Search results

You misunderstood my post. That verse was my proof-text, showing "water" is simply a parable of the "spirit." In the above verse it has both the object ("water") and the subject ("spirit") of the parable language He used. But that was not my point. My point was to show that water baptism was...

What again was it that you called those who lie? ...Speaking of name-calling...you don't need to call me "friend."

Think about what you are asking. "The flesh profits nothing" For the believer, "to live is Christ." All "our hope is in Him." But the hope of salvation is not what "the future holds them for the earth." It is the hope of returning to God...which we do "in Christ."

Amen! So then, if you believe that He also first went to the Father...then He has returned.

Matthew 13:14 "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;"

That is not what it says. It does not say "bodily."

There is nothing in there about "Jesus returning in a future one-time mass event."

The analogy works for both. "For me, to live is Christ."

Exodus 13:21 "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night."

Again, you have the correct passages, but the wrong perspective. What was seen, that "like manner", was only seen as men see. But all they saw was not all that occurred. They saw "through a glass dimly"...but when "every eye sees", "...then face to face"...which men did not see at the ascension...

No, not exactly. But you have named the right verses: Indeed, "every eye" and "some standing here" tells us that this can only happen in the omni-presence of God, in spirit. God is spirit. The two occurrences are one event. Which if one were to look to the scriptures for a quote of when it is...

The problem is your approach while lacking in communication skills is in a manner offensive to both believers as well as atheists. And you rattled on. I recommend picking one thing, discussing it, and when played out, then and only then, move on to your next point.

1) No mention of a 2nd physical advent there. 2) That 'at-a-boy does not supersede Christ [the Word's] declaration that His words "are spirit." 3a) Peter referred to the times of the gentiles coming first before their refreshing because Israel did not receive Christ. Jesus foretold it, saying...

You were right the first time: I do indeed believe in the second coming of Christ. I just know better than to believe the way most of Christendom has been taught. This I/we know according to the scriptures: Jesus has come in the flesh (His first advent). Jesus rose from the dead in bodily...

I like your simplistic description, but the word of God describes it as passing from death to life.

1) Good job! 2) Semantics. 3) That's a cop out. 4) You call quoting and paraphrasing the most popular book ever written and giving personal witness, "baseless?" You have real problem. 5) God's way is an established fact. No room for debate. 6) Did that. 7) Debate is not all that happens on...

1) Name one. 2) No, it is the Spirit which the yardstick, and the word which confirms it. On the contrary, it is the word in spirit that does not pass away, while every written word (even the scriptures) has been confounded by God. 3) The seal and the promise are the same thing, told to those...

Your religious "EPIGNOSIS" hypocrisy is showing. You can't even explain your misunderstanding without blundering the first sentence. By definition, you error: By calling them "them", you prove them not to be born again. For if they were born again, by definition, they would be "Him"...

Sure. Luke 24:39 pertains to the resurrection of Christ, which was a mere foreshadowing of His ascension and the resurrection of men; a manifestation in the flesh to demonstrate His power over life and death "on earth as it is in heaven." But the "like manner" witnessed by men of His...

Please use the "Reply" feature so we know when you have made a reply. That is not what Paul is saying. He is saying just the opposite, that they had known God. So you are calling him a liar. As for debate and assertions, I am doing neither, but witnessing to the truth. That may not be what you...