interpretations of biblical prophecy may need to be revisited and reassessed in light of contemporary realities.

We should examine scripture. Where does scripture prophesy about what happened in 1948? Remember, any restoration of Israel would be something that God ordained and made happen. Why would God have a bunch of Christ rejecters gather in Israel? For what purpose? I see no evidence of God being behind what happened in 1948. Can you show otherwise?

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, I do not. That is another lie from you. You are a big fat liar.

No, I am a truth teller, and I have embarrassed you with the truth.

LOL. You are so dishonest, it's unbelievable. Did you think I wouldn't notice that you didn't bother indicating where it says in the OT that God's promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ, and those who belong to Christ?

It isn't relevant is it? No. Not at all. You know very well that Paul was not interpreting a passage as if we needed Paul to explain them to us. You clearly don't understand that Paul is adding more information, not explaining previous information. Try to get your facts straight before discussing the subject.

Also, Paul didn't say it as if his readers should already know it. Where are you getting that idea from?

It is obvious to anyone who can follow Paul's line of argument. In Galatians 3:8, he reminds his readers that God had preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand. In other words, anyone who is able to read can open the scriptures, see what Paul sees, and discover that, indeed, God preached the gospel to Abraham.

And I need to explain this to you because you don't understand this simple fact.

Instead, it seems to indicate that he did not expect them to already know it as he had to clarify that Abraham's seed was one seed (Christ) instead of multiple seeds.

Your interpretation is incorrect because you believe that Paul is making a grammatical argument: seed vs. seeds. And you have never considered that the term "christ" has more than one meaning depending on whether the writer is talking about Jesus Christ or any other anointed one.

If I explain it to you, I expect stubborn resistance and mock laughter. So I won't.

I am interested in what NT scriptures you think support Premill.

No you are not interested. For you and your bro's this is a game. You all wear the same T-shirt, and you cheer your favorite team. You have no interest in what I say and you are not seeking the truth of the matter. You already have you mind made up and could not care to know why your belief is in error.

This is not a "gotcha" question.

No, it's a disingenuous, sham statement.

That is another lie from you. Look, buddy. We both know that we each are set in our beliefs. We both know that you are not ever going to convince me to agree with you and vice versa. Does that mean we can't have an honest discussion about these things? No.

I see no evidence that you want to have an honest discussion.

But, you choose to lie repeatedly about what I believe instead of just sharing what you believe and addressing what I believe honestly. I don't care if you disagree with me. Just stop lying and misrepresenting what I believe.

There is a difference between what a person says they believe and what he actually believes. You claim to believe one thing but your practice indicates that you believe the opposite.

You're misunderstanding the point of that.

No, I understand what you clearly deny. You don't actually believe that the OT has anything to say to you with regard to the future. Everything must be filtered through the lenses of your supposition. You admit this so often that I am wondering how you can't see it.

As I've shown, the NT sheds light on some OT scriptures.

Good, but you don't accept other OT scriptures that speak to the issue directly. You can't because if you did, you would surely change your mind. You won't allow the OT to teach you because your common response is, "That can't be true because it contradicts my understanding of the NT."

It's just plain ignorant to deny that. Also, the NT refers several times to a number of things that will happen in the future, such as the second coming of Christ, His people being gathered to Him, Him punishing His enemies, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment and so on. So, why would there be nothing about a future earthly kingdom after Christ returns?

There is plenty about the future earthly kingdom in the New Testament, but you resist what we show you.

Why would the NT authors talk about everything that will happen in the future as it relates to Bible prophecy except for that one thing?

Jesus tells you about the future, earthly kingdom, but your eyes must glaze over when you read it.

Don't start with this nonsense that Amillennialism didn't start until those ancient dues taught it.

See, you resist. I was right about you.

Give me some evidence that what happened there was something God ordained.

You have all the necessary information. God told Israel he would bring them back and he did. Don't you believe your eyes?

Most of them reject Christ, but you think that was a movement of God to fulflll prophecy? I completely disagree. The return of the Israelites to Israel from the Babylonian exile was clearly orchestrated by God. But, what happened in 1948? No.

You even resist what your eyes can plainly see.

