the great Jewish "distress"

[marks]

Here is the false statement that farouk said which violates the command = (adding to or taking away from God's Word).
"I think your dogmatism does not take into account that there is nothing in Scripture that must occur before the church is raptured..."

This is FALSE and to say such a thing is either misunderstanding, lack of including all scripture on the subject or willful rejection of scripture.

I take exception with his saying your "dogmatism" doesn't take things into account . . . just the same, I don't see him saying Paul was wrong.

For the accuracy of his statement . . . is there something you can show from Scripture which MUST happen before the church is raptured? I think God left this point vague on purpose.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm not talking about what Christians see, I talking about Biblical usage.

So you invalidate what you, as a "Christian," say on this? After all, all Christians are talking about "Biblical usage."

For instance . . . Moses told Pharoah that they had to go out of the land so that the Egyptians wouldn't stone them for sacrificing "the abomination of Egypt", the deified cow.
Much love!

But that's what you, a "Christian," sees! Therefore, by your own standards, your opinion is invalidated. Things like "church fathers" and "Christians" are to be thrown on the trash bin, and only marks is to be listened to? ;)

The word "abomination," as used in this context applies to the Roman Army, and is a perfectly legitimate application of the word "abomination." Or, are only you allowed to determine what the context is?

 

[Randy Kluth]

It means first a sickening smell. Imagine the worst gagging nauseating odor. That's an abomination. And it is used to describe idolatrous things, like idols themselves, or the cows the Egyptians worshiped. Homosexuality is an abomination because marriage between husband and wife is intended to show our relationships between me and my Creator.

Like that.

Much love!

"Abomination" means "despicable sacrilege," or something like that. When a pagan army contaminates the sacred territory around the walls of Jerusalem, that is an "abomination," in the true biblical sense. If an "abomination" is a thing, it can certainly be a pagan Army. And in context that is what Jesus was saying, and what Daniel meant by the term.

The problem is, you're trying to force a more common usage of a word into a context that deviates somewhat from the norm. But that's how words work--they mean slightly different things, depending on the context in which they are used.

You put a forced definition into a context when it should be the context that determines how the word is to be defined.

 

[marks]

That is *not* what Jesus meant when he told us not to call people "fathers!" ;) It's just a name--not a source of worship. It's not idolatry--no more so than calling your kid's instructors "teachers" is engaging in idol worship!

Actually, you used the designation to set them above others. And they are not above others.

I'm aware that a good number of Christians assign the label "heretic" to Origen and others. However, they are Church Fathers.

Your refutation here is by virtue of them being "Church Fathers". They are NOT. They are NOT "Fathers", the patriarchs of the church. Their writing is all over the map on a number of things, and it's not hard to find their ideas to be refuted by the Bible.

You should read them too,

I have read much of their writings. You shouldn't assume that because I have different ideas, I'm ignorant of yours. Or theirs. It from reading their writings that I've formed my opinion.

I don't dishonor them. But I don't give greater honor to them then to others because they wear a label of "Fathers".

Do names really affect you so badly?

Only when they are used for predudicial value. As if we should accept what they say because they are the "Fathers". No, I don't denigrate them. They were men like us. OR like I'd hope to be. But they were men, with all the weird ideas men have.

Much love!

 

[marks]

So you invalidate what you, as a "Christian," say on this?

I said I wasn't talking about that. Not that I invalidate anyone.

If you take that to mean I invalidate others, that's your insertion.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I'm not talking about what Christians see, I talking about Biblical usage.

For instance . . . Moses told Pharoah that they had to go out of the land so that the Egyptians wouldn't stone them for sacrificing "the abomination of Egypt", the deified cow.

Much love!

The point is . . . Christians see things, and that's good! That's one sort of evidence, meanwhile, textual study is another sort of evidence.

