Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help needed. Best Rebuttals to Jews For Judaism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Freedm View Post
    The thousand years is a symbolic term relating to an unspecified period of time. Don't you know that Jesus currently reigns? He said all power and authority was given to him in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18) No one can have all power and authority and not be king. Therefore we know that the thousand years is now.
    VS

    Originally posted by Freedm View Post
    What I mean is that the only single reference in scripture to "the thousand years", does not say that Jesus will reign on earth during those thousand years, only that he will reign.
    Is Matthew 28:18 the passage to which you are referring as "the only single reference in scripture to 'the thousand years'", or not?

    If not, then so much for your "therefore we know that the thousand years is now", inasmuch as you have admitted that Matthew 28:18 is no reference to the thousand years. Since Matthew 28:18 is no reference to the thousand years, then why are you trying to make what Jesus says in that passage to be a reference to the thousand years?

    And, was Jesus not on earth when He spoke His words recorded in Matthew 28:18 KJV, where he said "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth"?

    Yet, remember what you said:

    Originally posted by Freedm View Post
    No one can have all power and authority and not be king.
    AND
    Originally posted by Freedm View Post
    And, no, Christ is not on earth during his reign, but we are.
    Was the event of Jesus speaking the words He spoke in Matthew 28:18 ("All power is given...")--WHILE STILL ON EARTH--an event occurring during His reign, or not?

    If it was during His reign that He spoke those words, WHILE ON EARTH, then why would you say that "Christ is not on earth during his reign"? For, in that case, He must have been on earth during a part of His reign, because He was standing there, face to face with His disciples, speaking those words to them, prior to His ascension.

    Back to the drawing board for you.
    Last edited by 7djengo7; November 1, 2019, 09:41 PM.
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

    Comment


    • Excellent posts!!!

      Originally posted by Tambora View Post
      David was anointed king long before he actually began to rule Israel.
      The "throne" is about ruling as king, not just being a king.

      Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) was a king when he was taken away to Babylon, but he no longer ruled.

      The risen Lord Jesus Christ has not yet ruled over Israel.
      Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
      This goes very well with this:

      Luk 19:12 KJV He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Freedm View Post
        Good. So knowing that Jesus currently has all authority and power, you must then also believe that he's currently sitting on the throne of David. Correct?
        You say that Jesus currently has all authority and power. Would you say that Jesus had all authority and power before His Ascension, while He was still on earth? If so, you must then believe that He was sitting on the throne of David while He was still on earth. Correct?

        Originally posted by Freedm View Post
        The thousand years is a symbolic term relating to an unspecified period of time. Don't you know that Jesus currently reigns?
        So unspecified a period of time that you cannot even at least tell us exactly when you imagine it began--since you imagine it has already begun, and is currently in progress?

        We're waiting to hear from you whether or not the thousand years commenced while Jesus was still ON EARTH.
        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

        Comment


        • ***Accidentally replied to my own post when I intended merely to edit it. Sorry about that.***
          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

          Comment

          Working...
          X