“Don’t you think you claim that I will not “admit my beliefs” is a little weak?”
No, not at all. You are a preterist, yet you refuse to admit it, even after being shown how your own statements dovetail with the well-known doctrines of preterists. The claim looks pretty strong to me.
“Ironically, you will not admit that your “belief” is new-age.”
You haven’t even said what of my beliefs is supposed to be “new age”, so of course I won’t admit it. I don’t have any such beliefs. If I do have some, go ahead and point out where I have stated them, just like I pointed out your preterist statements.
My beliefs are on the table for all to see. I have started MANY new threads this year, and have defended all of them----with SCRIPTURE!
You do know that it is you who have been hiding your beliefs, while trying to turn a biblical debate into a kindergarten-style name-calling session. That must be one of the tactics written in the dispensational/futurist playbook, because it happens so often. It may be even modelled after the smear techniques written in the socialist/communist playbook; e.g., modelled after Saul Alinsky. That would be a good research project: to compare the two smear tactics.
>>>You haven’t even said what of my beliefs is supposed to be “new age”, so of course I won’t admit it. I don’t have any such beliefs. If I do have some, go ahead and point out where I have stated them, just like I pointed out your preterist statements.<<<
I personally think you are a closet dispensationalist. Prove me wrong.
BTW, have you ever read the article, "The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism and John Nelson Darby", by Jack Van Deventer?
Philip