[the_doc]

You have no real defense for your position (2 Peter 3 destroys your position, as does the curse against Jeconiah, as does the Pentecost sermon), so you malign me for being more careful and thoughtful than you are.

Well, I say that's pretty crass behavior on your part. I obviously win the argument.

[George W. Bush]

I obviously win the argument.

Well! You could have posted this sooner and saved our eyes the strain of reading the preceding 1,945 posts and floundering about in millennial turmoil.

Somehow, I don't think everyone will agree that you have won. Perhaps they just don't know when they're beaten.

[xzins]

There is already far too much evidence that the "first resurrection" idea in Revelation 20 is non-literal. Doc, if each of your assumptions up above was a pill, then everyone would overdose before the 2nd paragraph. The allegorizing that's going on in your interpretive methodology does not make anything the amil's say about any verse a rock to stand on. They build a house on shifting sand. 1945 posted on 9/26/02 10:09 PM Eastern by xzins [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1943 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: xzins; RnMomof7 You have no real defense for your position (2 Peter 3 destroys your position, as does the curse against Jeconiah, as does the Pentecost sermon), so you malign me for being more careful and thoughtful than you are. Well, I say that's pretty crass behavior on your part. I obviously win the argument.

The 2 posts are above....that's hardly maligning you. At worst it's mildly sarcastic.

Besides that, I don't think any in the amil camp are willing to admit their assumptions. Models are built on assumptions and facts. A fact should be demonstrably so. What is not a fact is an assumption. (We are, of course, speaking of bible facts and assumptions, although other supporting facts from history, archeology, etc., bear weight inasmuch as they are facts.)