Recent content by JacobGilbert

yes all of that suffering him losing his family his land his health all of that was from burnt offerings you cracked the code.

No one is saying Job’s suffering was for no reason. It clearly had a reason. The book just never tells us the full “why” or what the deeper purpose was. The point of the book is that we trust God even when we don’t get the explanation.

You’re still doing the same thing Job’s friends did. You’re taking something that is true in the book (Job interceded for his children and later for his friends) and turning it into the full explanation for why he suffered. The book never says that. Job 1:5 shows Job was a godly man who...

You’re right about the first three points. God knows everything. He knew exactly what Satan was planning. He’s all-powerful, so nothing happened to Job without His permission. And God Himself said Job was “a perfect and upright man, one that fears God and turns away from evil.” We can’t just...

Ok so when the master returns who is he returning for? Also why are the ones without oil the ones that are cast out?

Yes exactly, part of our walk with Christ is to to fight daily. The ones that walk away give up and just accept that sinning is just who they are and they don't need to repent or change.

I think the key difference is this Hebrews 10:26–31 is warning about deliberate, ongoing rejection of Christ after clearly knowing the truth, basically trampling on His sacrifice and walking away. That’s apostasy. Romans 7 is Paul describing the normal daily struggle of a real believer who...

Brother, with all due respect, I think you’re the one who’s missing it here. Calling a different reading of Daniel 9 a “grave error of eschatology” and acting like anyone who disagrees is disconnected from sound exegesis is pretty bold, especially when plenty of solid Bible teachers throughout...

I see where you're coming from on the word studies, but I still think Jacob is right on the bigger picture. John was definitely a leader and forerunner, no doubt. But squeezing him into both the first "anointed prince" and the "prince who is to come" whose people destroy the city feels like...

I appreciate the effort to connect this to John the Baptist, but a few issues stand out. The text distinguishes two anointed ones, but calling John the first "anointed prince" and the later "prince whose people destroy the city" feels forced—John wasn't a "nagid" ruler, and "who is to come"...

In Matthew 24 the disciples asked Jesus three questions at the start: when the Temple would be destroyed, what would be the sign of His coming, and what about the end of the age. When you get to verses 29-31 where He talks about the sun and moon going dark, the sign of the Son of Man, and...

..................................................no

For me Luke makes the Abomination simple Luke 21:20-21 - And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are...

all the peoples of the earth would mourn, and they would see Him coming on the clouds with power and great glory. I don't see a vision from one man fulfilling this. Its not all the peoples and they are not all seeing him coming on the clouds. It would also include Rome. But Rome didn't mourn...

Fair enough. It was more in saying at this point its over and done and the church age has begun.