Search results

Not a prediction, but a revelation of what was even "before the foundation of the world. "

You have it backwards. You are confusing the taking away of the flood (of the Spirit) with the taking away of the ark (the catching away).

Oh, right. Not really either, but simply part of the "image" of God portrayed in the creation of mankind, which shows Christ as Head from the beginning.

There are other passages, but here Paul states it as a fact: 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. PS, Having said that-- However, it is just a temporary role assignment, the end of which is both...

It is obvious that you say that facetiously, and indeed we should hold a defensive position against those who speak falsely regarding the truth from God, for they are many. Yet it is more important not to quench the Spirit, for if we fall victim to those who speak falsely, it is on them. But if...

There is more than meets the eye going on. Certainly more than portrayed by the media. Just as there is a divide between traditional Americans and what America has come to be by certain corrupt leadership in recent times, there is also a divide between the Israeli bloodline and heritage of old...

I don't dabble in what I "think." But throughout His ministry Jesus referred to many things in two's which ends in "two shall be in a field, one shall be taken and the other left..." etc., meaning the fleshly children and lineage of Adam all of whom God has condemned to die, indeed die, return...

Bla, bla, bla. I have said nothing that is not given to me from God and that does not agree with but explains the scriptures. God is my witness, as was Paul. But you do not hear what the Spirit says or you would not reject the truth, but prefer to believe the foretold lie embodying the foretold...

It doesn't appear you understood my post. I posted that the exception of "no justification for a genocide" is God, who has condemned all who sin to death.

Again, this (above) is error. For all who are born of women are born by "kind" (read Genesis) after the lineage of the mother of sin.

Right on--good point--well said!

"There is no justification for a genocide." Except: Genesis 2:16-17 “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but...

You are a broken record and you do not understand. Was Paul not sent, not an apostle, not chosen in the flesh? Go ahead make an exception--for if Paul was an apostle...so am I.

Except: Genesis 2:16-17 “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ...

It doesn't matter what I say, but what Jesus said regarding the old and the new man. I was repeating what He said first: John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

No, but indeed "foolishness to the natural man." What did you expect--the kingdom of God by worldly terms? But no, what I have been speaking of “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

No, that is just the obstacle of language and translation of terms between a timeline and a non-timeline. The point is not to explain the object of the parable of times, but to understand the subject that they are an example of, where time does not exist. If you keep referring back to the...

I wasn't trying. I read your post.

It is good that you respond with questions, at least in part, as there is a lot to cover. I will be brief. First, understand that God being "the same yesterday, today, and forever" ("I AM"--not I will be), means that there was and is no actual chronology or sequence of events regarding a...

Your explanation is reasonable, but includes conjecture which is not actually the case. A better way to understand this age old issue, is to fully consider the tenets of being born again. It is not that same body of sin that is reborn, as in your comment about being crucified "but resurrected...