I know one thing, that your God must be pretty weak if he requires some dirty sinful monkeys to stand up for him.so, coming from a non-believer, please do tell us what God is really like
I would say that you have said enough in your post above, to indicate you really do not know
however, very quick to judge and sounds like you came here to do just that
God has made a way out of your predicament. His Name is Jesus and God did not send Him into the world to destroy it
you sound bitter...is there a reason for that?
Is he another false teacher you used to follow? Or maybe you still do?MoTC says your name might be blotted out . . . according to bruddah Swaggart.
Daniel was a "closed" book until the coming of Christ. But since Christ said WHOSO READETH LET HIM UNDERSTAND in connection with Daniel, we are expected to understand what Daniel revealed in view of the NT prophecies, particularly the book of Revelation.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)...
Daniel already wrote history in advance (until the Roman Empire), but he also provided an insight into the future, which is Daniel's 70th week (the worldwide reign of the Antichrist and its aftermath).
Is he another false teacher you used to follow? Or maybe you still do?
I notice you are adverse to answering direct questions with direct responses.Jimmy isn’t a Bible-believing Baptist
I notice you are adverse to answering direct questions with direct responses.
Meanwhile you call Swaggart "bruddah" and promote his teachings.
I don't reject what Daniel says about itself. But Daniel was writing around 600 BC and at that time it was a closed book. By 100 AD it was an open book.There are a couple of visions that we understand but the rest of the book is closed.. Why do you reject what Daniel says about itself?
You did not give a direct answer, so now you are being dishonest. If you do not believe his teachings, why are you putting them forward as if they might be true for me? Oh, yeah, I get your point. More of your dishonesty, really.Sadly wrong on all counts ... believe me, bruddah is not a term of endearment.
I really wish you would stop accusing me of something untrue. A lot of you appear to believe a person can lose their salvation- which MoTC uses Swaggart comments to ‘prove.’You did not give a direct answer, so now you are being dishonest. If you do not believe his teachings, why are you putting them forward as if they might be true for me? Oh, yeah, I get your point. More of your dishonesty, really.
When have I ever accused you of something untrue? If you are accusing me of that, you are a false accuser. You refused to answer my direct question directly, after putting forward something as if it could be true for me, even though it flies in the face of what you profess to believe. You are an untrustworthy witness.I really wish you would stop accusing me of something untrue. A lot of you appear to believe a person can lose their salvation- which MoTC uses Swaggart comments to ‘prove.’
You really think Christ's true church is in bad shape? Try again. Christ is fully in control of the direction of His church. The whole problem is: antichrist hijacked Christianity and runs most of the mainstream denominations. These so called Christians will be the main perpetrators of the persecution of the real church.
View attachment 188611
Christ will come when it is time for him to come.......
When have I ever accused you of something untrue? If you are accusing me of that, you are a false accuser. You refused to answer my direct question directly, after putting forward something as if it could be true for me, even though it flies in the face of what you profess to believe. You are an untrustworthy witness.
More of your false accusations, and dishonesty. Proof positive: you are an unreliable witness.I didn't see any direct questions . . . just statements of fact that I disagree with. I don't suppose I should expect a New Ager to agree with me at any rate.
I reported you for this post, it’s wrong, rude and hurtful. I sincerely hope you get banned.I didn't see any direct questions . . . just statements of fact that I disagree with. I don't suppose I should expect a New Ager to agree with me at any rate.
I reported you for this post, it’s wrong, rude and hurtful. I sincerely hope you get banned.
ROFLI don't reject what Daniel says about itself. But Daniel was writing around 600 BC and at that time it was a closed book. By 100 AD it was an open book.
What a great Christian attitude!I reported you for this post, it’s wrong, rude and hurtful. I sincerely hope you get banned.
I know one thing, that your God must be pretty weak if he requires some dirty sinful monkeys to stand up for him.