Search results

Uh, I always did, EG, but only clarified that it was never so limited as you think it was/is. As I said, it had an immediate relevance and fulfillment, and a ultimate and eternal relevance and fulfillment. You agree with that, I think, at least in principle, but we disagree with how that will...

Well, I don't disagree, but I don't agree either. Or, better put, I both agree in one sense and disagree in another. Certainly. Absolutely... Ah, Romans 11:28, a very misunderstood (by many) verse... Paul is saying that as a corporate body, ethnic Israel is presently opposed to the Lord...

It's really not a different promise, Eternally Grateful, but rather the lesser, immediate manifestation of the greater, with the lesser pointing to the greater. You get that, no? Surely you do. Not immediately, no. I will agree with you insofar as that. Right, not immediately, no. Okay...

Gentile believers are heirs according to the promise... "...if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:29). Not immediately, no. I have never asserted otherwise. Well, but the law does serve a purpose for us; it is a mirror that pushes us...

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would ask this question about Matthew 25 in response to my quoting Paul in Romans 2:28-29... but no matter... We could use this, or the parable of the ten virgins above, but it's even more clear in Jesus's graphic description of the final Judgment in Matthew...

Opinions are like noses... Ohhhh, yes they are.... This should be clearly seen in Hebrews 1:1-2, that "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through...

Ohhh, well, that's... okay. :) It may be very close, yes. The tribulation has been very difficult, no? :) Sure! Well, it's... being fulfilled, as we speak. This has been the case for about 2000 years... Well, the return of the King, yes. But in the fullness of God's time, it will...

"Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'” [John 18:36] "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought...

Wait... Leviticus 6? Or Leviticus 26, which you specified before? Regardless, the civil and ceremonial law is in effect no longer, as the writer of Hebrews is very clear on in chapter 7 of that letter: "Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the...

The latter is outward; the former is inward. See Romans 2:28-29. Hmmm, okay, sure, The former is of men, and the latter is of God. It was always possible for anyone to see outward Israel, physical descendants ~ just as now it is possible for anyone to see the visible church, those who...

Oh, my. I know this was to Covenantee, but neither he nor I have ever insinuated such a thing... quite the opposite, actually. What you seem to refuse to see is the greater nature of His eternal promises. This lesser/greater concept is seen over and over and over and over again throughout...

Leviticus 26 is part of the ceremonial law that is no longer in effect. There is no "question." Yet again, the Israel of God was never a nation-state, and never will be. At any given time, it always is what God established it ~ and is even now continuing to build it, and will bring it to its...

There is no "replacement." Even we Gentiles, believers of every tongue, tribe, and nation, are the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac (the child of the promise), and Jacob. The perceived replacement is itself a false dichotomy. As the writer of Hebrews says: "Long ago, at many times and in...

Right, and this nation is called Israel, after Jacob, which I think you know. But Israel was not a nation-state then, and it is not now, even though there was a nation-state incorporated in 1948. The Israel of God and the Israel of men are two very different things. Some citizens of that...

You understand, Eternally Grateful, that God's nation of Israel, which includes all those whom He has called since the events of Genesis 3, regardless of ethnicity ~ the Israel He is still building today ~ is quite different than the physical nation-state of Israel as it exists today, right...

Are you really talking about when the Israelites were taken away into exile in Babylon? And postulating that's when Israel was cut off? My goodness... Okay, you know they returned just a few years later, 70, to be exact... But yet Paul, about eight centuries later, talks about them still...

Do you "understand" me to have made such a claim, Timtofly? Because I have not; such would be quite stupid... and neither has Covenantee... But Covenantee and I would both agree that in God's Israel, which is very different than the nation-state called Israel since 1948, and physical...

God's Israel was never and never will be a physical state in the way Egypt or any other nation-state was or is, even that physical nation-state that came to be in 1948 and of which Benjamin Netanyahu is now the Prime Minister. God's Israel always did and always will consist only of those He has...

Ad hominem literally means "to the person" in New Latin (Latin as first used in post-medieval texts). So, to your question, by definition, no, it's not any kind of ad hominem ~ on him or anyone else. Nope. None of what I have said reflects upon Timtofly as a person. See above. It can be...

I have no doubt... :) Actually, I do, too, if you're talking about Scriptural allusions, but they're just used in contradictory and, well, weird ways, so much so as to turn them on their respective ears, really. And the Day of the Lord refers to the time of Christ's return (he may actually...