Wilchbla

If a Christian is fully following Christ, they will never sue for divorce.

Mmmm, don't know about this. So if my wife starts to sleep around I shouldn't divorce her? Let me guess, she wouldn't have slept around if I was right with God, right?

I said it before, but it bears repeating. The "greek" is a matter of interpretation too! Why do so many "scholars" disagree with what the original language is supposed to say? Perhaps because they do not know the Greek as deeply as a national would. This is the reason for so many different versions, if we stick with the King James, and leave the Greek to the Greeks, we will do fine and avoid much confusion and conflict. The search for truth leads many in some strange directions!

I'm not even sure a Greek would know what the original Greek said since it's not the same Greek. I would imagine it would be like us trying to figure out what Old English was saying.

Here's an example of Old English:

Þurhdrifan hī mē mid deorcum næġlum. On mē syndon þā dolg ġesīene,
opene inwidhlemmas. Ne dorste iċ hira nǣnigum sceððan.
Bysmeredon hīe unc būtū ætgædere. Eall iċ wæs mid blōde bestēmed,
begoten of þæs guman sīdan, siððan hē hæfde his gāst onsended

What does that say? Even with this you still are not translating or transliterating from one language into another. Also, the Old Enlish language itself isn't as old as the "original Greek" and you probably could find more information on it pertaining to the meaning of the words, grammar, etc.

Here's what the passage said:

They drove dark nails through me. The wounds, open wicked wounds,
are visible on me. I did not dare to harm any of them.
They reviled both of us together. I was entirely drenched with blood,
poured from the man's side after he had sent forth his spirit.

A "civil union" is virtually the same as marriage and in every case where such gets approved "homosexual marriage" has been pushed and in some cased forced upon the State.

There is no difference. Just double-speak to ease the consciences of those who want to sit on the fence.

Col. 1:17- And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Apparently scientists can't explain what holds atoms together. The nucleus should be pushing itself apart. They'll say electromagnetism but that's usually the answer they give for everything that they can't figure out. Kind of how the doctor says it's your nerves when he doesn't know whats wrong with you. Well, in this case It is the hand of God that holds it all together and when he let his hand off there's gonna be one major nuclear explosion in the universe.

Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Could be, as covenenter suggested, when he came on an ass, or it could be before Christ came to join them.

Read my post above.

From our viewpoint we understand the Son of man coming as the glorious second coming for resurrection & judgment. Is this what Jesus meant? How many other "comings" are there? Certainly his triumphal entry:

5

Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh u

nt

o thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Also his coming to destroy the wicked husbandmen in AD 70:

40

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do u

nt

o those husbandmen?

41

They say u

nt

o him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard u

nt

o

ot

her husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

And the equally cryptic "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" in the lifetime of some of the Apostles. But is that 2 future comings, or - Transfiguration? Pentecost? Destruction? Yet future second coming?

27

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28

Verily I say u

nt

o you, There be some standing here, which shall n

ot

taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

I see v. 27 as the future second coming, with the transfiguration a vision of his glory, while Pentecost as the inauguration of his kingdom.

30

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was n

ot

left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

To answer the OP question, I suggest that Jesus' warning in Mat. 10 is a prophecy of the events recorded in Acts, culminating in their rejection & persecution, followed by Jesus "coming" for the destruction of the wolves. The warning is separate from the instructions to the disciples for their preaching/healing mission. Mark & Luke do not include that prophecy in the instructions to the disciples, nor was it fulfilled then.

The term "Son of man come" seems to be exclusive to the Second Coming. Even on the mount of transfiguration where the three disciples saw the Second Coming in type.

II Peter 1:16-19

[16] For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts

The disciples saw the coming kingdom in TYPE on the mount. It is clear from what Peter is saying here that that's what Christ was referring to. It had nothing to do with some spiritual kingdom coming via the church to replace the promises to Israel. Christ gave them a glimpse of his kingdom 2000+ years into the future via his transfiguration.

Wow. I was expecting some kind of gangsta Christian rap video or something and yet what I find is people freaking out over a barbershop quartet.

Interesting video but what is his point? You can say "what if" a millions times for anything.

"What if when we die we find Allah sitting on the throne with Muhammed next to him? Or Elohim with Joseph Smith next to him. Or we have to apologize to Mary for all the nasty things we've said about the RCC?"

