You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you? You brought up the reference to Elijah in post 154, not me, and you tossed it into the mix because I had already disputed your wrong contention about why myself and others were wanting you to take your Dispensational arguments to a new thread. As for who said what and when, you only see your own angle and not that of others.
My ONLY disagreement was with your insistence that John the Baptist WAS a reborn Elijah the Prophet. That kind of thinking is not Christian because it would mean Elijah was reincarnated as John, the cousin of Jesus, and that doesn't happen. Though John DID do many of the things Elijah is prophesied to do, the REAL Elijah has yet to fulfill what Revelation 11 says concerning the two witnesses. John the Baptist identifies himself as the messenger of Isaiah 40:3, not as the Elijah of Malachi 3:1. Someone coming "in the spirit of" another is not the same thing as that person BEING the one to come.
I can certainly understand why you would defend such an outlandish idea seeing as you really think Elijah has already come to usher in the Messianic kingdom, which is one of the stranger aspects of Preterism - that everything that IS to happen already HAS happened. I absolutely disagree with that eschatology simply because there are things yet to occur before that great and terrible day of the Lord. It hasn't come yet, because had it already happened, we would be in the kingdom of God with the Lord Jesus Christ ruling and reigning with a rod of iron. I seriously doubt He'd have Barack Obama running things anywhere!
You are the one who broke loose from a chain and came after me like a rabid dog. I certainly didn't come after you. You lied about what I said, and about what others said. That is all there is too it.
[clip, clip, clip]
>>>My ONLY disagreement was with your insistence that John the Baptist WAS a reborn Elijah the Prophet.<<<
When did I insist that? I'll tell you when: NEVER! I do recall you accused me of it in your haste to prove me wrong, for whatever reason, which I am reasonably sure was due to your bias. I tried to explain that you had completely and totally misinterpreted what I said; but you would have none of it.
It is about time you admit you misquoted me, boatbums..
Boatbums, until you either admit you are wrong, or demonstrate what you are claiming is true: not with excerpts, but the with actual URL and post#('s) so we can read them; I have no alternative but to consider you as little more than a blowhard.
Philip