Search results

If you don't stop saying things like this then we're done. So, tell me if you plan on doing that or not. I would never suggest that "God can't/won't fulfill His promise to others". That is very insulting for you to imply that. This isn't a case of you believing that God will fulfill His...

Do you agree that for at least the past almost 2,000 years He hast not favored the people of one nation over another when it comes to salvation? Yes or no, please. You continue to talk about His keeping His promises regarding land to the people of Israel. What about what it says in Hebrews...

This has already been addressed. That relates to the new covenant and NT scripture makes it very clear that the new covenant was ushered in long ago and that Gentile believers are included in it. Is there something you don't understand about what Paul said in Ephesians 3:1-6 about Gentile...

Regardless of whether that is true or not regarding the past, is that true now and has it been true for the past almost 2,000 years? How do you interpret a passage like this: Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in...

But, what were they chosen for? They were not chosen for salvation as if God wants the people of that nation to be saved and not other nations. Obviously, God wants all people of all nations to be saved. No, their nation was chosen to be the one through which salvation would come to the world...

Does Joel 3 end at verse 2? Tell me where in Joel 3 that it talks about people being judged at that point in relation to how they treated "the least of these"? Tell me where in Joel 3 that it talks about some people inheriting "eternal life" in the kingdom prepared for them "from the foundation...

No, He did not. Even one would be nice. But, there are none. But, if there was only one, you'd have to wonder why there's only one NT passage about that and (supposedly) several OT passages about it. What kind of question is this??!! It's very insulting. I do not think that and I know no one...

Yes, you are. Whatever you're suggesting is based on what is written in that verse. But, how can I know exactly what you think the verse is suggesting without you telling me? You may have noticed that we think very differently. So, I can't know for sure how you're interpreting that verse and why...

Why is it that the New Testament scriptures do not line up with your understanding of these passages? There is no NT scripture that says anything about God regathering Israel to her promised land. In fact, there is NT scripture which tells us about how Abraham and other OT saints came to realize...

Can you please not just post a passage of scripture without adding commentary regarding how you interpret it and what the reason is exactly that you posted it? Otherwise, I can only guess about that and I may guess wrong. Are you suggesting that God does favor one nation over another even as...

Yes. And? What is the point you're intending to make here besides the things we all already know about this passage, which is that Paul contrasted believing and unbelieving Israelites there and also referenced the Gentiles?

How in the world are you thinking that just quoting the scriptures is all you need to do and that makes your view correct? I could just quote scriptures in return and then drop the mic and declare myself the winner of the debate if I wanted, but that's not how this works. Tell me exactly how...

Can you please just answer my question? I asked "Were you not indicating that you think Paul was referring to all of Israel, including both believers and unbelievers when referring to those who are "beloved for the father's sakes"?". Yes or no, please. It seems that your answer is yes, but I'm...

You once again are avoiding my question. I didn't ask you who you believe the symbolic woman represents, I asked how the symbolic woman can sit on literal things and I pointed out how she sits on "many waters". Are the many waters she sits on literal waters? No. It is explained what the...

Let me remind you that you referenced verses 28 and 29 in the post that I was replying to, so that is what I was specifically talking about. Can you please specifically address what I said about the passage and tell me why you disagree with what I said? Can you tell me exactly how you interpret...

How does it not change what you wrote? If you agree with what I said then that contradicts what you wrote, doesn't it? Were you not indicating that you think Paul was referring to all of Israel, including both believers and unbelievers when referring to those who are "beloved for the father's...

Are you afraid to answer the question I asked? It seems that every time someone asks you a challenging question, you just dismiss it. It was a valid question that you should be able to answer if your understanding is correct. Don't deny that. So, again, if the seven heads refer to seven literal...

You never have any idea of what you're talking about. I think I agree with them? No, I don't. I don't agree with their understanding of the timing of the wrath described in Luke 21:25-36 which has to do with the wrath that will come down on "that day" Jesus referenced, which is the day that He...

I said that before seeing that post, so I will delete that post. I was saying you didn't answer it in the post I was responding to, which is true. But, I didn't know you had answered it in a different post until later.

I agree that it's always about context, but you are missing the context of the verse you referenced here. Is it saying the entire nation of Israel, including unbelievers, are "beloved for the fathers' sakes", as you seem to believe? No, it is not. For context, you need to go back to what Paul...