Search results

:rolleyes: נָבִיא nâbîyʼ, naw-bee'; from H5012; a prophet or (generally) inspired man:—prophecy, that prophesy, prophet. προφήτης prophḗtēs, prof-ay'-tace; from a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller ("prophet"); by analogy, an inspired speaker; by extension, a poet:—prophet.

This is not about me. But your asking is indeed about you.

@Enoch111 @Christophany I didn't want to derail the "What is Revival" thread, but this needs to be clarified. Now, I get it if you are of the opinion that Paul spoke here referring only to the last apostles, even though that is not the context of the passage, for the context is as stated...

What then is it that you are actually saying then, since you have accused me of "assuming" what I have not assumed?

Who has not been wrong? I espouse none, but God and our Lord Jesus Christ who said that what you have and do "expect" is not what was to be. What I have testified to has also been foretold.

I am denying nothing of what is actually true, but explaining it against the foretold false doctrines and lie that has brought strong delusion--from which it is also written: "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

I have not denied Jesus' bodily resurrection, but (again) have explained it according to all truth by the spirit of God. On the contrary, it is dangerous ground to deny that He has come in the flesh which is the body of the church, and to deny that He has re-attained the full glory of God whom...

Indeed, the reign of Jesus in both heaven and earth came well before His ascension, and is permanent. Yet the dust is still dust and returns to the earth and is dissolved. So, yes, permanent, but not in the flesh, but in the perfection and the glory of the Father who is without flesh. And it is...

I have not denied Jesus still in the flesh, but have already explained just as it is written: That is, He did not commit His flesh body to the Father but His spirit only, and gave His body of flesh to the church, saying "take, eat, this is My body"; after which He too explained that He stands...

Categorically denouncing all revelation from God with all that is false, is to deny God. That too has been the stance of many of past generations. Nonetheless, the word from God is not stopped, nor does it return void.

There is no reconciliation of all scripture in what you have just said above. To the contrary, depending on the translation the following passage might even appear to contradict itself, let alone support an idea that cannot be reconciled with all scripture: Job 19:26 And though after H310 my...

Flesh and blood or flesh and bone--it doesn't matter--it's all "dust"...and you know that the dust does not return to God.

It is written "that no flesh should glory in His presence."

Stating a seemingly contrary verse does not establish the truth. All scripture must be reconciled. I could reconcile it for you, but perhaps you should face it and be reconciled in yourself.

Can flesh inherit the Kingdom of God? You wanted biblical support--that is my biblical support.

You misunderstand. The test of John does not establish that the flesh is glorified as Christ is glorified in the way that you have stated. But rather as a test of His being "firstfruits." Thus, those who follow are also manifest in the flesh and "to live is Christ." Such is the testimony of...

Oh, Christophany! Rehashing the third grade lessons given to the churches does not establish them as all truth. It was just half-step language from which we were and are to press on. Dust is still dust and is not glorified, nor is the image of mankind glorified, but every stone torn down. To...

Neither is yours--that's the point. You have incriminated yourself by your answer.

Why do you assume that I "assume." I do not, but know from God.

I am not going to do your homework for you. You know very well what verses. The parable of the wheat and the tares alone is enough, but there are thousands. You know what you are doing, so do I, so does God.