Search results

In the last sentence"thy seed" in this case is plural and is speaking of Israel. God knows the dna of every person born and the 144,000 will consist of 12,000 from each tribe.

That will occur in the millennium where the new dispensation will begin which is Christ ruling and reigning upon earth. Your quote: "(the prophetic name of the ten tribes used by Isaiah and others) would become the fullness of the Gentiles". You're going to have to show me a reference on that...

Not really, the word "church" just means "called out ones' The Jews were the "called out ones" of God in the OT. The NT "church" are the "called out" ones of Christ, through grace. There is a difference.

There are a few more covenants, like the land promises, that have nothing to do w/ the law. The "law" was just the first.

Right and that will be the end of "this" dispensation, then we go on to the next one which is Christ ruling and reigning upon the earth.

The first def. of "fulness" is "complete", a secondary def. is "filled". Many words have several possible definitions, they aren't all the same, it's usually the context that shows you which def. is correct. Rom. 11:25 is similar to Eph. 1:10 "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he...

Of course they can, the OT has many genres, law, prophecy, love stories, poems, history, battles, biographies, etc. Of course, they are separated because there were several aspects of life that wasn't included in the law. The law "Torah" is only part of the OT, the first five books aka the...

Correct, we are "one" in Christ during this dispensation but that doesn't mean physically, but spiritually. God is "not a respecter of persons". That means he doesn't care about the outside, our physicality, it's the spirit and soul that matters.

Sorry but they are only speaking of the law vs. the HS within us. 2 Cor. 2:3 - "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." It would...

Does it use those exact words? No, but it is described in Eph. 1:10 - "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him", Eph. 3:2 - "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the...

So, those people from the Jewish virtual library, sat down w/ Titus for an interview? Who exactly claims Titus said that? Hopefully not traiterous Josephus. I got my info from scripture. If you disagree, take it up w/ God.

The word "army" usually means what it says, but the word "host" besides being an army, can be taken other ways as well. I believe the context would be the deciding factor.

According to what I just found on the net, so take it w/ a grain of salt, there were four kinds of foreign soldiers, translated in english as: numbers, allies, auxillary and laeti (which means "joy" so I don't know about that one).

Gal. 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Unless they come from God as they all do. He's not dismissing one over the other, God is just saying he deals w/ Moses in a different way as he is the first prophet among the beginning of the nation of Israel.

much of it is but educated guesswork, not just blind statements and by historicists as well

What can I say, I know that the historicist take is wrong but I can't prove it to you until they start being fulfilled on a more regular basis but billions might die before any of y'all might change your mind.

So, you're going to believe something from an organization whose purpose is to denounce anything that could possibly lead to Christ? Perhaps to those at the time because they were in Rome's army, they were understood to be Romans. Their army was large because of their use and they used the...

No thank you because this is nowhere near reality.

Titus wasn't the "prince to come" and the "people of the prince" weren't Romans. They were conscripted soldiers from the nations surrounding Israel. It's the "people of" that is the important in the context, they not being Romans, who were responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the...