Also, if you really really want to win the war on drugs don't legalize them which is absolute lunacy but deal with it the way the Taliban dealt with the problem. Kill all the cartels and dealers and burn down the fields.

So you are saying that the phrase, "the Son of man be come" was fulfilled in Acts? I guess you don't believe in the literal return of Christ. You almost sound amillennial here. This is how a papist would teach the verse.

I would agree with you that vss 17-20 could have been fulfilled in Acts yet the problem remains, the Son of man never came unless it is a reference to Christ's coming to Jerusalem prior to the passover but that sounds like a stretch.

The Plymouth Brethren taught it, and they should know, they invented the teaching.

Stop skirting the issue. Even with your theology you can't explain Matthew 10:23.

All true believers will go to heaven and all who take the mark of the antichrist will go to hell. Therefore no believers will take the mark.

You don't have any scripture to back this position only presumption.

A believer no can't not go to hell no matter what including denial of his Lord and Savior but AFTER the rapture things will be different. There will be no eternal security during the great tribulation. A saint will have to endure at this time until the Lord's coming when it is said that Jesus will arrive "without sin unto salvation". The verses are to numerous to post. If this is not true then another position is that the church will go through the tribulation and not only can a believer lose his salvation now but he can lose it during the tribulation. Or there is a third position which is that the bible is full of contradictions. And then again I could just wrest all the scriptures and make them say what I want them to say to support my position.

Here's a sample passage of a saint who didn't edure until the Lord's return and got tossed into hell.

Matt. 24

[42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
[43] But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
[44] Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
[45] Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
[46] Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
[47] Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
[48] But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
[49] And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
[50] The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
[51] And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Now there are four ways you can go with this passage.

1) You can say that the servent wasn't really saved (when it is clear in the passage that the Lord is speaking of a "saved" man as he is addressing the disciples) and force the passage to fit your theology.

2) You can say that a believer can lose his salvation today and the church will go through the tribulation.

3) You can say that the passage is a mistake and not true to the "originals". (This is the lazy way out).

4) Or you can say that the passage takes place during the tribulation and that a man can lose his salvation if he doesn't endure to the end seeing that the church has already been rapture and this man is NOT part of the church (i.e. the bride of Christ).

That's the choices. If a man can lose his salvation during the tribulation then he can take the mark.

John 6:66- From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

There is one more thought on that passage in Matt. that has just sprung up recently which some Baptist preachers are teaching. It's that a carnal Christian will be tossed into the Lake of Fire for 1,000 years along with the beast and false prophet as a kind of Baptist purgatory. To me that position is the craziest one of them all.

The rapture is not a secret. It's a MYSTERY. Only a secret to the hard hearted.

Nobody else to take a crack at this verse?

It would be impossible for a true Christian to take the mark because a true Christian already has the mark (seal) of the Holy Ghost upon them.

It's also possible for one to have great difficulty giving up their morning donut and high-calorie coffee blend but be resolute to stand for Christ when pressed to deny Him.

In any event, the Great Tribulation is only the last 3 1/2 years of what is called the 7 year tribulation, so a mid-trib rapture would remove Christians from that.

Also, it should be noted that Christians in various times and places have faced severe persecution and yet stood firm for Christ. Consider the untold numbers of Christians who suffered burning at the stake, boiling in oil, being attacked and eaten alive by lions, suffering great torture on the rack, having fingernails ripped out, tongues cut off, being disemboweled, watching their families torutered and killed, etc. Through all of this, true Christians stood firm for Christ. There is no reason to believe God's true people could not stand firm even if they were in the Great Tribulation.

It should also be remembered that many Christians may face severe trials, tribulations and persecutions in our own lifetimes. In fact, some Christians around the world already are...beatings, torture, rape, murder, execution...all for their faith in Christ, and it's possible even in this country such could happen. The time to prepare is now. If we wait until faced with such we are much more likely to stumble.

It will be impossible for a Christian to take the mark but then again, all the Christians will be raptured from the earth before the tribulation. Now unless you teach a split rapture or that the church will go through the tribulation you would have to admit that we aren't dealing with Christians (in the sense of the church) during the tribulation. The only folks mentioned to be sealed during this time are the 144,000 and they are all Jews. Nobody else is said to sealed but rather have to endure to the end to be saved.

Same reason God gave the children of Israel quail when they complained about the manna. Same reason divorce was permitted, multiple, marriages were permitted, concubines were permitted, etc. None of that was wise or Gods perfect will, but it was allowed because of the hardness of the heart of men. God tolerating and permitting something is not the same as God endorsing it.

Yeah, this is good. Like it says in Acts that in the past God "wink" at some behavior but now commands all men to repent.

I think Osteen's mouth is frozen into place in the shape of a smile. There is actually a neurological condition caused by smiling too much where the smile gets frozen into place. It's common among Japanese businessmen who are fake smiling all the time.

Iran Commander Calls for Destruction of America

I understand the man, this country is the only one blocking their evil, & without us they would be free to spread their evil, probably conquering the world as Hitler tried.

Such & evil government, there's no telling what they may try.

Yet, if they wait it out, our politicians may bring us down.

America is wicked too and God has used nations as scourges upon the world before. Hitler couldn't have done what he did without God allowing it.

That being said this guy reminds me of The Iron Sheik of the old WWF. "Russia. Number 1! Iran. Number 1! USA. Ack-pooey!"

London SE1, the area from where I come has a forum. It is not an area known for its grammar, but here is a part of theirn rules of posting.

Wait? Didn't you just suggest that making mistakes in grammar was unacceptable while making mistakes in spelling was OK? Yet look at what you just posted.

Consuming alcohol in moderation is a lie from the devil. How much is considered drinking "in moderation"? The idea that a "little bit won't hurt" (the lie of drinking in moderation) is deceptive and "whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise"!

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Alcohol is called an "intoxicant" for a reason. It is "toxic". Jesus didn't drink it, nor did He turn the water into fermented wine.

I don't know. What is moderation in anything? I guess it's between that Christian and his God to decide.

By the way, you can become intoxicated by drinking too much water also.

I don't have a iron in this fire; I don't drink fermented or effervesced drinks anyway.

edited to correct sentence structure

Neither do I drink yet the OP brought up a good point to be discussed.

Pruno! lol

Mash! I also once worked as a correctional officer in a prison.

In researching this I came across something that puts forth the idea that the resurrection spoken of here is of those who never had the opportunity to receive or reject Christ.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

It was explained this would be their first resurrection and that the other resurrections were for the saved and already damned.

The passage is clear as day that those who are part of the first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:5 are those who paid the price for the testimony of Jesus Christ during the tribulation. There is no need to make it something that it isn't.

The "rest of the dead" have nothing to do with the first resurrection. If you read the verse alone without context it will sound like that the first resurrection involves the dead after the 1000 years. This is why you need to read the whole thing in context.

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.


What's up with this verse? Never understood this one. The apostles did go over the cities of Israel and then some and yet the Son of man never came. I've heard some crazy theories about this passage as well as the ones in Matthew 24 concerning the apostles. They are dead and gone yet Jesus never returned although both chapters suggest that he would in the lifetime of the apostles. One theory I've heard is that the apostles might actually return and preach during the tribulation kind of like Moses and Elijah appeared to the disciples on the mount.

AH, that is not grammar, it is spelling.

Now you are splitting hairs. Typing "there" instead of "their" can be chalked up to poor spelling also.

By the way, you will find a chapter on proper spelling in every grammar book.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_spelling_considered_part_of_grammar

Revelation 14:9–13 KJV
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
146 �� AMERICA’S LAST WARNING
13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

After the two witnesses, the 144,000 thousand Jewish missionaries, and the martyred tribulation saints are redeemed bodily from the earth at the middle of the tribulation period, God will send an angel with one last loud warning that every person on earth will hear and understand. The angel tells humankind to repent and worship the true Creator, God.
The third angel warns humankind, “If you take the mark of the Antichrist and worship him, you will burn in the lake of fire forever. You will not die, but suffer forever and ever” (Revelation 14:9–11 KJV). Verses twelve and thirteen, however, say that the believers who die in the last half of the tribulation will have the blessing of no more suffering.

No true saint will take the mark of the beast.

And yet Paul, before his conversion, was able to get believers to blaspheme. Go figure.

There is nothing in that passage that says a true believer wouldn't take the mark. In fact, the author of Hebrews warns against drawing back unto perdition.

Without reading it they are probably concerned that not enough Muslims can vote without ID. The UN is 100% pro-Muslim.