Search results

Jesus answered them, “...I give (My sheep) eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand... I and the Father are one" (John 10). Ah, "why use real world imagery..." David, you are obviously a very intelligent, thoughtful person. I think you can answer...

Collectively, David... all those who are born again of the Spirit and thus believers, so all those in Christ, collectively... are the bride of Christ; we are His and He is ours. Individually, though, we are sons, with Jesus our elder Brother, so children of the living God. Goodness gracious...

Holy shuh-moly. How long, O Lord? <smile> Grace and peace to you.

Right, Hagar corresponds to the Old Covenant in her relationship to Sarah, and vice versa... Sarah corresponds to the New Covenant in her relationship to Hagar. But that is a far cry from, and surely not, saying that Hagar is the Old Covenant and/or Sarah is the New Covenant. The relationship...

Well, right, the eighth day after the first day of the previous week. Sure. Which... is the first day of the present/new week. Not the eighth day of the week. I mean, so the eighth day of the week... You'd have to speak to John, Paul, George, and Ringo about that. Although you'll probably...

Hmmmm... Well, it is much more logical ~ and correct ~ to place Sarah as the mother, as I've said. But Sarah is part of the New Jerusalem... a believer in Christ as we are, and a child of the promise. It shouldn't be confusing or ambiguous... God did indeed use human means to accomplish all...

It's wrong about the New Jerusalem being the Mother. The 'she' in Galatians 4:26 refers to Sarah, as opposed to Hagar. As I said before, the English translation makes that distinction a little bit unclear, but that's what it is. There are other places where the right antecedent is not...

Right, well, yes, it’s a position that has existed for centuries, yes, but it's wrong. <smile> And interesting that ChatGPT even says "it's not the dominant position" and "I’m independently reasoning through Scripture in a way that happens to align with that minority interpretive stream."...

Not sure how that's even possible, but no... <smile> Literally through image... What does that even mean? But okay, good. Even though you denied it, but I guess what's in the rear view mirror now really matters not... <smile> Because... it was worth it. For several reasons. I "avoid"...

Sarah and Hagar. Yes, but they are not the covenants themselves. She absolutely is, in the same sense that Abraham is our father. And we are children of them through Isaac, the child of the promise, rather than Ishmael, the child of the bondwoman. You've read John 8, yes? The Jews Jesus is...

So you think the New Covenant is the Bride of Christ? Or our mother? I mean, yeah, either way, that's certainly an issue (even more so if the latter)... <smile> To the 'mother' thing, going back to our exchange regarding what Paul says in Galatians 4, if... looking at it allegorically as we...

Love Psalm 37...

Sure... Well, it is implied as immediately following what we "see" with John in his vision in verses 14-16, and then depicted graphically in verses 20-21. The language used is intimately similar, even synonymous, with what we "see" again, in Revelation 20:9-10. Hm. Interesting. Well...

Well I did, you just don't think so, which... is fair enough. But these are interchangeable terms, meaning referring to the same group of people: Israel ~ God's Israel, consisting of God's true Jews, which includes many outwardly/ethnically Jewish people, but all those circumcised of the heart...

Well, He rose on ~ as you said ~ the first day of the new week. That it is the eighth day after the first day of the previous week is true, but has no significance. But that it is the first day of the new week has far-reaching consequences, the first of which made the Lord's day... the Sabbath...

Well, I'm very much Amillennial, and I do hold to the "single event," but regarding not thinking Revelation 19:11 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14 are the same event, that's certainly not my view; I would hope no one actually thinks that. As for me, I mean, I literally just said... a few hours ago...

I just quoted two passages in the Bible that undoubtedly identify Christ's Bride as the church. But He is. It's not, oh, "on the same level," I guess we could say, as a marriage between a human husband and his wife, of course, but what Paul says about husbands and wives... how they should...

Pish. For the most part ~ but not fully, either now or when Christ does actually return ~ the bride of Christ is in heaven now and will come with Him in His return, but there will be many who are still alive when Christ returns, as Paul says and is clearly indicating in 1 Thessalonians...

Heavenly, spiritual things are not the same as earthly, human things... or in this case institutions, like marriage. Right. But ~ again, in a nutshell ~ we are to regard our own marriage... or that of a husband to his wife... in this world in light of Jesus's relationship to His Bride, the...

Well they are; all we have to do (among other things) is look at what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-33 concerning wives and husbands... "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself...