Search results

Jesus didn't say it would be similar, He said it would be exactly like what happened to Sodom in the sense that all in Sodom were killed by fire that came down from heaven. Not all in Jerusalem were killed. When Jesus comes again in the future, fire will come down on the earth killing all...

Goodness sakes, you missed the joke. Everything is in and nothing is out. I was just making a little joke there by saying "basically" because it's not literal sheep and goats, but otherwise we can take it literally. You are changing the text. There are two groups mentioned there, figuratively...

Yes, basically, except I would not say it's talking about literal sheep and goats. sml No. I don't see where are they called "the chosen" and "the nations". Where are you seeing that? Instead, I see the sheep as being referred to as "the righteous' (Matt 25:46) and the goats referred to as "ye...

Why is that all you can tell me? The context is quite clear that it's in relation to the day Jesus returns. If you disagree, then what other context can we apply to passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46? Actually, I don't recall us discussing the judgment before...

I think you missed the point. The fact that they weren't destroyed shows that what Jesus said in Luke 17:26-30 cannot possibly refer to what happened in 70 AD because He said the day of His second coming would be just like events where all unbelievers were destroyed. Wait a minute here. Didn't...

Thanks for trying, but I can't make any sense of what you're saying.

Why are you so vague in your responses? Tell me what you're talking about here exactly. Do you believe that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Christ and those who belong to Christ, as Paul taught (Galatians 3:16,29)? What promises to Jacob are you talking about exactly?

No, they explain who the promises were actually made to, which dispensationalists like yourself deny. Absolutely not. These are empty words than you can't back up. As evidenced by the fact that you didn't back them up.

Right. So, would you agree with me then that the regrafting that Paul referred to was already happening in his time when some Israelites were grafted back in and that would continue to happen until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in?

Agree. And Jesus said this will happen when He comes at the end of the age, right? Yes, and at that time the wicked will be cast into what Jesus describes as "a furnace of fire" where "there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:43,50) and as "everlasting fire prepared for the devil...

You conclude that Luke 17:31 puts us back at 70 AD despite agreeing that there are similarities between what happened in 70 AD and what will happen at the final coming of Christ. Why? There are other things that Jesus said in Luke 17 that can't possibly refer to what happened in 70 AD, such as...

Yes, and do you think his desire did not come to fruition, keeping in mind that he might have been the greatest evangelist to ever live, other than Jesus Himself?

Now, here's something we can actually agree on. There is no basis for comparing us to angels beyond what the scriptures themselves do. Nowhere does it say we will be like the angels in every way. Jesus told us in what ways we will be like them and we should not try to expand what He was saying...

Yes, and what does it say happens to the righteous at that time and what happens to the wicked at that time? Do you agree that Jesus will come again at the end of the age? Very easily. Do you think it's saying everyone is gathered before Him with the wicked being mixed in with the righteous...

Where did Jesus say there that what He was talking about there was "the wrath of the Lamb"? There was no "wrath of the Lamb" in 70 AD. That was the wrath of God the Father. The wrath of the Lamb will come down at Christ's future second coming. 2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled...

Nonsense. This is your lame excuse for not accepting what Paul taught. Paul was giving revelation by the Holy Spirit. The NT authors did have 100% revelation of the things that we talk about on this forum which is why they are the ones who wrote NT scripture and not us or anyone else. Why not...

Yes, and that applied even to the branches who were broken off in Paul's day, which many people don't understand. Many people instead apply Paul's reference to them being grafted in again only to the future, when the reality is that some of those who were broken off in Paul's day ended up being...

I was referring to Paul's time. Do you believe that some of the branches that were broken off in his time could be regrafted? Is that not what he indicated in Romans 11:11-14 and Romans 11:23?

LOL. Yet, somehow, when you don't relate Matthew 24:15-16 to Luke 21:20-21 and don't relate Matthew 24:19 to Luke 21:23, you don't think that is doctrinal bias, despite how hypocritical that is.

All of the people of Israel, including even Paul himself? If not, then please be more specific. What did Paul give as evidence that God had not turned away from His people even in Paul's time?