''Would that be as in, insisting the truth was maintained in that there ARE two prophesies we were discussing and that I would Not fold to the DBT god's way?''
No, Mr Wotsup, the quoted verses all describe one event; the return of Jesus in Power and Glory, host of heaven, in the clouds, to sit upon the throne, to judge (each according to his deeds)....within the promised time frame, while some of those standing there still live.
This is one event, Mr Wotsup, not two. One. One event that you dishonestly try to explain unrelated using verses like ''the holy spirit spoke to Philip,'' etc, as if that explains everything. It does not.
''Would that also be like, I insisted I never mentioned, relied, used a subject (transfiguration) in our discussions?''
Amongst a whole lot of Dross, not worth the time and effort to interpret....and as I have already explained - and conveniently ignored by you - I mistook your references to Mark 9:1 as being an endorsement of the transfiguration, as some Christians believe - I made that mistake because - One, your Christmas tree posts of waffle put me off reading, so I skim. And secondly, there is nothing prior to Mark 9:1 that helps you in any way, Mark 9:1 simply relates to the return of Jesus as described in Matt, Luke and Mark in other verses.
It was my error of assumption based on having to deal with your Christmas tree waffle Posts and skimming, but this doesn't help you in any way because nothing prior to Mark 9:1 accounts for the failed prophesy. The transfiguration is probably a better option, still a failed option but slightly better than anything you have. Which is why I made the assumption in the first place.
Instead of clutching at straws you need to have a good hard look at yourself and your style of posting, assertions trumpeting victory, colours, long winded waffle with no substance, no attempt to explain connections you simple assert are there......
Expand
