Search results

Cornelius was a Gentile. He became a Christian. Genetically, he remained a Gentile. Spiritually, he became a Christian. Hence, Cornelius was a Gentile Christian.

Thanks for the guffaw du jour. :laughing:

The disciples received the Holy Spirit in John 20:21,22; not in Acts 2:1-4. May I have the verse that says that they did not receive the New Covenant until after John 20:21,22?

So you believe that the disciples refused the New Covenant that Jesus offered them. May I have the verse that says that they refused Him? Then may I have the verse where they finally accepted His New Covenant?

Do you think that the disciples refused the New Covenant that Jesus offered them?

Matthew 26 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. The time tense of "is" is present. There's no "time problem", or any other problem. Jesus is speaking in the present tense, reflecting present reality at that time. He offered His New...

Amen bro.

The Jesuits fabricated futurism in an attempt to defeat the Reformation. They failed. Futurism's futurisms are characterized by denied and delayed fulfillments. God's futurisms are fulfilled in His Son. Daniel 9:24; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Hebrews 1:1,2

Early church father Justin Martyr affirmed amils. He preceded Catholicism by more than a century. Futurism and preterism originated in the Jesuits of the apostate papacy of the 16th century. The former was embraced by dispensationalism in the 19th century. Recognized dispensationalist...

You're the only source of truth in the whole wide world, right? :laughing: Here's Matthew 26:28 from your Bullinger Companion Bible: 28 For this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Even he doesn't agree with you. :laughing:

It was the "dark ages" that spawned the apostate papacy's counter-reformation Jesuit Francisco Ribera, the father of the futurism which you embrace and perpetuate. Thank God for the Reformation.

So you agree with your rendition of Matthew 26:28. Have you contacted any translator to agitate for your rendition? :laughing:

Here's your rendition of Matthew 26:28: "For this is not My blood of the new covenant, which is not shed for any for the remission of sins."

Two Israels. Romans 9 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh...

What's all this? We were discussing whether Jesus offered His New Covenant to His disciples in Matthew 26:28. You claim that He didn't. Scripture declares that He did. I believe Scripture.

There are no "various dispensations". There are two: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Futurists depend on the illicit malinterpretations of modernist cultic fantasy and fallacy, which strive to overturn the Holy-Spirit-given insight and wisdom of 17 centuries of true Christian...

The wisdom and understanding of historical defenders of the true faith have been recorded and preserved for our benefit and edification. It is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance to suggest that our wisdom and understanding is superior to theirs. Such is the essence of cultism. Wisdom and...

Yes, it's referring to the house of Israel, i.e. Israelites. Note that Israel from its beginning and throughout its history was populated by both Jews and Gentiles. Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22 So the lost sheep were Israelites -- both Jews and Gentiles --...

Those without Christ are lost.

What you believe and what Jesus declared are not the same.