Search results

I still don't see any paradox. John does not have perfect knowledge. PS, you keep selectively quoting me, leaving out the part that explains my reasoning.

Jesus is saying If P then Q. Since P did not come about, whether Q is true or not does not matter, no contradiction, no paradox.

There are scripture supporting his point of view, that salvation is by faith alone without works (Romans 4:5) There are also scripture supporting the opposing point of view, that salvation requires faith together with works (James 2:24). So unless one rightly divide the word of truth (2...

There was a "if" conditional then. Had Israel accepted Jesus at his first coming, he would be. No paradox there

Well Jesus already said that, so why would you care that John did not make a similar claim?

Elijah is prophesied in Malachi to come before Christ. John the Baptist would have been him, had Israel accepted Christ as their Messiah at his first coming.

Well, who is better to convince Israel to believe Christ is their Messiah, and to turn water into blood, like Moses?

I believe it will be Moses and Elijah. Israel will be God's favored nation once again during the Tribulation, Enoch is just too far removed from them.

That means you made that up ;)

I am not asking you who the 2 witnesses are. I am asking do you believe they were present on Earth during AD 70. If you believe its a future event, say so, and we will agree.

Why do you quote selectively, instead of my entire sentence?

If you claim that was what the Romans thought when they destroyed the temple in AD 70, it is your job to back that claim. It is not the job of your readers to prove otherwise.

As in they were seen on Earth during AD 70?

Show me any Roman history page that even hinted about "The pagan Romans thought they had killed the worldwide influence of the Law and the Prophets (Judaism) when their armies destroyed the Jews' temple and their holy city."

You obviously made this up. There is nothing in history that ever tell us that this was what the Romans actually thought. If you disagree, please indicate any historian that actually came up with this thinking.

Read Paul's epistles to understand that, recognizing that this was extended to us, to make the nation of Israel jealous Romans 11:11

You earlier said the 2 of them are literally, Moses and Elijah, to fit your Transfiguration scripture. Then when it suits your purpose, you change them back to the Law and the Prophets, to allow you to also say "they were killed" by Rome in AD 70. Neither Moses and Elijah ever had their dead...

You define a gift differently from others. Something that is given but requires conditions to keep it, is not a gift. Try telling your kids "I am giving you a gift, but if you are naughty afterwards, I will take it back", and hear their response.

Were the 2 witnesses beheaded by the antichrist and their bodies displayed on the Earth, aka Revelation 11:7-12? Or are you going to resort to your "those scripture are not meant to be understood literally" excuse again?

You do agree with me that, under the gospel of the kingdom, salvation was certainly not a gift offered to Israel?