Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Ukulelemike

Moderators
  • Posts

    4,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    217

Everything posted by Ukulelemike

  1. Matt 22: 15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth*, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said,Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them,Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. Rom 13: 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God*: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. That pesky Bible, getting all into political topics! Don't they know better?
  2. Okay, so again I repeat, this is only a theory, really more of a fun hypothesis, and certainly not doctrine. Just curious about what anyone thinks. Job is, supposedly, the oldest written book of scripture-I have never understood how they know that, but we can go with it. It is often attributed to the time of the patriarchs, but I have seen differences in timing for hundreds of years, so who really knows? Anyways, I have, for years had a thought rolling around in my mostly empty head, and wanted to share it here, (assuming I haven't already). What if Job existed around the same time period as Abram/Abraham, and God purposely taunted Satan to attack Job, not once but twice, in order to keep his attention away from the call of Abram, and his entering into Canaan? Job was an important guy, loved the Lord, eschewed sin, maybe was even associated with the order of Melchezidek, not as a priest, obviously, but a follower, hence how he knew the Lord as he did. So what if God, desiring to protect Abram and shield him from the eyes of Satan and his minions, allowed Job to be tested the way he was? The benefit being Abram not being bothered in his journey, Job gaining spiritual growth and insight, and all believers of all time reading the account of Job, benefitting from his situation. That's it. Any thoughts? Again, just playing with an idea, nothing more. Probably brought on by my ADHD.
  3. They are not two creation stories, man, they are merely the same with differing amounts of details. Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire creation week, God as creator, creating everything, while chapter 2 gives greater detail, specifically into day 6, with YHWH God beginning His relationship with Man. So we have the details of God creating man, placing him in the garden, setting a boundary for him, presenting the animals to him, both to name them, and the see that none of them are suitable as a help meet for Adam's needs, (as well as giving Adam the opportunity to see God create one of each kind of animals and bird, since the bulk of them were created before Adam was, thus refuting any possibility that Satan might convince him otherwise-like evolution), and the forming of the Woman from Adam's rib. One, God as Creator and his creation as a whole, two, God as Father dealing with His children. One account, two different thematic specifics and details. As to the age of the earth, and the Bible as a science book, that's true, it isn't meant to be a science book, but it is meant to be a factual book, and it is full of good science. And Genesis taken at face value, is clearly meant to be taken literally as history, and even the terminology spells out that the days were literal days, evenings and mornings, and that there is no possibility for a gap anywhere there, when the Lord established the Sabbath, He gave, as one reason, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Clearly we see here that IN SIX DAYS, everything, everything was made, heaven and earth, and ALL that in them is, which would have to include the angels and all heavenly beings. Everything. In six days. That leaves no room for a gap, no room for long ages, or day/ages, or theistic evolution. They are not two creation stories, man, they are merely the same with differing amounts of details. Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire creation week, God as creator, creating everything, while chapter 2 gives greater detail, specifically into day 6, with YHWH God beginning His relationship with Man. So we have the details of God creating man, placing him in the garden, setting a boundary for him, presenting the animals to him, both to name them, and the see that none of them are suitable as a help meet for Adam's needs, (as well as giving Adam the opportunity to see God create one of each kind of animals and bird, since the bulk of them were created before Adam was, thus refuting any possibility that Satan might convince him otherwise-like evolution), and the forming of the Woman from Adam's rib. One, God as Creator and his creation as a whole, two, God as Father dealing with His children. One account, two different thematic specifics and details. As to the age of the earth, and the Bible as a science book, that's true, it isn't meant to be a science book, but it is meant to be a factual book, and it is full of good science. And Genesis taken at face value, is clearly meant to be taken literally as history, and even the terminology spells out that the days were literal days, evenings and mornings, and that there is no possibility for a gap anywhere there, when the Lord established the Sabbath, He gave, as one reason, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Clearly we see here that IN SIX DAYS, everything, everything was made, heaven and earth, and ALL that in them is, which would have to include the angels and all heavenly beings. Everything. In six days. That leaves no room for a gap, no room for long ages, or day/ages, or theistic evolution. They are not two creation stories, man, they are merely the same with differing amounts of details. Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire creation week, God as creator, creating everything, while chapter 2 gives greater detail, specifically into day 6, with YHWH God beginning His relationship with Man. So we have the details of God creating man, placing him in the garden, setting a boundary for him, presenting the animals to him, both to name them, and the see that none of them are suitable as a help meet for Adam's needs, (as well as giving Adam the opportunity to see God create one of each kind of animals and bird, since the bulk of them were created before Adam was, thus refuting any possibility that Satan might convince him otherwise-like evolution), and the forming of the Woman from Adam's rib. One, God as Creator and his creation as a whole, two, God as Father dealing with His children. One account, two different thematic specifics and details. As to the age of the earth, and the Bible as a science book, that's true, it isn't meant to be a science book, but it is meant to be a factual book, and it is full of good science. And Genesis taken at face value, is clearly meant to be taken literally as history, and even the terminology spells out that the days were literal days, evenings and mornings, and that there is no possibility for a gap anywhere there, when the Lord established the Sabbath, He gave, as one reason, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Clearly we see here that IN SIX DAYS, everything, everything was made, heaven and earth, and ALL that in them is, which would have to include the angels and all heavenly beings. Everything. In six days. That leaves no room for a gap, no room for long ages, or day/ages, or theistic evolution.
  4. 6000 years is, indeed, very old. And yes, genesis is clearly written as to be taken literally. No room or evidence for a gap nor theistic evolution. Someone mentioned egocentrism in an earlier post, and here is an interesting thought: How do we know that earth ISN'T the center of the universe? Seriously, we don't have the technology to see the ends of the universe from any direction, so how do we know God didn't place Earth directly in the center? I'm not saying it IS, just saying, there's no conceivable proof to say either way.
  5. Accepting our error is never easy, yet, especially as a new believer, it is very important that we at least consider the possibility we MAY be in error at times. I have been born again since 1972, and a pastor for 19 years, but I still know I am human and subject to error. Glad to see you have learned that truth-it helps keep us honest and humble, but also should make us eager to always be in the word, to seek better understanding and greater wisdom in Christ. Welcome back.
  6. Is that in reply to my reply? If so, I would ask why.
  7. Generally, it is believed that it is the Holy Spirit that "letteth" until he is taken away. My problem with this, is that the Bile outlines numerous duties, if you will, of the Spirit, to include sealing the believer, comforting us, he is our earnest, he teaches and bring to our mind the things of God, He indwells us and empowers us, but nowhere do we see that His duty is to keep back the coming of the Beast, and in that verse, it doesn't make at all clear who he is that letteth. Another reason is that, the idea of him being 'taken out of the way" seems odd wording to speak of the Spirit of God, being TAKEN out of the way. That sounds like something that is done to a subordinate. Personally, I believe it may be Michael the Archangel, particularly because in a few places we see him dealing with Satan, in Jude where he rebukes the Devil in the name of Christ Jesus over the body of Moses, and when he stands against the prince of the kingdom of Persia, which is often explained to be Satan, and Michael helped Gabriel in battle against him. Him I see as being one with power and authority to withstand the coming of the Beast, being probably equal in power to Satan, seeing as Satan was a Cherub. Michael is seen as a person of war, who withstands. I actually see more reason for this, than for the Spirit of God. Besides, if people are born again during the Tribulation, then it must be the Holy Spirit that seals them as He does now, since that is His job; therefore, His presence alone would not be that which withholds the beast, else His return to seal tribulation saints would surely run him off. And yes, I believe tribulation saints will be sealed and indwelled by the Spirit, as we see the 144000 sealed by God, and that is a specific duty of the Holy Ghost. I don't see that changing.
  8. Whew-that's a lot to unpack! I have heard that this refers to those believers who were saved during the tribulation period, and I would agree, except that I also believe that they include anyone who was already saved before the tribulation period who lives to enter that time. In that, this is THE rapture of all remaining believers. The reason I believe this, is that I see nowhere in scripture that lays out another even of this magnitude in such clear terms as this, an event which, I would posit, would be even more remarkable, because of a considerably larger amount of believers being taken up, and what would be an ensuing reaction in the rest of the world-that is all missing. It just isn't there, no account of the rapture of the church, or any rapture, but here in Rev 14:14, an even so clear that you even have to admit that that it is A rapture, even if not THE rapture. And I see no scriptural evidence that there would be more than one, and in fact, the rapture is called the first resurrection, and the only other we see, the second resurrection, is for those who are dead in Christ, risen for judgment at the end of this world. Two or three resurrections?
  9. At that time, clean and unclean would have referred to animals used for sacrifice, since that had been already a practice since the time of Cain and Abel. Since Abel used sheep for his sacrifices, and he is considered a prophet, that means the Lord probably spelled out to him personally the animals clean and unclean for sacrificing. These are the same things mentioned in respect to the animals brought on the ark, that instead of two and two, it was seven and seven, to ensure there were plenty for sacrificial use. Until the law, all animals could be eaten. As for his dream about Gentiles, it was because Peter understood that, according to the law, Jews were not to eat with Gentiles, because their diet wasn't according to the law-but it was also more general, because now, being able to eat with Gentiles, it meant that the diet restrictions for them that were according to the law, were now lifted, making it possible to have full fellowship with their Gentile brethren. The law, including the dietary laws, were a wall between them, but that wall was broken down in Christ.
  10. God made the official allowance of the eating of meat after Noah and his family left the ark. I suspect, if it was common, to some extent, to eat meat before that, the Lord wouldn't have had to say much. And if they were eating meat before the flood, and it was a sin and a reason for bringing the flood, I don't suspect the Lord would have then allowed it. But the main problem is, the Bible is completely silent about it IF people were eating meat before the flood. If it never occurred to them, because all they ate, or needed to eat, was plants, there's no reason to assume they would have.
  11. My personal preference is dresses and skirts: I find them to be much more feminine and womanly. My wife, bless her, never wore pants in her adult life, even when working the farm, milking the goats, slaughtering animals, whatever. In winter she might wear sweatpants under her skirt, but that was it. Oddly, it was, before she was saved, a homosexual friend that convinced her that wearing dresses and skirts was more womanly. But again, while we do see the issue of men not wearing that which pertains to a woman, and vise-versa, we do need to consider how that fully plays out. Proper pants, looser-fitting, comfortable and neat, can be fine on a woman in the right circumstances and times. But it is true that in most societies, for hundreds of years, pants have generally been considered men's clothing, and dresses, women's clothing. I believe we ought to seriously consider: What will best bring honor to God in my decisions? How far should the gap be made between male and female in the area of clothes, considering God created us male and female and expects us to show that clearly in all areas, including hair length and clothing styles. What will glorify God, not please my flesh?, that is what the real question is.
  12. When did Adam and Eve eat meat? The Bible says nothing about them eating meat, Adam tilled the earth, he was a gardener, as He was created to be. "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;" (Gen 3:17, 18) Cain was a gardener, as well. Abel raised flocks, but we don't see anywhere that they ate of the meat-we know he used them for sacrifices, and they probably used the wool for clothing, and possibly drank the milk, but we see nothing about anyone eating meat until after the flood, and that was probably because, during the flood, much of the minerals in the soil were washed into the oceans, and the best way to get the vitamins we needed was through the animals, which produced those vitamins from the depleted soils much more efficiently than we could.
  13. I have only left one church, and that was due to blatant dishonesty of the pastor toward me. I may have stayed to work it out, but it was about a very personal and difficult issue I was going through, and his dishonesty made matters worse. Later, I was glad to have left, as I found him to be a very controlling and legalistic pastor, more concerned in some areas with appearances than substance. Most who have left the church I pastor have never spoken to me, just left. One family left because we had no programs for their kids: I told him stay and help that happen, but they wanted something already running, so they left. One left because my wife worked, (we had no kids and I didn't have any problem with it) and he felt it was a bad fire example to his kids. Later his wife went to work. An older couple left because they disagreed with my stand against babbling tongues. Didn't want to discuss it or open the Bible, just, nope, and they were gone. One left because I wasn't willing to have community baseball games to attract kids. And thought I was mismanaging the offerings, (no one gave, there were no offering except what my wife and I gave). But most never said anything.
  14. There could never be a peaceful transition or removal of US forces, unless the Afghani people are willing to stand and fight. They're conditioned to either being cowed by fear of the Taliban, or protected by America. And when the chips fell and the time came to stand, having been armed and trained, they dropped everything and ran. Our own founding in America is a good example: we had to reach a point where we we so tired of being trod upon, we were willing to die to make a change. Until the people of Afghanistan are willing to do the same, nothing will change. Get our people out and let them receive the recompense due for their unwillingness to stand. When they're tired enough, they'll stand for themselves. Or die trying.
  15. This, of course, speaks to the importance of repentance in salvation. The lost must understand the reality of sin in their lives, and the need to be willing to reject sin, (not sins, as this is the act that come after salvation, the fruit meet for repentance), because it is sin that is taking them to Hell. And with a prepared heart at salvation, the Spirit and the word will bring about that change as part of being saved. I don't believe we can, or should, deal with the specifics of their sins, when leading them to Christ, but the reality and consequences of SIN, as the whole, and when this is done properly, when born again, they are better prepared to deal with their sins.
  16. There is nothing about the so-called Nephilim that would indicate they had no souls, nor that they were human/angel crossbreeds, or even fallen angels having sex with human women, because all that is impossible. If they had no souls, they would simply cease to exist, because it is the soul that lives on.
  17. Technically, any "good news" is gospel, because that is what the word means. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, the good news that Jesus was among them in Israel at that time-it was a true gospel, but it was rejected, and the gospel necessary then was the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Apostles were saved exactly the way the Gentiles believers were, and Peter as much as admitted it in Acts 15.
  18. The Bible refers specifically to the Devil and his angels. If not fallen, then where did they come from? Satan cannot create, so he didn't create them: they came from somewhere.
  19. If there is some correlation between heating of the earth and greenhouse gases, (by the way, carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary for plants to live, which then produce oxygen so everything else can live, so more carbon dioxide really just means more oxygen.), it may be because of the reluctance of the governments to maintain forests, preferring rather to just let them overgrow and "be natural", which then causes massive, uncontrollable fires. I live in California where the (now) largest wildfire in California history is raging; it has devastated one town, Greenville, and is moving close to Janesville. Before that, there was the Beckwourth Complex fire, not far from that, the fire I had to evacuate for, which burned 30 structures, mostly houses, in the nearby town of Doyle. And all because they won't allow us to maintain the forests, cut them back and clean them up. And it is possible that allowing the forests to overgrow so badly could cause extra carbon which may produce excess warming. And I am sure these fires produce some heat too, you think? However, the Bible is clear: Summer, winter, Spring and fall will all continue on every year as long as this earth stands.
  20. Yes, they do that by allegorizing everything. Its all allegory or symbolism or something. Usually they're preterists, trying to justify how Jesus returned in 70AD.
  21. Thank for your kind and measured response. I do have a question: What is the event mentioned in Rev 14:14-16 referring to? "And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped." As well, contextually, it would appear that the "day of Christ" mentioned in 1Thes 2:2, to which Paul is referring, is not the rapture, but the second coming, with Christ and His angels in flaming fire coming to execute judgment on those who know not God and don't obey the commandment. (2Thes 1:7-9). We remember, of course, that the Bile originally was without verses and chapters, so the thought flows from chapter 1 through chapter two, making the return of Christ to earth the "day of Christ" mentioned in chapter 2. Or so it would seem to me.
  22. I see a marked difference between the tribulation and the falling of God's wrath, so I see the rapture taking place in Rev 14:14, just prior to God's wrath beginning. "So post-trib/pre-wrath". I believe there is a lot of assumption given that lends toward a pre-trib position, that is not to be backed by scripture, but by reading into scripture. For instance, in 1thes 4, the chapter ends by saying, "Wherefore comfort one another with these words.", and they say, 'How can there be comfort in knowing we have to endure the great tribulation?' and I say, 'The comfort doesn't come from anything about the tribulation, but the fact that we will see our loved ones who have died in Christ.' They ignore the context. As well, 1Thes 4 has nothing to do with the timing of the rapture, but with the fact of, and hope in the rapture. as well, just because Israel is in focus during the tribulation doesn't mean the church must be gone from the earth-for 2000 years the church has been the focus in God's eyes, but Israelites have continued to exist, and for 73 years the actual nation of Israel has been present on earth. For prophecy to focus on one group over the other doesn't mean one must disappear from earth, just from prophecy. That's just a couple reasons.
  23. Because its nobody's business but his. Should the police or the IRS or some other law enforcement group be able to just stop you and demand official papers from you whenever they want, with no reasonable justification, and you just hand it over because you did nothing wrong? Are you not familiar with the 4th Amendment? We are to be secure in our papers and property. There is no reason he should have to turn them over, unless there is clear evidence he has committed a crime, and there isn't. It is a fishing expedition, figuring if the kick over enough rocks, they'll eventually find SOMETHING, even though they spent his entire 4 years diligently searching and never found anything.
  24. The government really cannot make the vaccines mandatory. Private businesses can, some do, but many won't, because to do so sets them up to be sued, should an employee die after their mandatory shot. Now, I work for the federal government, and there are rumblings that they will make them mandatory for federal employees, and if you refuse, that's fine, you just lose your job. I need to consider this carefully, as I am just a few years from retirement, and could literally lose everything I have worked for the last 30 years. Let me say, I am not afraid of the shot, any more than I am afraid of the virus. I have chosen not to take it on principle, but I could as easily take it. With my wife passed on now, without benefit of getting Covid, I don't need to take her well-being into consideration, should I react badly to it-If I die, I go to heaven to join her, so no big loss. More likely I would spend a few days taking large doses of Vitamin C, D and Zinc before taking the shot, so my body is prepared.
×
×
  • Create New...