Search results

This is yet another extremely weak argument, as all of them so far have been. The taking vengeance relates to Jesus physically killing living unbelievers when He comes. Yes, the punishment with everlasting destruction happens after that, but it doesn't indicate how long after. You assume it's...

I'm not sure what point you were intending to make here. It seems like you're saying that you believe Revelation 20:11-15 has already started being fulfilled, which would mean you don't see it as portraying a future judgment day?

Is He not spiritual as well? Does He not dwell within each of us spiritually? Sure, He does. You make the same mistake that I've seen others here make, which is acting as if something spiritual can't be literal. Satan is a spirit being, right? Does that make him not a literal being? No. He...

Where is that taught in scripture? If you try to say Romans 11:25-26, then explain to me why Paul would teach that there after previously saying that he hoped some of them (his fellow Israelites) could be saved (Romans 11:14? He went from saying that to saying all of them would be saved a few...

No, the reason you're saying that is only because of doctrinal bias. And your lack of willingness to acknowledge what the word "ARE" means. It's not a word used to refer to the future. It's clearly present tense. You deny even the most obvious things spelled out in scripture. You interpret...

I don't want to expand my thinking to be like yours, that's for sure. Your explanation here is about as weak of an argument as I can imagine. Peter was clearly only referring to believers when he talked about the "holy nation" in 1 Peter 2. That you want to include unbelievers in that "holy...

Apparently, according to our friend Rich R, we have no need to be able to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying because it's just all spelled out for us. Even an unbelievers can understand what the Holy Spirit is saying since it's all spelled out for everyone, right? Or not? Clearly, Paul didn't...

No, I don't think they were expected to understand what He was saying at the time. The understanding of a lot of things He said would come later when the Holy Spirit came to help people understand what Jesus taught. Obviously. What in the world are you trying to say here? No, I never said that...

Maybe you should be more careful about what you say. I can only go by what you say. I guess you don't always say what you mean?

This is utter nonsense. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The book of Revelation is all about Jesus Christ and His church. Just like most of the rest of the New Testament. Nothing in Revelation about the Christian church? You have to be kidding me. Look at this verse, for example...

Translation: You are not able to even give me one example. So, I have no reason to believe anything you say since you can't even do that.

You missed the point completely. I'm seeing that you are good at that. I'm saying it was hinted at, yet no one caught it. They didn't understand what Jesus was saying. It wasn't made clear until Paul revealed it. Is this too hard for you to understand what I'm saying here? By saying it was...

Not 98% of prophetic scriptures. Not even close. You have to be kidding me. The fact that you seem to think that reading scripture is no different than reading a news article. That is not what Paul was saying. This reveals your own lack of spiritual discernment. And what is this "special...

Give me even one example of someone here doing that.

It wasn't revealed explicitly until He revealed it to Paul, but it was certainly hinted at before that. Such as in Matthew 21:43 as well as when Jesus referred to His "other sheep" in John 10:16.

You are mistaken. The "holy nation" and "royal priesthood" includes Jew and Gentile believers. John wrote about this, too. Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.To him who loves us and has freed us...

[QUOTE="CadyandZoe, post: 1388952, member: 8753"]Sure I do. But you asked for a New Testament Reference, which is strange. The New Testament doesn't supersede the Old Testament. Bear in mind, the New Testament authors had no reason to repeat or defend any idea from the Old Testament among folks...

No one here is doing that, so please don't waste any more of your time talking about this.

Great question. It simply makes no sense whatsoever that such a significant prophecy would not be mentioned in the NT if it was actually going to happen. But, there's nothing in the NT at all about some supposed earthly, physical kingdom that God promised to Israel.

The new heavens and new earth is introduced during the millennium? How do you figure? How does that line up with what John taught about the new heavens and new earth? He said this regarding what the new heavens and new earth will be like: Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth...