Search results

Yes, His Kingdom is not visible. That's the Kingdom of His dear Son. That's the Kingdom that I'm in. You're free to wait for your millennial kingdom. I'm completely satisfied with the Kingdom of His dear Son that I'm in.

Do you think that those of Acts 10:35 are different from those of 1 Peter 2:5? How are they different?

Here's what else Peter wrote: 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 every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Will you stick with that?

The Church, who is the elect, was and is comprised of all ethnicities.

1 Peter 2 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Who is the "ye" that Peter is addressing? 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a...

You're noticeably short on Scripture. As you recognized: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Affirmed: Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the...

But still no independent historical corroboration, in contrast to the explicit corroboration from the Jewish community of Micah 3:12, at Bar-Kokhba.

Is there any independent historical corroboration, as there is for Bar-Kokhba?

Micah 3 12 Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest. When was that fulfilled?

It was fulfilled here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-bar-kokhba-revolt-132-135-ce "The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen."

Have you joined another cult?

So you believe that Jesus told two different stories in two different discourses. Provide a link to the term and explanation of the "Olivet discourses". Then provide just one name, with verbatim supporting evidence, of any recognized historical expositor who agrees with you. Just one name.

Thanks for the spelling correction. As your claim that Matthew 24:2 is not about the physical temple is baseless and without merit. With which all historical commentators who commented on the verse agree.

That's what I said. The Holy Spirit was explaining it. "Stop trying to replace the Holy Spirit, by making Luke say something different."

The first question related to these things i.e. the buildings/stones of the temple and their fate. The initial ensuing verses of the discourse answer that question, in Jesus' description of the signs which would precede the coming destruction. Where in there do you see "the entire Olivet...

Historically, no Christian theologians and commentators have interpreted Matthew 24:2 as referring to anything other than the physical temple.

Link to the post in which I made such a statement. You're confusing me with someone else.

More questions. Where in Scripture are the disciples, or any believers, referred to as "things"? What recognized pre-19th century Bible expositor denies that Matthew 24:2 refers to the physical temple?

You're showing you cannot answer a simple question like What are "all these things"? Which means you don't understand what you're reading.

"Here" seems to be missing. What are "all these things"? Jesus was at the temple when He declared Matthew 24:2.