In saying, there is eyewitness evidence, and forensic evidence, and I'm looking at the forensic evidence, that doesn't mean I'm discounting the eyewitness evidence, only that I'm currently looking at the forensic evidence.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I've come to understand "partial preterism" to be a moving target.

But what I was wanting to confirm was that you understand portions of the Olivette Discourse to have been fulfilled in 70 AD, this is correct? To my understanding this is correctly called partial preterism.

Much love!

I get so weary if the inability of my brothers to accept reality on this subject. I've explained this ad nauseum on numerous forums, and the response I often get is exactly what you're giving me--pure incredulity with respect to the truth.

I've explained it in precise detail. What about it do you question? Or do you wish to leave things ambiguous so as to discredit the truth as I declare it?

You have only to explain why you reject my definition of Partial Preterism? Yes, it is something of a moving target, but it also is an objectively recognizable system, which precludes systems that share things in common but do not contain those essential traits.

I share in common with PP the notion that the AoD took place in 66-70 AD, but I do not share in common with PP the idea that the Great Tribulation finished the prophecy of the Great Tribulation. I believe the Great Tribulation continues throughout the present age in the form of the Jewish Diaspora.

I am precluded from being PP because unlike them I see the book of Revelation largely as a presentation of a future Antichrist during a literal 3.5 years at the end of the age. PP does *not* believe that, with very few exceptions.

I just have too many non-Preterist elements in my system to call me a Preterist of any kind. I just believe some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past, while other prophecies have yet to be fulfilled in the future. It is an absolute misnomer to say that belief in an historical AoD in 66-70 AD is, by definition, Preterism of any kind!

And yet that's what I'm often called simply because I share with the Church Fathers the belief that the AoD happened in 66-70 AD. The Church Fathers were not Preterists, though some try to claim that, as well.

They merely believed the AoD had an historic fulfillment in 66-70 AD, just like Jesus had an historic fulfillment in 30 AD. So should I call you a Preterist for believing that Jesus died, in fulfillment of prophecy, in 30 AD?

Do you want to clear up these distinctions or not?

 

[marks]

"Abomination" means "despicable sacrilege," or something like that.

I'd suggest going back the the Hebrew to learn what the word meant, and how it was used. There was a certain thing.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I said I wasn't talking about that. Not that I invalidate anyone.

If you take that to mean I invalidate others, that's your insertion.

Much love!

You need to take a 2nd look at what you said. You invalidated the Church Fathers, and you invalidate what Christians say that you think is not explicitly biblical.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'd suggest going back the the Hebrew to learn what the word meant, and how it was used. There was a certain thing.

Much love!

Been there, done that. I suggest you learn the critical element in interpretation, that "words mean what they mean in context!" The context is critical in the use of any word. The word "abomination" is not as strict as you wish to apply it.

Under a single system or under a single context, a word may acquire a technical meaning that appears to be inflexible and rigid in its application. But as you should know, technical applications last only as long as that context applies.

 

[Zao is life]

In quoting the various passages, as we already have, you drew no conclusions with respect to the question I raised. Where does it say specifically the "Abomination of Desolation" *precedes* the "birth pains?"

I already know that "then" is there, and that "before these" is there. As I said, something can precede something that it leads to and also accompany what it leads to. For example, a rain can lead to a flood, and can also accompany that flood.

Saying the "birth pains" precede the Fall of Jerusalem, and saying they lead to the Fall of Jerusalem in the same time frame of "this generation," is not saying anything appreciably different, other than to say it all takes place in a single generation.

"Then" indicates the general time frame Jesus is referring to, which is his own generation. That's when the "birth pains" take place. And they take place in order to forecast the fall of Jerusalem, the Roman "Abomination of Desolation" encircling Jerusalem and ultimately destroying the temple.

"Before these" is an indicator that the "birth pains" must precede the Fall of Jerusalem. But it is still "then," ie in the general time frame of "this generation."

Luke 21:20-24 leaves no doubt that it was about A.D 70.

The only reason the date for the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse has always confused me and why I have always been prevented from forming a definite opinion on it (either way) is because of the words of Matthew 24:31, compared especially with 1 Corinthians 15:52, but also compared with Revelation 11:15.

I also have a problem with the idea that the gospel of the Kingdom had been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations (Matthew 24:14) by A.D 70.

I'm hoping someone one day will give me a satisfactory explanation of why Matthew 24:31 fits in with A.D 70. But for now, I want to hear what your explanations is regarding Matthew 24:31.

If it weren't for that one verse, evidence leans in favor of A.D 70 as the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

 

[David in NJ]

You said that @farouk claimed Paul was in error. But wasn't it really that he disagreed with you over a meaning?

Much love!

No, he disagreed with 1 Thessalonians 4 which i posted and which is "by the Word of the LORD" verse15.

When anyone makes the claim that "there is nothing in Scripture that must occur before the church is raptured..."
This is not disagreeing with me but with the Apostles Paul & John, Holy Scripture = "by the Word of the Lord" 1 Thess 4:15

Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.
Therefore encourage one another with these words. 1 Thess 4:13-18

 

[Zao is life]

I'm submitting this in a more comprehensible form, which is only possible when I'm not trying to unravel other views at the same time as stating my own views.

This is the order taking place in the Olivet Discourse:
1) The sins of Israel, leading to the 70 AD end of Jerusalem, and an age-long Jewish punishment--the Great Tribulation (not the reign of Antichrist, but rather, Israel's NT punishment).

2) The sins precede the judgments God brings against Israel, which are first warnings, and then full-scale judgment. First there are wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences as "early warning" signs of the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

And then there is the destruction of Jerusalem and an age-long Jewish diaspora. The exposure of Israel's sins, along with these "early warning" signs anticipate the full-fledged destruction of Israel's covenant with God and their age-long judgment. They won't be restored until the end of the age.

3) Matthew indicates that the "birth pains" will consist of these "early warning" judgments, accompanied by sins which will "then" or "at that time" be recognized as the precipitators of these warning judgments.

The sins of Israel continue well past the time of the "birth pangs," leading to Jerusalem's demise. But they initially appear contemporaneous with the "early warning" judgments to explain why Jerusalem is soon to be judged.

The "birth pains" themselves consist of things, like "wars," that continue well beyond the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But they specifically exist in Israel before 70 AD as a warning that the destruction of Jerusalem is soon to happen. And they explain why it will happen.

"Wars and rumors of wars" cease to be "early warning" signs, or "birth pangs," after they have led to the destruction of Jerusalem. But they continue on throughout history, for other reasons, validating Israel's continuing diaspora, or their punishment called, the "Great Tribulation."

"Wars and Rumors of wars"
QUOTE
The Jewish–Roman wars include the following:
First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) — also called the First Jewish Revolt or the Great Jewish Revolt, spanning from the 66 CE insurrection, through the 67 CE fall of the Galilee, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple and institution of the Fiscus Judaicus in 70 CE, and finally the fall of Masada in 73 CE.
Kitos War (115–117 CE) — known as the "Rebellion of the Exile" and sometimes called the Second Jewish–Roman War.
Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) — also called the Second Jewish–Roman War (when Kitos War is not counted), or the Third (when the Kitos War is counted).
UNQUOTE

"Nation (Greek: ethnos) against nation":
QUOTE
While the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) were nationalist rebellions, striving to restore an independent Judean state, the Kitos War was more of an ethno-religious conflict, mostly fought outside Judea Province. Hence, some sources use the term Jewish-Roman Wars to refer only to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), while others include the Kitos War (115–117 CE) as one of the Jewish–Roman wars.
UNQUOTE

Source:

Jewish–Roman wars - Wikipedia

 

[marks]

No, he disagreed with 1 Thessalonians 4 which i posted and which is "by the Word of the LORD" verse15.

When anyone makes the claim that "there is nothing in Scripture that must occur before the church is raptured..."
This is not disagreeing with me but with the Apostles Paul & John, Holy Scripture = "by the Word of the Lord" 1 Thess 4:15

Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.
Therefore encourage one another with these words. 1 Thess 4:13-18

OK, thank you! I understand what you mean.

In my understanding, the rapture is of those who are "in Christ", whether alive or asleep. These sleeping are first, then we who remain alive, but all are raptured.

we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Much love!

 

[David in NJ]

OK, thank you! I understand what you mean.

In my understanding, the rapture is of those who are "in Christ", whether alive or asleep. These sleeping are first, then we who remain alive, but all are raptured.



Much love!

Yes, Yes, and please tell farouk that i do not actually believe he is a false apostle - this is my way of inviting a friend into discussion on a more serious level - 'Do not add to My words or take away....' Proverbs 30, Revelation 22: 18-19
As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another.

Now if he was the pope - then he would fully qualify as a false apostle.

 

[Randy Kluth]

"Wars and Rumors of wars"
QUOTE
The Jewish–Roman wars include the following:
First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) — also called the First Jewish Revolt or the Great Jewish Revolt, spanning from the 66 CE insurrection, through the 67 CE fall of the Galilee, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple and institution of the Fiscus Judaicus in 70 CE, and finally the fall of Masada in 73 CE.
Kitos War (115–117 CE) — known as the "Rebellion of the Exile" and sometimes called the Second Jewish–Roman War.
Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) — also called the Second Jewish–Roman War (when Kitos War is not counted), or the Third (when the Kitos War is counted).
UNQUOTE

"Nation (Greek: ethnos) against nation":
QUOTE
While the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) were nationalist rebellions, striving to restore an independent Judean state, the Kitos War was more of an ethno-religious conflict, mostly fought outside Judea Province. Hence, some sources use the term Jewish-Roman Wars to refer only to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), while others include the Kitos War (115–117 CE) as one of the Jewish–Roman wars.
UNQUOTE

Source:

Jewish–Roman wars - Wikipedia

Yes, I usually refer to the First Jewish-Roman War and the Bar Kokhba Revolt to show when Jerusalem was destroyed, which is what Jesus was focused on. The wars and rumors of war that Jesus mentioned as "birth pains" were earlier Roman military operations that served as a warning to the Jews that the Romans were coming soon. Thanks.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Luke 21:20-24 leaves no doubt that it was about A.D 70.

I share this regularly, and surprisingly, I get very little acknowledgment. One creative thinker admitted it was true in Luke 21, but that Matt 24 and Mark 13 told a completely different story. He/she thought that Luke spoke of the historic fulfillment, whereas Matthew and Mark spoke of a future fulfillment, the AoD being the Antichrist.

I see the Abomination of Desolation and the Roman Army being the same, since Luke locates the Roman Army in the exact same place that Matthew and Mark place the AoD. They all indicate that the AoD was fulfilled in 66-70 AD.

None of this means there won't be a future Antichrist--Jesus was just speaking, as a prophet, to his own people at that time, telling them what to expect with the spiritual conditions that existed in Israel at that time. Most would not believe, and would be destroyed or exiled throughout the NT age. The small remnant of believers would initiate the international Church, and would experience persecution in the process. This is oh so clear to me, and yet I get very little acknowledgement--not even recognition that it is a reasonable idea!

Futurists since Irenaeus and Hippolytus want to make the AoD about a future Antichrist. And yet even they recognized, I'm sure, that the Olivet Discourse was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The only reason the date for the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse has always confused me and why I have always been prevented from forming a definite opinion on it (either way) is because of the words of Matthew 24:31, compared especially with 1 Corinthians 15:52, but also compared with Revelation 11:15.

We normally get into problems when we try to be too literal with symbolic visions. Rev 11 is a symbolic vision, in my view.

