Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: topcat54
Literally speaking, the "the sign of the Son of man" is not the second coming.

You're dancing on me here! Do you believe that that sign of the Son of man appeared in 70 AD or not??? Yes or No --

I thought you guys had all the answers -- so answer it.

497 posted on 11/09/2007 10:47:53 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip; P-Marlowe; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; tabsternager; Lee N. Field
You're dancing on me here!

Not at all. Without referencing Scofield’s Notes, you show us from the Bible where "the sign of the son of man" must "literally" mean the second coming.

If you come back and say something like, "but it looks like the second coming to me" or "but everyone knows it the second coming", then we will now that your emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Give it a shot Chipper and see what you can do. Exegetes some Scripture for a change.

501 posted on 11/09/2007 10:54:20 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism is a disease ... as contagious as polio.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson