Search results

What are you talking about? Do you somehow see verses such as Ezekiel 37:25-26 referring to Jews, or the nation of Israel only and not all believers? I would say these types of verses can only be talking about the one true Israel of God, a spiritual Israel, based on faith, not a physical...

It appears you’re putting forth the idea that from the beasts perspective he overcomes the saints and at the same time from the saints perspective they overcome the beast. If that is your position, then can you show me other examples where we are not to read the Bible exclusively from a...

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. In this verse we see the dragon can be overcome by believers who rely on the blood of the Lamb and their testimony. Revelation 13:2 And the beast...

Here is a list I have about the similarities of John the Baptist (JtB) and the two witnesses. Revelation 11 two witnesses. Matthew 11:14 JtB is called Elias but in John 1:21 JtB answers “no” when asked if he is Elias. In some kind of way JtB is a single person that represents 2 people...

I agree the saints in Revelation 13 that are overcome are not the new covenant Church. The two witnesses are both overcome and killed, being overcome and killed are two separate things. How are the two witnesses overcome?

One thing we must consider is that a true believer is never “overcome” or “prevailed against” while under the new covenant. In Philippians 1:20 Paul says Christ shall be magnified in his body whether by life or death. A believer who physically dies for their faith is not considered to be...

The scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites but a “regular”, non-office holding Jew wasn’t a hypocrite per se, they were just trying to keep the Law. So a “regular” Jew who kept the Law but rejected Jesus could be considered an offender and them which do iniquity after the cross because those...

Ok, thanks for your explanation. I was thinking there is a way that both only saved people can enter into the kingdom while at the same time there are offenders in the kingdom. Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men...

Ok, so are you saying all people, both the saved and unsaved, are currently in the kingdom of God? If so, can you explain how you’re interpreting John 3:5 which seems to be saying only a saved person can enter into the kingdom of God?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. How did the offenders and those who do iniquity get into the kingdom in the first place? Did they loose their salvation?

There is no overlapping of the validity of the covenants but there was an overlapping of the covenants being allowed to be observed in the church. That time period lasted for a generation. Of course there are Jewish people today who put themselves under the old covenant but they aren’t...

Well the old covenant was still being observed in some churches up until the destruction of Jerusalem. Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law...

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the Old Greek of Daniel 9:27 but from what I understand it the oldest known copy in existence. Here is Daniel 9:27 in the Old Greek, you might find it interesting. Daniel 9:27(OG) And the covenant will prevail for many, and it will return again and be rebuilt...

So are you admitting that you don’t talk about the burial of the old covenant then? Or is it that you can’t defend the Amil position when that string is plucked?

I’m interested in talking about what the Bible says. If a passage is referring to the burial of the old covenant then I want to acknowledge that. Many people simply will refer to that burial as 70AD because that is the date it happened. I can compare your thoughts about preterist being obsessed...

I have barely mentioned 70AD in this thread yet anytime that date is mentioned, all you want to do is divert the conversation back to the cross. I agree that the cross is of utmost importance but you seem to be obsessed with diverting and dismissing any discussion about 70AD. I’m surprised the...

Ah, so you do have to admit there was a burial date! Are you obsessed with Titus and 70AD? Because if anyone else even mentions 70AD that’s your go to defense.

And this is always your only argument against preterist concerning this. I didn’t say the old covenant remained valid after the cross, only that it hadn’t vanished. You have to argue that I somehow think the old covenant was still in force in order to make a straw man argument. How about...

No, your obsession with claiming the old covenant vanished at the cross is blinding you to the truth.

It means everyone who is local will see Him, Hello. His ascension was local, lightning is local, and what happened in 70AD was local. Every local eye sees the local events.