Search results

Trying to save your soul is exhausting. “My people Israel.” Yes.. and the whole question is who constitutes God’s covenant people after Christ. You keep reading Israel, then magically fast-forwarding 2,000 years, pointing at a modern state, and pretending the word itself proves your...

Christ can return to Jerusalem without Jerusalem being the covenant center of Christianity. Bethlehem was where Christ was born, Golgotha was where He was crucified. Jerusalem was where He rose and where Pentecost occurred. None of that means Christians are covenantally defined by possession of...

That's exactly the problem. You keep pointing at land as though Christians are supposed to be spiritually impressed by dirt after Christ. “Do you have a map? Is Israel there?” Yea, so what? To a Christian, modern Israel may be historically important and worth visiting because biblical events...

Here we go again... You just smuggled your conclusion into the word “Israel.” Ezekiel says God gathers Israel. You immediately translate that into: “God brought the modern nation-state of Israel home in 1948.” Where does Ezekiel say that? Nowhere. Where does Christ say that? Nowhere...

This isn’t hard and is easily demonstrable… All you have to do is project God’s Word on the jumbo screens of an auditorium so the whole audience can read it, then let Hagee just preach for an hour. That’s the whole act. No comedian needed. No writers, no punchlines. Just let him preach while...

You changed the subject again. Nobody said Scripture contains no future events. The question is whether a future event somehow resurrects an obsolete covenant, recreates two covenant peoples, and turns modern geopolitical Israel into the New Testament definition of Israel. It does not. You...

Christ says, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Your system answers God incarnate: “No, Lord, you're wrong. It’s right here on the map, and it’s made of dirt.” That is not interpretation. That's your theology correcting Christ. Repent

No. That burden doesn’t reverse. Christ is standing there speaking to His hearers and says “THIS generation.” That's the generation actually present in the discourse. You are the one replacing that audience with another generation thousands of years later. So the question remains exactly...

You guys are proving the thread faster than I can even write it. Jack quotes Amos while ignoring how the apostles themselves use Amos in Acts 15. Now you answer the New Testament with Zechariah. That's the problem. Every time Christ or the apostles define the covenant in Christ, you flee...

And what does “die trying” have to do with the Gospel of Christ? We were discussing covenant identity, and within one paragraph you've turned it into people dying over meaningless terrestrial borders. Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world. You immediately answered with land and death...

I'm sorry, I don't know what religion you follow exactly, maybe I'm not familiar with it.. I follow God's Word and that of the apostles, their disciples and the architects of Christianity itself. Matthew 21:43 — the kingdom is taken and given. Not paused, not put on prophetic layaway, not...

And because that verse will never be found in the text, eventually you have to ask a much darker question.. how much spiritual danger are you in when your entire system has drifted so far from the actual words of Christ that deception starts feeling like doctrine? You trusted the schisms. You...

Exactly, he could not produce the verse because it does not exist. There is no explicit verse where Christ says “this generation” means an unnamed generation 1,900 years later. Not even just "in the future". Not even that to hold onto for an argument. Nothing. See the danger is that once...

We’re all still patiently waiting for the verse where Christ Himself identifies the future generation you claim He meant by “THIS generation." Book. Chapter. Verse please...

No. You just repeated the same unsupported substitution that’s been going on throughout the thread.. You're not saying anything new.. Christ said: “THIS generation shall not pass.” You changed it to: “the generation that sees.” Fine. Show me where Christ says those are two different...

No, you still haven’t produced it. Christ said: “THIS generation shall not pass.” You say He meant some other generation thousands of years later. Fine. Show me where He names it. Not “TO and ABOUT" gymnastics. Not your paraphrase. Not “see post #21.” Book. Chapter. Verse. Until then...

You still didn’t answer the question. You replaced Christ’s words with your paraphrase and then asked me to defend the paraphrase. Jesus said: “THIS generation shall not pass…” You say: “an unnamed future generation shall not pass…” So once again: Where does Jesus identify that second...

While we’re at it. Revelation gives us one victorious appearing of Christ. Show me where John splits that return into two separate arrivals. Book. Chapter. Verse. Show me where John backs up your modern, manmade 'Left Behind" fairytale. He never does. That second arrival has to be...

You keep warning that Satan is coming while supporting the very fear, war, bloodshed, and political machinery you say will herald his arrival. At some point you have to ask whether the ‘signs’ you’re terrified of are being manufactured by misled people who’ve been trained to interpret the...

No. “TO” and “ABOUT” are not two generations. They are two prepositions you're using to smuggle a second generation into the passage after the fact. Jesus is speaking to His disciples about events. Fine... Now produce the verse where Christ identifies some completely different future generation...