Search results

So you do think that Jesus was only joking.

Those are all modernist cultic dispensational fantasies and fallacies "run amok".

But the New Covenant was. Unless you think that Jesus was only joking.

Steer in the opposite direction from modernist cultic dispensationalism, which denies Christ's accomplishments at Calvary, and attempts to contort Him into antichrist.

I'm not of the Catholic Church. My Reformation Church does not subscribe to the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

What the Catholic Church defines as dogmas, and what the lexicon defines as dogmas, are two different dogmas. One lexical definition: "A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds" Until one of your popes publicly renounces the three declarations that I cited...

So when Jesus said "This is My Blood of the New Covenant", it wasn't the New Covenant?

Don't rip those out of the Bible. Don't rip these out either: Romans 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so...

It started here: Matthew 26 NKJV 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

You're on the wrong side of Scripture, history, and historical Christian orthodoxy. Only Christ could accomplish what Daniel 9:24 describes. Which He did in the 70th contiguous week. As the historical true Christian Church for more than 17 centuries unanimously believed and proclaimed.

They were the people of Messiah the Prince, His people/servants to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon the nation which had rejected Him. There is no antichrist in Daniel 9 or anywhere else in the OT. The word does not exist in OT Hebrew or Aramaic.

It's the same word, with the additional qualification of "Messiah" in verse 25 to confirm the identity when comparing Scripture with Scripture. Who is the "prince" in verse 26, and who is "he" in verse 27?

1 John 3:9 Greek 4160 [e] poiei ποιεῖ , practices V-PIA-3S

"We" means "we" in every verse in which it appears. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins...

John was certainly talking to already saved Christians, specifying "we", "our", and "us", thus including himself.

It sounds John in inspired Scripture. And He in the verse is not a Catholic priest, but rather Christ our High Priest. Now how does that sound?

You're ignoring grammar, Scripture, and history. See post 91. Daniel 11:22-23 refers to events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It does not refer to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel 9.

Bro, you are correct that the Romans carried out the destruction. But they were under the ultimate command and control of Messiah the Prince, serving as His people/agents of judgment and destruction upon the nation that had rejected Him. The Roman prince Titus who led the Roman armies...

I wonder where you got your ideas from? 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Do you live a sinless life? If not, then confession is a recurring event.

There is only one Individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9:24-27. He is Messiah the Prince. Daniel 9:25 Via grammatical antecedents/referents, the prince in Daniel 9:26 is Messiah the Prince. Via grammatical antecedents/referents, "he" in Daniel 9:27 is Messiah the Prince. Savior...