The Olivet Discourse, though speaking of the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD, did not deny the reality of a coming Antichrist, nor of a coming of Christ at the end of the age. On the contrary. Jesus simply indicated that the distance of his Return did not stop his 1st Coming from bringing a variety of judgments to nations in the present age--particularly in Israel at that time.

I also have a problem with the idea that the gospel of the Kingdom had been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations (Matthew 24:14) by A.D 70.

The events called "birth pangs" were items that are not limited to that time period before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Earthquakes and famines have happened in all ages.

What made them "birth pangs" in the context of Jesus' generation was the fact that those things happening in that part of the world at that time were designed as early warning signs of Israel's imminent destruction by the Romans.

Wars and rumors of wars happen in every age, but this particular sign concerned the activities of Roman armies at that time, designed to warn Israel that their destruction was near, due to their lack of repentance. These things would not be "birth pangs" in any other context than the one specifically being referenced by Jesus, namely the fall of Jerusalem.

The "preaching of the Gospel" also takes place throughout the age, and not just in the time before the fall of Jerusalem. But Jesus was referencing the early preaching of the Gospel throughout the world of that time, to warn Jews everywhere of their soon demise.

It did not mean that the Gospel would stop being preached after 70 AD. This message only serves the international Church by providing a warning for other nations, when Christianity had been established in those nations.

I'm hoping someone one day will give me a satisfactory explanation of why Matthew 24:31 fits in with A.D 70. But for now, I want to hear what your explanations is regarding Matthew 24:31.

If it weren't for that one verse, evidence leans in favor of A.D 70 as the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

The reason I focus so much on this is for the same reason you do--I've been bothered for years about some of these issues, and have held a number of these different positions. The key for me was in trying to extract from each position truth that I could live with, even though each position tries to insult another position. The truth must be extracted from several different positions, I think.

I'm called a Preterist, but I am not. But I do find that there is some truth in what Preterists say, and will not deny it. This is actually just historical interpretation--something the Church Fathers did and many Christian scholars throughout the ages.

I can answer every question you may have. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right. ;) It just means I've asked the questions and am fairly happy with where I've arrived. I'm happy to share the good, the bad, and the ugly!

I can also tell you the most difficult part of my interpretation. It is seeing Jesus speaking of his coming in judgment in 70 AD, while at the same time indicating that he would come at the end of the age.

This seems to indicate that Jesus wanted his Coming to not be something that people can just sit back and not worry about, because it is a long time off. He seemed to indicate that he brings judgment in every generation, even if it is tempered with mercy, and preceded by warning signs.

But I'll leave this discussion for another time. Thanks for being so fair about this! God bless!

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

It comes down to this, Israel is the servants of God, the followers of Christ Jesus were Israelites indeed and the ones who rejected Christ Jesus are not worthy of God in fact, sure they were mislead by this world, as Jesus said he is not of this world remember.

So no one who is of this world is worthy of God in fact, they are under delusions of this world and the leadership of the Jews were of their Father that Jesus pointed out who was full of lies and a murderer from the beginning.

The only people who are worthy of God nowadays are the truly born again Christians who are Israel in fact and there Souls are saved.
Water baptised are not Saved and anyone who claims to be a Christian is not Saved they are just like the Jews, lost ! in delusions that the Jews were back in the days that they killed Jesus, because they did not understand due to the delusions set before them by mans works religion.

So you truly have only two types of people, they who are truly born again of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus and of the Kingdom of God and then they who are under delusions. Sure their are the ones who have faith but their faith does not cut it, because it's of little faith and such does not cut it as the Bible points that out. you must have the faith in Jesus Christ that can move mountains, that means 100% and not 99% or less. or the works of this world are like the parable of the weeds.

The poor majority of Jews were lead astray 2000 years ago and only the truly worthy people picked up on who Jesus was or had faith in him, so they were truly Israel in fact and the rest were not worthy of God at all in fact, some of them Jews claimed to be Israelites, but what did Jesus say of them, well he said go to the Israelites and tell them what Jesus said and if they reject such, too dismiss such a one. the reason for such is because they are not worthy of the name Israelites at all.

