Search results

Christ's and Paul's use of the identical expression and words "all nations" and their contexts leaves no reason to believe that the meaning and scope of "all nations" was any different between Christ's and Paul's use of it. Christ's prophecy encompassed the time frame from when He issued it to...

Matthew 24:3 uses "sunteleia/synteleia".

Matthew 24 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Who is/are "ye" in verse 6?

Hey bro, we can't always be clones, that would be no fun. :laughing: Paul's epistles use two or three different words for world/earth. But in Romans 16:26 he uses the word nations, and it is the same word that Christ uses at Olivet. 1484 [e] ethnesin ἔθνεσιν ; nations N-DNP And in both...

Re. Matthew 24:14 is anyone going to tackle these? 1. What is the explanation for Paul's declarations that the gospel had penetrated globally in his day? 2. Why is the word for "end" not "sunteleia", consistent with its usage in verse 3? The reality, brethren, is that Matthew 24:14-21 (and...

You don't know the father of the futurism that deceives you? For shame. :laughing: You didn't because there's no rebuttal of Christ the Divine Intercessory Mediator of His Completely Fulfilled New Covenant. Not of your dangling semi-covenant more than 2,000 years old and counting interminably.

So you should be able to tell us all about Francisco Ribera. :laughing: You didn't, but that's no surprise, as you have no Scriptural rebuttal for it.

Then: 1. What is the explanation for Paul's declarations that the gospel had penetrated globally in his day? 2. Why is the word for "end" not "sunteleia", consistent with its usage in verse 3?

The only thing you know about the RCC is its fabricated futurized fantasy antichrist of dispensationalism's delusions. Got any example of any other what you call unfulfilled covenant in Scripture, half of which is dangling for over 2,000 years? :laughing: You're also awful quiet about post...

All on this forum are given the same Holy Scriptures, but there are differing interpretations. Do you believe that you are always right, and anyone who disagrees with you is always wrong? There's a word for that. Cult.

But no one else?

Then you don't qualify to be opining about Isaiah 46:10. :laughing: "THE Only Recognized Source = Matthew 4:4"

I should have been more precise. Paul was confirming the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations". He was not confirming the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy "then shall the end come" because the end had not yet...

There's no re-created 2nd temple in your scenario. Thus no dual fulfillment. Please copy/paste a recognized definition of dual fulfillment from a recognized source today, and evidence from a recognized source in post-apostolic pre-1800 orthodox Christianity who espoused it. Good night @David...

Paul is interpreting it.

Are you saying that the 2nd Temple WILL BE destroyed again?

Maybe because he's losing it? :laughing:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, et al, pre-dated Roman Catholicism by well over a century. You lose. And in reality the acolyte is yourself, because the futurism of your dispensational futurism was fabricated by Jesuit Francisco Ribera in the counter-Reformation of the apostate papacy. You lose...

Sorry bro; there is not the slightest hint of dual fulfillment in post 548. Your presumption in post 549 is entirely your own.

You believe Darby&Scofield modernist revisionist dispensational delusionism. Toss it into the dumpster. :laughing: