Ukulelemike

Let's look in CONTEXT, (because context is king in biblical interpretation):
"The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.  And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." (Zech 12:7-10)
In context, we see the entire setting here is Judah, Jerusalem, the house of David. This is figurative for Israel as a whole, the people of God, who, at the time of context, being invaded by the armies of the world, and when Jesus returns, they will all see Him, "whom they have pierced". Why does all Israel count as those who have pierced Jesus? Because this speaks of the crucifixion as a whole, not just the Roman guard himself who pierced His side, because it was not Rome that sought to kill Jesus, it was the Jews who demanded it, who threatened Pilate if he didn't, and it was the Jews who said, "His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matt 27:25). THEY pierced Jesus just as surely as if their hands held the blade that did so. 
So those in Jerusalem will see Jesus come down, and immediately recognize who He is, that this is the one their fathers pierced and killed, that He is the one they have rejected for so long, and they will weep and mourn for their blindness and rejection and, I suspect, for all the time they lost not serving Him that was before their faces the whole time. 

And I agree with you completely. While I really like David Cloud and a lot of how teachings, I am disturbed a bit over his insistence not only that the pre-trib rapture is CLEAR biblical doctrine, but that it is to be considered a fundamental of the faith, meaning, if I understand Fundamentalism properly, that it is a salvation issue, and that anyone who is NOT pre-trib must be separated from, that is even more disturbing. 
A concern I have is, if it ISN'T pre-tribulation,  and all those pre-trib believers begin to clearly see events of the tribulation taking place, how might this affect their faith? Will they think they were left behind? Will they be angry at God for leaving them? I so often hear the argument that God would NEVER cause His children to go through such terrible tribulation, but then I wonder, Have they read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? Have they read how believers have historically always been treated? The millions slaughtered by the Romans, the Jews, the Catholics, the Muslims, the communists? I am afraid we have become too soft in America with the lack of real persecution. 
So I am all for Him taking us before the trouble begins, because I certainly don't want to go through it, even protected, but if we must, better to be ready, at least for the possibility, so if it DOES occur, I am at least mentally prepared.

I lean to the post-trib/pre-wrath position, not because of any covenant theology or any such thing, I just find the arguments for pre-trib to be weak. Mind you, I say I LEAN that way, because I don't see, after considerable study, that the Bible clearly shows any of the positions to be proven.
The various arguments for a pre-trib all include a considerable amount of assumption connected to the passages, and a few are, actually, contextually incorrect. For example, 1Thes 4:
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
I read time and again, that if we were to go through the tribulation period, how could we be comforted, as it says here we will be? How can we comfort one another, with this hanging over our heads?  Well, if we read this in context, (and sadly, many who use this argument are usually big proponents of the importance of context), we see the timing of the events of the tribulation have nothing to do with it; rather, it is the fact that our loved ones who have died in Christ, we will see again, that they will come back with Christ and receive their glorified, resurrected bodies, and we will join them AND Jesus forever. THAT is our great comfort, not missing the tribulation, which is never mentioned here. 
There there is the assumption that, since the tribulation period is called the time of Jacob's trouble, and that Israel is in primary view here, that means we will be removed from earth first. Except there's no precedent for that idea-Noah is pointed to, but he and his family weren't spared the flood, rather, they were lifted above and rode out the flood-yet they still were there, protected, but watched as their friends, neighbors and loved ones died, heard their cries for help outside the ark. Then they had to ride it out for a year and a month in the ark, and were let out to survey the mess it left, and scrape together a new life from the ruins. So it is possible we will be here to witness the mess, kept safe by the mark of the Holy Ghost from many of the troubles the Lord sends upon the wicked. 
My point being, there is nothing in scripture that says we will escape the triblulation, just the wrath at the end. As for Jesus' imminent return, well, in 1Thes 5 we read:
"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."
We see that the reference to the thief in the night it to the lost, but WE, His people, are NOT in darkness that is should overtake us as a thief. WE will not know the day, but we will be aware of the times and seasons. We will know it is nigh when it is nigh. 
 
 
 

Those who look upon Him whom they pierced clearly refers to the Israelites who are in Jerusalem when Christ returns, because it is the Jews that pierced Him. Yes, the Romans did the actual act, but it was the rejection of the Jews that placed Him there, and they will mourn when they realize who He is and all they have lost in rejecting Him for so long. 

I just ask, "So, where did THEY come from? And did they plant the universe in place, as well? Did they supply the open space to put the universe into? You can't have aliens without having the same questions of origins.

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.
 

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.
 
 

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.

The problem comes, I think, with confusing repentance with the result of repentance, or if you will, repentance of heart with repentance in action. True repentance will come with a change in behavior, the heart action resulting in the change of behavior: heart to works.  Now, some things repented of can take time to turn into an action, (ie, addictions, etc). in the case of Nineveh, their repentance, initially, was a changed heart, followed by prayer and fasting with a true intent of heart to change and obey God. Yes, there was a work, but that was a work borne out of repentance of the heart. I do not believe that God would accept any work that wasn't based on at least a repentant heart-even if he knows they may not get it right in action, if the heart is right, truly wanting to please God. If they were just doing a work with no repentant heart behind it, God probably wouldn't have spared them.

Man, I don't know where you all go to church, or what kinds of churches you attend, but this has never been my experience. I spent ten years single after my first wife passed, and never had any issues with anything being taaght specifically for any age group. Now I am a pastor, and I started out single, and am now single again, (as my second wife passed away 3 weeks ago), and I have always taught doctrine that is for everyone individually. I mean, yes, I teaching some things geared toward those married, or youth, etc, but that's because there are teachings in scripture specifically geared toward those married, or toward young people, or old people, but most doctrine is written for everyone. I couldn't imagine a church that just teaches for group a or group b, and everyone else is excluded. You need to find better churches.

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.

Why do we allow women to sing in church? Interesting question. 
The passage in context deals with teaching in the church, particularly WHO is teaching; clearly, women are not permitted to speak in teaching the church in a general sense, as the role of authority has been given to the man; they are to learn in silence. But singing, as in congregational singing, or even specials, (which I personally believe ought to be done sparingly,) are not in that context, but are more about general edification of the church, and the command was that we sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to ourselves to others, with no command to specifically male or female, thus it is a general command to all believers. This is why women are allowed to sing in the church. 

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.

Why don't we just do this:
 
Gap theorists, please proivide the clear verses that prove a gap. Don't give us your interpretation or your explanation, just give the clear scripture that gives us a gap.
 
For the proof against it, I provide ALL of Genesis 1, into Genesis 2, as taken at face value, disproves a gap. Seven days, six of creation from "God created the heaven and the earth", to "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." 
 
I also provide, at the giving of the Sabbath, in Ex 20, one reason for the Sabbath was the creation week: "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."   Ex 31: 17: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."  
 
In SIX days, the earth, the heaven, specifically meaning not just heaven as we think it, but literally the space to put eveything in, and the sea. Six days, no room for anything before it.

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.

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.

Is that in reply to my reply? If so, I would ask why.

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

Curious as to how we understand what Jesus meant here:
John 4:
15-18: "The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."
So Jesus, apparently, by His own words, recognizes that this Samaritan woman has had 5 husbands, and is currently with a man that He, himself, differentiates, for some reason, as NOT her husband. IF we are recognized as married only once, (unless five of her husbands have all died), why does Jesus recognize all 5 as husbands? And why not the current one? I realize that all we can do is speculate, (ie, all 5 died), but if not, why does He recognize them all as husbands?
I am not an advocate of divorce, I read the paper put forth, which lays out all the reasons in the typical manner, but I disagree with some of the interpretation, taking simple scriptures and putting a spin that isn't necessarily there. 
for instance, clearly, believers are NOT to marry unbelievers-but if we choose to ignore God's command there, and do so, does that mean that God just shifts His position on it, and blesses that unequally-yoked relationship, just because WE chose to marry outside of His will? Would not, then, that instance make acceptable the divorce from that unsaved person, particularly if they chose to leave, because we are not under bondage to that unsaved person, and make us free to marry within His will?
And, at the end of the day, is divorce and remarriage the truly unforgivable sin, as some, especially IFBs seem to view it? I knew a pastor that told a divorced man that he could do no kind of service in their church, because he was divorced-sit down, shut up, pay your tithe, and that's it. Is this the way it is supposed to be? I don't see anything like that in scripture.  If an immature believer marries an unsaved person, later as the former grows in Christ, and the latter doesn't, and chooses instead to depart, is that person not to be forgiven of their sin of marrying outside the faith, so that they might marry a godly believer? Of does God spiritually mark them with an "A" and leave them unforgiven for all time?

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.

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.

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.