Recent content by covenantee

I concur. However, you claim that the Kingdom was rejected. There are those who believe that the Kingdom which Christ preached was Plan A, a physical political kingdom which He would establish and rule over; but because Plan A was rejected, Plan B, which was the Cross, was substituted. It's...

When do you think that the Kingdom of God began?

Show where I've said that. He was grieving the unbelief of those who rejected Him, which was completely understandable. He was not grieving the belief of those who accepted Him.

If you have Scripture disproving post 317, then please cite it.

Matthew 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Fulfilled in Christ at His first coming. Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof...

Daniel prophesied of Christ, who came historically 2000 years ago. Christ is the path to God.

Ribera formulated the futurism to which pretribbers subscribe. Do you disagree?

It certainly is unique, to which can be added modernist and revisionist. It certainly does not stand on its own, in its frenzied embrace of dispensational futurism, whose apostate Jesuit origins are confirmed by dispensational futurist Clarence Larkin: Clarence Larkin, author, Dispensational...

What about it.

Two Israels. Romans 9 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh...

Why do you claim only "many"? Romans 11:26 declares "all".

I know your position, and I know it's wrong. So does the historical orthodox Christian Church for seventeen centuries. They don't play games.

The word "implying" appears in your definition. It does not appear in mine. Your definition does not cite any Scriptures to which it applies. Mine does. But since you can't understand the distinctions, Just leave them for those who can. :laughing:

I'm confident in the etymological credentials and competencies of the translators. Your nonspecific definition does not specify 2 Thessalonians 2:3. My specific definition does. Specific supersedes nonspecific.

You are unaware that the definition which applies to 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is "a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion:" So here it all is for you again: Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 646: ἀποστασία ἀποστασία, ἀποστασιας, ἡ (ἀφισταμαι), a falling...