We should examine scripture. Where does scripture prophesy about what happened in 1948? Remember, any restoration of Israel would be something that God ordained and made happen. Why would God have a bunch of Christ rejecters gather in Israel? For what purpose? I see no evidence of God being behind what happened in 1948. Can you show otherwise?

I can't show you anything as you have already stated.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I am a truth teller, and I have embarrassed you with the truth.

No, you are embarrassing yourself with your constant lies, liar.

It isn't relevant is it? No. Not at all. You know very well that Paul was not interpreting a passage as if we needed Paul to explain them to us. You clearly don't understand that Paul is adding more information, not explaining previous information. Try to get your facts straight before discussing the subject.

LOL. Look at you squirming, trying to hide the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about. If it's so clear in the OT that it talks about the promises of God being made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ, and those who belong to Christ, then why can't you tell me which OT scriptures those are?

It is obvious to anyone who can follow Paul's line of argument. In Galatians 3:8, he reminds his readers that God had preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand. In other words, anyone who is able to read can open the scriptures, see what Paul sees, and discover that, indeed, God preached the gospel to Abraham.

I didn't say otherwise. I'm asking you to show me where the OT says that the promises God made to Abraham were made to Christ and those who belong to Christ? Give me the scripture references.

Your interpretation is incorrect because you believe that Paul is making a grammatical argument: seed vs. seeds. And you have never considered that the term "christ" has more than one meaning depending on whether the writer is talking about Jesus Christ or any other anointed one.

LOL. The nonsense that comes from you is truly unbelievable. Literally. Get out of here with this garbage. Paul was very clear in what he said and no amount of twisting his words by you will change what he said.

If I explain it to you, I expect stubborn resistance and mock laughter. So I won't.

You deserve mock laughter because of how insane and ridiculous your comments on. And for the fact that you lie constantly.

No you are not interested. For you and your bro's this is a game.

Are you going to lie again and act like you're interested in what I believe when you already know? If this is a game to us, then it's a game to you, too. But, this is not a game to me. This is me exposing you as a liar and false teacher. That's not a game.

You all wear the same T-shirt, and you cheer your favorite team. You have no interest in what I say and you are not seeking the truth of the matter.

Are you? You might as well say that if someone disagrees with you then they are just playing games but if you disagree with us that is somehow not playing games. You're a hypocrite.

I see no evidence that you want to have an honest discussion.

If you mean a discussion where we each learn from each other, then you're right about that. I'm not hiding that fact. I have nothing to learn from you. And you feel the same towards me. So, what are we doing here? You think I'm playing games, yet you're doing the same thing I'm doing (sharing your view while disagreeing with everything I say), but somehow you're not playing games.

There is a difference between what a person says they believe and what he actually believes. You claim to believe one thing but your practice indicates that you believe the opposite.

Empty words. I will tell you what I believe. I don't need you to tell me what I believe.

No, I understand what you clearly deny. You don't actually believe that the OT has anything to say to you with regard to the future. Everything must be filtered through the lenses of your supposition. You admit this so often that I am wondering how you can't see it.

That is simply not true. It has plenty to say about the future, but I happen to believe the obvious, which is that the NT sheds more light on what will happen in the future.

Good, but you don't accept other OT scriptures that speak to the issue directly. You can't because if you did, you would surely change your mind.

LOL. Ridiculous. You are 100% clueless. I'm not willing to interpret any OT scriptures in such a way that they contradict NT scriptures. You are apparently okay with that, but you shouldn't be. It's all scripture and there are no contradictions. But, you create contradictions between OT and NT scripture.

You won't allow the OT to teach you because your common response is, "That can't be true because it contradicts my understanding of the NT."

What in the world is wrong with allowing the NT to shed light on the OT? OT scripture is quoted many times in the NT with explanations of what it means. You have to be a fool to not allow the NT to help you understand the OT better.

I can't show you anything as you have already stated.

That's right. And you think the same about me. So, what are we doing here? Just playing games, according to you. But, don't act like you aren't playing the game, too, if that's what we're doing. I'm not doing anything different than you in terms of sharing my views while making it clear that I disagree with yours.