1Timothy115

One of the places where we lived had no stove for about a month. So my mom used a crock pot and a percolator. We had some different kinds of meals, but always tasty and filling. 

​Yeeeehaw, and we're off!!!!!!!
If it was a steam iron it would cook faster, evryone knows that steam is very hot. Surface area may just present a problem though.

Both my wife and I cook. Fortunately my wife is an excellent cook, always from scratch. Right now with issues with our water in the trailer and an oven that doesn't work, we are limited, but once we get those things ironed out we'll be doing great.

My mom didn't teach me how to cook. I actually learned by watching. Both her and my dad.  I was never really interested in learning to cook while I was growing up. When I got older, I ended up cooking at a camp. Surprisingly, I seemed to have a talent for it - taking existing materials and making a tasty, hearty, healthy meal.  Many women cannot cook upon marriage, and that is sad. I could cook by the time I got married, and my hubby was a very happy newlywed.
My sister, on the other hand, did cook quite a bit while growing up. And, though I don't want to brag, I'm the better cook. 
I don't think obesity is a result of not being able to cook, though. There are an awful lot of morbidly obese cooks/chefs running around...
I totally agree that young ladies are not being taught to be good wives and mothers.  It's a shame, that's for sure!

My mother-in-law started my wife in the kitchen at 5 years old, my wife did the same with our girls. My 3 boys can cook -- I can keep us surviving.

In a 2009 Gallup poll, Oregon ranked #1 of US states with the highest percentage of residents who were unaffiliated with any religion, at 24.6%.[3] Although 46% of Oregonians identify religion as being "very important", a full 40% of Oregonians (including those affiliated with a religion) seldom or never attend services.
Catholics 14%  
Baptists 8.7%
LDS 10.4%
Note:  Those percentages are of those that list any affiliation with religion...a rarity in Oregon where the vast majority of people are atheists, or agnostics. 
Oregon truly is a mission field. 

If not, I will.
Happy Resurrection Celebration! Praise the Lord...He Arose! 

A pet peeve to go along with Jim's is:
Reading a comment by a professing Christian taking on an anti-Christian online and their postings are so filled with wrongful use of words (your when it should be you're; for example) that their credibility is instantly lost and no matter the substance of their (not there!) position their poor vocabulary becomes the point of attack against "uneducated, backward Christians".

Pet Peeve:  People that when you lend them something to use for a day or two, you have to hunt them down months later to get the item back.

If not, I will.
Happy Resurrection Celebration! Praise the Lord...He Arose! 

If not, I will.
Happy Resurrection Celebration! Praise the Lord...He Arose! 

"And ye are witnesses of these things."

Give the gospel to everyone, you never know if a practicing 'religionist' is saved or not.

Anyone happen to hear Bill O'Reilly take a hard jab at Christians who actually believe what the Bible says about Jesus and salvation?
They were discussing radical Islam and how these Muslims believe everyone must be converted to Islam or die. Then Bill tried to find a way to make it seem like radical Islam wasn't the only religious radicals. His solution: talk about those radical Christians who claim only those born again can go to heaven, those who believe Jesus is the only way to be right with God and make it to heaven.
So, Bill sees us as discriminatory radicals who aren't tolerant of the religious beliefs of others and therefore similar to radical Islam except for we don't kill those of other religions. (However, another Fox News Catholic "conservative" today said Christians were once just like the radical Islamists until we got our act together)
Good 'ol Fox News, fair and balanced, speaking that good 'ol conservative truth and presenting Christian friendly news.

Communism & Capitalism benefit only the bureaucrats
 

"And ye are witnesses of these things."

Often when engaged in discussion-debates such as this, I will seek quickly to acknowledge the points of agreement between my “opponent” and myself.  First, I do this in order to demonstrate that my “opponent” and I are not in complete disagreement on every point.  Second, I do this in order to remove these points of agreement from being a unnecessary distraction within the debate itself.  Third, I do this in order to focus the discussion-debate upon the actual points of disagreement.

In addition, often I will present my understanding of my “opponent’s” position, seeking from my “opponent” for confirmation that my understanding is correct, clarification on any points that need further detail, or correction on any point wherein my understanding of my “opponent’s” position is incorrect.  First, I do this in order to demonstrate respect unto my “opponent” as an individual, granting my “opponent” an honest hearing and consideration of his or her position.  Second, I do this in order to discern the primary point (the “premise points”) of disagreement between my “opponent’s” position and my own; for these “premise points” are the foundation turning points out of which the rest of the disagreement flows.  Third, I do this in order to engage the actual position of my “opponent,” rather than some misunderstanding of that position; for to engage a misunderstanding of my “opponent’s” position is not to engage my “opponent’s” actual position at all.

Even so, the following posting is present for these purposes.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Brother “Covenanter,”

(Note:  Might I know your given last name in order that I might engage you respectfully thereby.  If you have revealed this to me already in the past, I do regretfully and apologetically admit that I do not recall it.)

1.  We are in full agreement concerning these introductory comments.

2.  We are in full agreement concerning these introductory comments.


3.  We are in full agreement that the Lord God had promised His coming Messiah through this prophetic utterance of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18-19.

4.  We are in full agreement that the “70 weeks” of Daniel 9:24-27 represent 70 groupings of 7 years each, thereby encompassing a time period of 490 years.

5.  This is the point at which I believe your typographical corrective was intended – that you intended to state “70 years,” rather than “70 weeks.”  If I am correct concerning this “corrected” understanding, then we are in agreement that the 70 years of punishment in exile as prophesied by Jeremiah (as per Daniel’s Biblical meditations according to Daniel 9:1-2) were drawing to a close, and that the decree to rebuild the city Jerusalem (and the temple therein) would soon go forth. 

However, there are two points of disagreement that I would present concerning this statement.  First, I would have disagreement with your use of the prepositional phrase, “for Messiah,” at the end of the first sentence.  I am not aware of any indication throughout the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 that Jerusalem would be rebuild specifically “for Messiah.”  To me this appears to be an imprecise addition concerning the purpose for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.  Second, I would have disagreement with the entirety of your second statement.  I am not aware of any indication in the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 that these “70 weeks” (70 x 7 years) are intended to bring about the completion (the “finishing”) of the Messiah’s work.  (Grammatically, the antecedent for your word “his” in your second statement appears to be the word “Messiah” with which your first statement ends.  If my understanding concerning this wrong, please correct me.)

6.  Herein we find our first significant point of disagreement, about which I desire to engage through future postings.

7.  We are in full agreement that the “70 weeks” begin with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and that this rebuilding proceeds through times of trouble as recorded in the Biblical record of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, and Zechariah.  Furthermore, we are in agreement that the first “69 weeks” (“7 weeks” + “62 weeks”) end with some event concerning “Messiah the Prince.”  Indeed, we are in agreement that this event is the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ at the hand of John the Baptist. 

However, I would have disagreement with your use of the phrase, “the anointing of Messiah,” in your second statement.  Daniel 9:25 does not employ the term “anointing” at all; therefore, it is imprecise to declare that the phrase, “unto Messiah the Prince,” as employed in the verse refers to “the anointing of Messiah.”  It is true that Daniel 9:24 makes reference unto the anointing of “the most Holy.”  It is also agreed that the phrase, “the most Holy,” does refer in context to “Messiah the Prince” (that these titles refer unto one and the same individual, who is indeed our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ).  However, that the anointing of Messiah, the most Holy, as referenced in verse 24 is the same event as that which is referenced in verse 25 concerning Messiah, the most Holy, cannot simply be assumed.  It must first be demonstrated through some grammatical, contextual, or Biblical means.  Indeed, I myself would contend that these two events are not the same event at all.

8.  We are in agreement that the prophetic events of Daniel 9:26 occur AFTER the completion of the “69th week,” and not necessarily during the “70th week.”  Indeed, I myself would contend that these events occur during an unspecified period of time between the “69th week” and the “70th week.”  Furthermore, we are in agreement that these prophetic events include the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ and the destruction of the city Jerusalem and of the temple therein in 70 AD by the armies of Rome.  However, although I do agree that some portion of our Lord’s “Olivet Discourse” does make reference unto this destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, I do not agree with the amount of the “Olivet Discourse” that you yourself would apply to that event (as per my understanding of your position through other discussions about it).

