Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
Then John 3;16 has nothing on : 20And Hur begat Uri, and Uri begat Bezaleel. The more direct the quote the less colored by interpretation the passage. Case in point; I 'll wager you dont believe the 'two men' (Colonel Sanders and his brother?) were men at all ,correct?
If the question is 'Did Jesus say XYZ?" Whether something is clear or not makes no difference.
Which is EXACTLY what I've written here, here, and here, to name a few.
Why? Were they??? They were the ones who wrote these things: I'm taking them at their word. You, however, are not. I stand on what the Word says.
I've provided more than enough evidence. I provided it when I posted excerpts from Josephus wherein he recounted signs in the sky of the impending doom awaiting Jerusalem. You ignored it.
The sky hasn't fallen for us. It did, however, fall for Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Why? Were they??? They were the ones who wrote these things: I'm taking them at their word. You, however, are not. I stand on what the Word says.
I've provided more than enough evidence. I provided it when I posted excerpts from Josephus wherein he recounted signs in the sky of the impending doom awaiting Jerusalem. You ignored it.
I provided it with in-depth research of the OT analogs to "Mystery Babylon" pointing irrefutably to 1st century Jerusalem. You argued with me about that.
I provided it with the plain text of John saying repeatedly that these things were coming "soon" and were "at hand." You rejected it.
I provided it proving that the sign of the Son of Man coming on the clouds was meant for the "tribes of the land" according to Zech. 12:10-14. You rejected it.
Proof has been provided to you that the gospel was preached to the whole world prior to 70 AD. You refused to accept it.
Proof that earthquakes, wars, famine and persecution all happened before 70 AD was provided. You reject it.
We've provided proof that Nero is the beast from the earth of Rev. 13, and that "antichrist" is the name of a spirit that opposes Christ and His church, and not the proper noun of some "end-time" (for us) "boogeyman." You reject it.
In short, there is more than enough evidence to sway those who are open-minded to what the Bible and history actually say about these things.
There will never be enough evidence to convince people - like yourself - who are more interested in defending a doctrine than pursuing the truth wherever it leads.
2First off you are presuming that the all the tribes referance meant israel's tribe of Judah. The tribes of israel are scattered over the entire planet and were long before 70 ad. Even now there are more Jews in NY city than in israel.
Surely you jest? YOU know that the tribes of the land saw Jesus return in 70AD? We all know that you COULD NOT know that the tribes of the land saw Jesus return in 70AD unless you were one of those tribes and for some reason did not die or perhaps you have a time machine and went back and interviewed one of those members of the tribes. You are making an outlandish claim based on nothing but your imagination...you cannot see that can you?
Josephus gave a pretty good account of history in his time,however he did embellish here and there for effect and Josephus did not say that Christ returned and gathered the believers. YOU ARE MISSING A BIG POINT! There is an actual history of the church beginning from the day of Pentecost up until today, if you believe Josephus then believe the history of the church for it is well documented. The church did not disappear in 70AD,the greater evidence shows that John wrote Rev after 90AD,you are ignoring all kinds of evidence in order to arrive at where you want to be.The sky hasn't fallen for us. It did, however, fall for Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Why? Were they??? They were the ones who wrote these things: I'm taking them at their word. You, however, are not. I stand on what the Word says.
I've provided more than enough evidence. I provided it when I posted excerpts from Josephus wherein he recounted signs in the sky of the impending doom awaiting Jerusalem. You ignored it.
I provided it with in-depth research of the OT analogs to "Mystery Babylon" pointing irrefutably to 1st century Jerusalem. You argued with me about that.
I provided it with the plain text of John saying repeatedly that these things were coming "soon" and were "at hand." You rejected it.
I provided it proving that the sign of the Son of Man coming on the clouds was meant for the "tribes of the land" according to Zech. 12:10-14. You rejected it.
Proof has been provided to you that the gospel was preached to the whole world prior to 70 AD. You refused to accept it.
Proof that earthquakes, wars, famine and persecution all happened before 70 AD was provided. You reject it.
We've provided proof that Nero is the beast from the earth of Rev. 13, and that "antichrist" is the name of a spirit that opposes Christ and His church, and not the proper noun of some "end-time" (for us) "boogeyman." You reject it.
In short, there is more than enough evidence to sway those who are open-minded to what the Bible and history actually say about these things.
There will never be enough evidence to convince people - like yourself - who are more interested in defending a doctrine than pursuing the truth wherever it leads.
You've lost it Sam.
I presume nothing except that which is defined by the Words Christ spoke and what was recorded and passed on to us by His apostles.
You're refusing to see what these words meant to the apostles and, instead, substituting your own meanings for them. You're not seeing them through their eyes but your own.
2So tell me, do you even know what this "last trumpet" is? I don't mean what you've read from "Left Behind", but what the Bible actually says about it???
One passage from Iraneus is the only evidence that exists for the "late date" writing of Revelation:
[/FONT]The writer of this blog goes on to suggest that the strongest proof for the early writing (mid-60s AD) of Revelation, comes from this passage:
