Search results

BAD translation. The intent of this verse is to say that Christ was the FIRST to proclaim light to the Jewish people AND to the Gentiles - NOT that He was the first to rise from the dead. Try the ERV. "How that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead...

No, the mount of transfiguration was not a "preview" of Christ's return. We are told the subject which Elijah and Moses were speaking with Christ about. "Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." (Luke 9:31). There was no preview of...

It's rather simple language which James 5 used about the coming of the Lord having already drawn near in those first-century days. Only the experts try to complicate the language into something far-distant from those first-century times. But this second coming being fulfilled already doesn't...

To be more precise, the prediction of "every eye" who would see Christ's second coming return was specifically "those who pierced Him". Nobody today is guilty of that charge of piercing Christ. That was strictly a first-century Jewish generation which had been accused of being "the betrayers...

Preterists are absolutely convinced that "the coming of the Lord has drawn near" in the time that James 5 was written. "Behold, the judge standeth before the door" was a clear indication that the Lord's hand was "on the doorknob", as it were, before He bodily returned in those days when James...

I suppose that wasn't so much that the author of the fourth gospel was being dismissive or neglectful in not mentioning John the Apostle as being the son of Zebedee. That was probably more of a protective measure to keep his references to the Apostle John rather vague, seeing that the Jewish...

Not so. I wouldn't present this viewpoint of there being THREE bodily resurrection events scheduled for mankind over the span of fallen man's history unless there were Scriptures which back this up. But it is off-topic of this post, don't you think? Better for me to start a totally new post...

Yes, I have heard this very same point being raised before concerning Christ's question in John 21:23. The writer of the fourth gospel, (the disciple whom Jesus loved), was trying to draw attention to the main point Christ was making, which was not really about his own resurrected status at...

What we do have in the fourth gospel is the one-and-only description in all the gospels of the account of Christ resurrecting Lazarus: namely, "He whom thou lovest" (John 11:3). We then read about the feast given in Lazarus's home in Bethany in John 12:1. "There they made him a supper; and...

It wasn't just any generation whatever of the family of evil who were given that sign of the prophet Jonas. It was that first-century generation which had that single sign given to it directly. They rejected that particular sign by not receiving Christ as their prophesied Messiah the Prince...

There was a deliberate reason back then for creating such confused opinion as to the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This was done in order to confound and thwart the Pharisees who were "out to get" Lazarus and ANYBODY ASSOCIATING WITH HIM (like Mary the mother of Christ would have...

It wasn't John the Apostle, son of Zebedee that was being spoken of in these texts. It was "the disciple whom Jesus loved", who Scripture distinguishes as being a different man than John the son of Zebedee. The only reason why this John 21:24 verse can claim so confidently that "we KNOW that...

We all are capable of reading other people's viewpoints and selecting from them what agrees with the Scriptures. This is not the sin which you presume it to be. You have an obvious bias against anything at all coming from a Preterist position. I on the other hand chew the meat and spit out...

It is you yourself who cannot recognize the original audience of the Scriptures and the things that were being addressed to them personally in their own days. It's as if you guys want to erase the entire first-century generation from the Scriptures so that nothing at all applied to them. The...

A rather generic translation. Should be "...who is about to judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His reign." Also another rather generic translation. Should be "...a day on which He is about to judge the world in righteousness..." This isn't really clear in this verse as to...

That "day" already came and went back in AD 70, with a judgment upon both the living and the dead, as Paul had predicted in 2 Timothy 4:1. Didn't you catch Jude's reference to "THESE" men who were THEN feasting along with "YOU", which was the saints of Jude's day being addressed personally...

LOL, Yep, sorry, I'm typing too fast. It was Revelation 12:12 (not John 12:12) when John was giving a warning to his own readers that Satan had already come down to them in great wrath for that "short time" / aka the "little season" when he was released from his millennial chain so that he...

Sorry, but that is not how Revelation 20:5 describes this ending of the millennium. The millennium comes to an end simultaneously with the time when the "First resurrection" takes place - an event when the "remnant of the dead" comes to life again, which John labels as being "the First...

This text does not say that every person on the globe would simultaneously see the returning Savior coming bodily to the Mount of Olives. Pay careful attention to the little word "even" in this verse. The Greek word is "kai", which Scripture often uses in an explanatory sense, meaning...

No, it's not the only translation which translates this verse (and others) in this manner. It is the literal translations that recognize the significance of the original Greek terms, which many translations cast aside. Perhaps you don't, but I prefer to get closer to the original languages...