That's not right. You can make such an argument from verse 1, but not in light of verse 3 and 7. Verse 3 says at hand and verse 7 says those who pierced Him would see Him. You ignore 2 other verses that place the time as 1st century.
How the world can you rightly answer anything if you reject Biblical truth and supplant it with heresies?
Prophesies come with time frames. There are clues to when it is that is being considered. At hand is never considered 2000 years in the future.
@TheDivineWatermark is "not right" about as often as a sighting of Haley's comet.
Verse 3 says at hand. Its relationship with verse 1 limits verse 1, not 1 limiting verse 3. The proof is verse 7. The only way for those who pierced Him to see Him is 1st century.
You aren't packing the gear enough to exegete the word "UNTIL" and you think you can exegete the book of Romans? Ridiculous.
The point wasn't the outline. The point was the line of reasoning that led to the particular verse in Romans 11. Someone who has studied the book could have done so in a post in 5 minutes. I pressed the issue because I was making a point. Whatever someone believes about the relationship between God and the nation Israel is not a salvation issue and I could care less what someone thinks on the issue. But the verse didn't mean what the poster said it did and understanding Paul's line of thought and the arguments he has made to that point would bear it out. Turns out, the one who accuses others of not accepting the truth of scripture himself is guilty of what he accuses. But that's often the case.
I get your point. But I don't believe that's the proper perspective. That's why I asked you what you believed God's purpose was in writing the book of Revelation. Since you have been silent on the matter, I know your perspective but not why.Verse 3 is all about the "writing" / "words" (because the "readers" started once the "writing / words / prophecy of this book" was written and then distributed "unto the churchES"--which started way back then, yeah!!--But "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS" and which take place "AFTER THESE THINGS" [after "the things WHICH ARE"] is prophetic, and not necessary to transpire right then also.)
As to v.7, remember when Peter in Acts 3 said to "ye men of Israel" (v.12), "whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life..." and then said, "And now, brethren,... REPENT ye therefore"... and "many of them which heard the word believed" (4:4), about 5000, I think it says...
So, yes, why would those "ye" not be present in that future day (as we will be)...
(bear in mind also that the "ye" in the Olivet Discourse is a "proleptic 'ye'" and a "consistent 'ye'"...speaking of THOSE TO WHOM the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom was promised: Israel's "earthly things"; "proleptic"=all those in the future of the SAME CATEGORY; It would be like if the governor of California wrote a letter to those living in that state, "when you feel the rumblings start, hightail it outta there and run to Iowa!" The letter isn't telling them "when" it will take place, but that IT WILL and when it DOES, whoever OF THEM are living there at that time needs to RUN, coz this and such is GOING TO TAKE PLACE at that time: "ye Californians, when ye shall SEE ALL OF THESE things...". But suppose it isn't slated to BLOW for another 150-200 years, does this INVALIDATE the "ye" TO WHOM it was addressed? NO!)
I did not say The revelation was about the rapture. How did you get that idea?
Oh you mean this verse from Romans? Yes, we understand it well. And how it concatenates with THE ENTIRE PLAN OF SALVATION FOR ISRAEL. This plan foreordained BEFORE the foundation of the world. As were ALL of Gods plans.
Cameron gets a lot of flighty ideas. Unfortunately he is no Kelly Johnson, so few if any get off the ground.
Cameron143 said:
