Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,776 Excellent


About William

  • Rank
    Staff Member


  • Occupation


  • Gender


  • State (No Abbreviations)

City Name

  • City Name

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status


  • Den


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

5,859 profile views
  1. And by appealing to God's grace through faith and not by your works can you see the bigger picture, that is, how the very promises have been fulfilled in a way which are beyond expectations? For example, while God's promise is fulfilled through Jesus, Israel, a kingdom of priests is encompassing the entire globe. Israel has become a light to all nations, even in or among the nations themselves.
  2. a) Were the promises of God made through covenants? The promises of God are the very seals of covenants. b) If one has broken the Abrahamic covenant has it been invalidated? If invalidated then by who? How can anyone (Jew) keep appealing to a Covenant that they broke? Again, how can they be heirs when the Covenant had conditions and requirements in which they did not meet? c) Interesting, Jeremiah 15 The Lord says, “The people I love are doing evil things. What right do they have to be in my Temple? Do they think they can prevent disaster by making promises[a] and by offering animal sacrifices? Will they then rejoice? 16 I once called them a leafy olive tree, full of beautiful fruit; but now, with a roar like thunder I will set its leaves on fire and break its branches. 17 “I, the Lord Almighty, planted Israel and Judah; but now I threaten them with disaster. They have brought this on themselves because they have done wrong; they have made me angry by offering sacrifices to Baal.” d) "Did God in as recorded in the Hebrew Bible lie or mislead people?" I can only speculate why I take this question so so personally. I want to refrain from comment but lemme suggest that the faithful remnant were looking towards more than land deeds. I find amusement wondering whether Esau if in later bitterness murmured what he was entitled to. Please tell me that they appeal to God's grace through faith. If not, and to answer your last question they'll recieve what they deserve.
  3. You didn't I was thinking ahead. Answering to a consequential conclusion that might be possibly put forward as an objection. I sometimes do this to show the basis of my thinking. Not meaning to put words in your mouth!
  4. When a new covenant was introduced beginning with Adam was there a choice to not "transition" into the "newer" covenant? Putting this out there, what I see is a faithful remnant in the beginning of Acts, when Peter was addressing the "house of Israel" Acts 2:36, and I'm wondering how many of the faithful remnant making up the house of Israel said or thought, no Peter we like where we're at now? If you suggest that anyone could keep any of the covenants mentioned before which were abrogated or transitioned into a better covenant, that is, considering Hebrews justifies the reasoning for each prior covenant, you'll talk me out of the necessity of Jesus Christ. I mean if man were deemed "righteous" by any of the Covenants beforehand then what purpose had faith in the coming Messiah Christ Jesus since Genesis 3:15? From the very beginning this promise was mentioned...... why?
  5. The difference in my view between the OT and NT Covenant are that any requirements in the OT Covenant which God commanded are bestowed upon persons in the NT Covenant. Of course there are requirements in the NT Covenant such as faith but faith is one of many fruits of regeneration as gifts provided by God. I often hear people insinuate that God needs to keep His OT Covenant, but are they or are they not Covenant breakers which are petitioning?
  6. Question, were there any conditions in keeping the OT Covenant?
  7. Does a literal hermeneutic reject symbolism if the author intended to provide a symbolic literary work? Or does a literal hermeneutic respect the authors intended meaning and genre? If a NT author makes an allusion to an OT verse and a literal hermeneutic is applied to the OT verse is the NT author's "prophetic fulfillment, interpretation, etc" rejected? For example, from Revelation 1:1 to an allusion in Daniel 2:28, 29, 45.
  8. Which brings to question are you rejecting the prophetic literature as intended for a literalistical fulfillment? An apparent mistake which was exhibited by the nation of Israel was an attempt to fulfill prophecy. Today, consider every nut in the world trying to impersonate the prophetic literature or force the hand of God through an apparent allusion, counterfeit miracles through false prophets. The thing about the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus Christ was that He fulfilled the prophecies beyond what the nation of Israel, the men of interpretation, etc, could have ever imagined. The same views which rejected then reject now for what they want rather than what we've received. The reason why you should examine other hermeneutics is to understand better what the original authors had in mind. I understand the desire to use a normal or literal approach but such respects the genre. The same hermeneutic applied to all genres in the Scriptures may miss the intended meaning an author had in mind. For example, did Daniel interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream in such a way that it was pushed forward in time by rejecting the symbolism for a literalistical statue?
  9. My suggestion is to reexamine your methods and principles in which you're using to approach such prophetic literature. You suggest Spiritualizing them but most often people call something spiritualization whenever someone uses a different hermeneutic other than a literalistic wooden or inflexible method and principle. Concerning placing believing Gentiles into the verse..... you bring up something that received my attention. For example concerning what you may call spiritualizing: What does this verse suggest? And consider going back to Zechariah 10 and noting: What does the above suggest? Why is rain even being mentioned here in Zechariah 10 and 14, and I draw your attention to Zechariah 14:2 "For I will gather all nations". What's the message here? Now how "literalisitically" do you interpret the above verses? If the meaning of the verses I provided for emphasis in question is pushed forward in time what exactly is the message being pushed forward in time? Throughout all the things unfolding in Zechariah what message do the above verses suggest? And why would you be pointing this out or alluding to the 12 tribes if not by rejecting the plain meaning of the text and contradicting other verses which say not by blood or descent? I think you're seriously butting up against verses as such. If a person is a descendant of those 12 tribes how are they supposed to read this verse if they reject Jesus Christ? And does God owe such "blood descendants" anything if they stand in unbelief? 9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
  10. I don't think there's any question as to whether true Israel (Church) includes Jews or the Elect (Jews and Gentiles) in the modern nation of Israel. Dispensationalist seemingly mean that God saves every Jew without exception. On that point I simply ask what of all the Jews that have died up until today which have rejected Jesus Christ? True Israel, the Church includes both Jew and Gentile in which there is no distinction. Is there any question that the Elect are saved by grace through faith and not by blood or Jewish descent?
  11. CA Bill Would Eliminate Single-Family Home Zoning In Most Of The State | Daily Wire WWW.DAILYWIRE.COM A California housing bill targeting upscale communities would eliminate single-family home zoning across most of the state, transferring the...
  12. William

    Grumpy Cat R.I.P.

    Sad to hear that Grumpy Cat passed away May 15th four days ago.
  13. Alaska state legislator introduces bill criminalizing abortion WWW.KY3.COM Representative David Eastman and Representative Sharon Jackson have introduced a bill on May 15th, 2019 named HB 178 that would ban legal...
  • Create New...