9.  Concerning Daniel 9:27, we would stand in complete disagreement concerning every point that you expressed in the above statement.  Again, it is my desire to engage the elements of this disagreement through future postings.

10.  Since we have such a significant disagreement concerning Daniel 9:27, there is much within your concluding statements (which are founded upon your understanding of Daniel 9:27) with which I would have disagreement also.  Yet these are disagreements of conclusion points due to our disagreements of foundational points (“premise points”).  Therefore, focusing upon these disagreements of conclusion points is of no value until we have engaged our disagreements of foundational points.


 
At this point, I would ask -- Am I understanding your position correctly in those areas wherein I have expressed agreement.  If this is the case, then we can focus the remaining of our discussion-debate upon those areas wherein we have a point of disagreement.  On my part, I would seek to begin this with our disagreements concerning the six-fold purpose statements of Daniel 9:24.
 
 

I can't argue with any of that.  The closer we live to our Savior the more like Him we become.  That is a fact.  But we are all human and constantly fighting with the old man and sometimes we grow weary of fighting and want to relax for a time . . . . then we are in trouble.  We can rationalize our weakness or we can recognize it for what it is . . . . sin.  Even Paul admits to the problem in Romans 7.  I am not perfect. no one is but God.  We must fight, we must constantly struggle with wandering from our savior's side.  I have not managed to stay there always and I probably never will in this life, not until I see Him face to face, but that does not excuse my weakness.  That is why John tells us: 1 John 2:1-2  "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. KJV
 

If you can think or say to yourself..."this is all to your glory God" then, there is pretty much nothing wrong with it. As long as it glorifies God and doesn't go astray of scripture then have at it. God has always let me stop something and do something else. Yes, I can always move closer to God and I need practice before I get there.

Emotional indulgence is quickly destroying our society.

If you can think or say to yourself..."this is all to your glory God" then, there is pretty much nothing wrong with it. As long as it glorifies God and doesn't go astray of scripture then have at it. God has always let me stop something and do something else. Yes, I can always move closer to God and I need practice before I get there.

If you can think or say to yourself..."this is all to your glory God" then, there is pretty much nothing wrong with it. As long as it glorifies God and doesn't go astray of scripture then have at it. God has always let me stop something and do something else. Yes, I can always move closer to God and I need practice before I get there.

Not about Israel......
Jam 4:4, Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. That is the true meaning of adultery. Adultery is a turn of heart, We tend to share our heart with both God and the world.
I John 2:15, Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16, For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Rom 12:2, And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
We replace porn and hollywood with family programs, the discovery channel and disney
We replace booze and tobacco with coffee, teas and food, food, food
We replace rock and roll with blugrass, classical and big band
We replace chasing women and niteclubs with watching pro football and baseball
We replace octoberfest and wine festivals with golf or skiing
You get the point: Surely the world doesn't think of our replacements as bad. The world sets that standard-not God.
All of the replacements above are still of the world. We simply apply the world's cultural standards to make them "good" replacements. But have you ever thought that these "good" replacements take just as much time of yours away from following Christ as the "bad" things we replaced.
I know we IFBs are the closest to following Christ but are we in general actually following Him or just replacing the bad world with the "good" world. Both of which He includes in "love NOT the world neither the things in the world"
Thoughts?
 

I just listened to J. Vernon McGee on the radio and I have no problem with his daily feed.

Your link was to a British-based group...not an Israel-based one. There may be some Jews in Israel who favor giving up some of the land God gave them, but not many.
Point of fact: "Palestinians" have been offered land many times. And they have refused. Why? Because they want ALL of Israel,  with the Jews dead...a feeling shared by surrounding Arab nations. Funny thing is, no Arab nation will accept the Palestinians.  Hmmm. And yet Israel is accused of oppressing them because they do not kowtow.
Do not make this an Israel-bashing thread. Period.