Baloney. There is no context whatsoever to support your theory. If there were you would be quick to point it out plainly and clearly. Rather, you fall back on your non-responses, and so, my friend, that deserves another …
Not even a good try.
Baloney. There is no context whatsoever to support your theory. If there were you would be quick to point it out plainly and clearly. Rather, you fall back on your non-responses, and so, my friend, that deserves another …
Not even a good try.
The REPLACEMENTARIAN et al pontificating proves to be
SUPER WRONG, YET AGAIN.
Dispy’s can’t take responsibility for reading comprehension challenges on the other side.
Nor are we impressed by the plethera of
PAPER MACHE DOGS [straw dogs would be tooooo outrageous a flattering label]
that the REPLACEMENTARIANS et al
profer as though they were rational postulations based solidly on Scripture when they are, if anything beyond wispy fog, the opposite.
THE SCRIPTURES about the 144,000 have been posted hereon multiple times.
Read the Scriptures and weep for previous years of willful blindness regarding them.
Read the Scriptures and be broken on them.
Read the Scriptures and learn from them.
I would, however, NOT recommend reading those Scriptures and continuing to mangle them; rubberize them, ignore them, pretend all manner of willfully blind hallucinations about them etc.
BECAUSE GOD IS VERY JEALOUS OVER HIS WORD . . . TO PERFORM IT . . . AND TO DEMAND REVERENCE FOR IT.
I see, yet again, not even a hint of a response regarding Damascus . . . much less a solid Biblical, logical, historically accurate one.
What a surprise. NOT!