A true Israelite is depicted in Nathaniel by Jesus himself in fact, that's the standard, grubs don't make the grade regardless.

You will not hear any Church denomination today truly preach about Nathaniel because they are all of this world and that's why they have failed over the years just like the Jews failed, due to the cunning of mans works religion that is of this world. some of the leadership are truly Satanist just like they who demanded Jesus killed, they are of the Vineyard story murders from the beginning as it was they who killed Gods prophets.

If you do not understand all about Nathaniel you are not born again, if you do not understand the Vineyard story you are not born again and if you do not understand all that St Stephen said you are not born again, if you think that Israel is the modern day State you are not born again. not even the most devout Jews claim it truly Israel yet, but they sure hope that it will become Israel truly. but they reject Jesus Christ because they are blinded by this world. they desire this world ? but Jesus is not of this world. get it ? all fools are working for this worlds order. but you need something more ? or all your efforts are but filthy rags.

 

[David in NJ]

It comes down to this, Israel is the servants of God, the followers of Christ Jesus were Israelites indeed and the ones who rejected Christ Jesus are not worthy of God in fact, sure they were mislead by this world, as Jesus said he is not of this world remember.

So no one who is of this world is worthy of God in fact, they are under delusions of this world and the leadership of the Jews were of their Father that Jesus pointed out who was full of lies and a murderer from the beginning.

The only people who are worthy of God nowadays are the truly born again Christians who are Israel in fact and there Souls are saved.
Water baptised are not Saved and anyone who claims to be a Christian is not Saved they are just like the Jews, lost ! in delusions that the Jews were back in the days that they killed Jesus, because they did not understand due to the delusions set before them by mans works religion.

So you truly have only two types of people, they who are truly born again of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus and of the Kingdom of God and then they who are under delusions. Sure their are the ones who have faith but their faith does not cut it, because it's of little faith and such does not cut it as the Bible points that out. you must have the faith in Jesus Christ that can move mountains, that means 100% and not 99% or less. or the works of this world are like the parable of the weeds.

The poor majority of Jews were lead astray 2000 years ago and only the truly worthy people picked up on who Jesus was or had faith in him, so they were truly Israel in fact and the rest were not worthy of God at all in fact, some of them Jews claimed to be Israelites, but what did Jesus say of them, well he said go to the Israelites and tell them what Jesus said and if they reject such, too dismiss such a one. the reason for such is because they are not worthy of the name Israelites at all.

A true Israelite is depicted in Nathaniel by Jesus himself in fact, that's the standard, grubs don't make the grade regardless.

You will not hear any Church denomination today truly preach about Nathaniel because they are all of this world and that's why they have failed over the years just like the Jews failed, due to the cunning of mans works religion that is of this world. some of the leadership are truly Satanist just like they who demanded Jesus killed, they are of the Vineyard story murders from the beginning as it was they who killed Gods prophets.

If you do not understand all about Nathaniel you are not born again, if you do not understand the Vineyard story you are not born again and if you do not understand all that St Stephen said you are not born again, if you think that Israel is the modern day State you are not born again. not even the most devout Jews claim it truly Israel yet, but they sure hope that it will become Israel truly. but they reject Jesus Christ because they are blinded by this world. they desire this world ? but Jesus is not of this world. get it ? all fools are working for this worlds order. but you need something more ? or all your efforts are but filthy rags.

AWESOME - You nailed it and i love it - Why? Because it is the Truth and it is LIFE

 

[marks]

If you do not understand all about Nathaniel you are not born again, if you do not understand the Vineyard story you are not born again and if you do not understand all that St Stephen said you are not born again, if you think that Israel is the modern day State you are not born again.

That's not what determines if someone is born again.

Much love!