Critical Mass

3 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Well,some would say that ya'll get what you pay for --- nothing.

On the serious side -- an overview for those who are too new to know.

 

No, the mods don't get paid, the administrator does obtain some income to offset the costs of having OB available for us.

We all have involved lives away from the keyboard. 2 mods are pastors with secular jobs also. One mod has recently moved 2/3 of the way across the country, no longer holding the library job which afforded her with some extra "internet moments". One mod deals with OB from a cell phone (no thanks, that would run me into resignation). The administrator is beginning a new church in Connecticut. 

In keeping with the model established by Bro. Matt (the administrator), the mods are trying to keep the forum somewhere between "heavily moderated" and "practically un-moderated". Yes, that leaves a lot of lateral space (for the nautically inclined -- that's why we have non-skid halfway up the bulkheads). Anything we do will be "too much" in the view of some while still "too little" in the view of others (that's how all of life is).

I've seen comments, over time, about how we need to rid OB of all "Ruckman-ites", "Hyles-ites", "Funny-mentalist", "Briders", etc, et alia, ad infinitum, ad nauseum -- obviously not all from one seriously divided personality. A church should allow .......   look close - OB isn't a church, it is Bro. Matt's "Town Square".

 

Now, admittedly, I am bad about not noticing what area of OB a thread is in or if there are multiple threads on one topic (I saw a new posting and sought to back up to my last posting there in an attempt to see all posts following and couldn't find mine! I knew I had posted there and looked more carefully -- it wasn't there. On the fourth pass [yeah, I'm slow sometimes] I realized this was ANOTHER thread with the same argument!)

I have now gone through the trouble to print the rules and put them on the wall above the computer as a reference. Maybe I can reign more things into the letter and spirit intended for OB. Well, not quite -- we, the staff, can work toward the letter and intent (as opposed to, "technically, where does it SAY this is a violation"). But remember - only YOU can prevent forest fires ..... ooops, wrong message ... only YOU can work to return OB to the proper spirit intended for this neighborhood.

You are about 10 years too late.

3 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I have not said anywhere that Cruz is God's man for this election. However, that does not mean that I ignore biblical principle. I will not have on my conscience casting my vote for a man who has the history of Trump.

Following the Bible is not Cruz' only strength. He also follows the Constitution. THAT is vital in a POTUS.

My eyes are on the real prize: not just defeating the Dems, but putting a true consitutionalist in office. Ted has as legitimate a chance to win as Trump. I disagree that Trump will be any better for this country than a Dem. He will be as bad or worse. And, I'm  sorry, but I disagree that someone that low is the best we can hope for.

 

 Cruz is a dishonest man. Even Carson has recognized this. Cruz has also asked the party delegates to put aside the vote of the people and nominate him. Who cares what the voters say.

On 3/2/2016 at 11:27 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

Many Christians will vote for Trump for the same reason they voted for Obama...

...to please their flesh.

Horseradish! I love how some of you are so in tuned to the motives of Christians. I'll tell you why I'm voting for Trump. Its because he's the only one who isn't another phony politician, except for maybe Carson, out of the bunch. And now that Carson has dropped out Trump has my vote.

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hebrews 12:22-24 -- "But ye are come [present tense] unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

Notice the writer of Hebrews is addressing the Jews as another group outside the church of the firstborn? This verse is speaking to a group of Jews "in the last days" who are ready to meet the church of the firstborn which is already in heaven on mount Sion. This verse has yet to be fulfilled.

3 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

I may try checking that quote. But as I said before I would go solely by Scripture, the church fathers writings as far as I can see are hearsay, Scripture is the Word of God, weren't they mostly based round Alexandria and probably favored Rome somewhat. I can't really go with the view 'Paul probably told them something which God the Holy Spirit never managed to get into his word, they interpret prophecy in their context, and we in ours, we have a wider spectrum of History to take into account.

Some of the writings "church fathers" were scriptural and some were based on North African and Gnostic heresies. Origen (an Arian) wrote the Hexapla which in reality is the phony Septuagint (aka LXX). There was no Seputagint before or during Christ's days. Origen made it up based on what he thought it would read like. The only evidence of it prior to him was a fable written within the Letter of Aristeas who was an Alexandrian Jew. Of course, all the scholars were suckered into believing it to be true.

On 2/28/2016 at 7:29 AM, beameup said:

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.  Revelation 11:3

 

Malachi 4:4-5 Mentions Moses and Elijah:

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Yup. The same two who met Jesus and the disciples on the mount of transfiguration. Also, the miracles performed in Revelation by the "two candlesticks" are like those Moses and Elijah performed. The two represent "the law and the prophets" which will be back into play during the Great Tribulation.

This passage is another proof that there's a difference between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God seeing there are tares in the kingdom of heaven but not in the kingdom of God. In its precise application it's about the millennial kingdom though a general application can be applied to how people receive the word of God. Notice the harvest is "the end of the world" not the rapture.

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

Sword is not perfect, my subscription is about up and I'm considering renewal or letting it go.  What else is there?  I basically get the articles from O Timothy delivered to my inbox every morning and back to the Sword paper, for the most part I enjoy reading it but some issues are quite boring.  

Hey, why don't you get yourself a subscription to Peter Ruckman's Bible Baptist Bulletin. You might get off the baby bottle.

2 hours ago, swathdiver said:

It's not name calling, it's marking them and identifying them.  There's nothing wrong with that.  And our Lord Jesus Christ certainly did call friend and foe alike names.  

Many of the heresies you promote are also promoted by Ruckman.

Ruckman, Ruckman, Ruckman, Ruckman....

On 2/10/2016 at 5:16 AM, Ronda said:

Here we go with the name-calling again. I don't know anyone here who quotes Ruckman.

Yes, he did! Christ never said to call people names and unfairly categorize them with people they are not associated with.

There have actually been a few contributors to this forum in the past who were trained at Peter Ruckman's school. The majority of them were gracious and did no name calling. It's the baby bottler's that remain in this forum that do all the name calling. They are so spiritual. 

43 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

A small reminder -- Remember that the context does not directly indicate that "the sons of God" became "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," but that their children did.

Herein we would have a grammatical and contextual disagreement.  I would contend that grammatically and contextually the phrase "in those days" refers to that which precedes it in the context, not to that which follows it.  Furthermore, although I would agree that the "giants" were still in existence during the "also after that" phase, I would contend that the "also after that" phase does grammatically and contextually move us forward from the "in those days" phase of that time period before the flood.  However, we overall would be in firm agreement that the passage does NOT teach anything about fallen angel procreating with human women!!!

Actually, my position on the passage would also drive "a final nail in the coffin" of the position that "the sons of God" gendered the "giants," since it places the gendering of children by "the sons of God" after the existence of the "giants."  Thus it would be impossible for the "giants" themselves to be those children.

Anything but believe the simple English, right pastor?

You people will never change. It's time to put away the baby bottle for the meat of the word. No wonder this forum is dead.

On 2/18/2016 at 10:44 PM, swathdiver said:

How about sharing your testimony with us Critical Mass?

If I'm unsaved then it's pretty sad that I'm one of the few in here that actually believes what the bible ( KJV) says and doesn't toss out entire passages that I either don't understand or that goes against what my favorite IFB preacher teaches.

On 2/17/2016 at 4:02 AM, beameup said:

There appears to be at least one person on this forum that is an amillennialist/supersessionist, who does not believe that there will be a literal Kingdom, on the earth, in Israel, ruled by Jesus Messiah and his kinsmen the Jews.

There also may be some who cannot differentiate clearly between the "kingdom of heaven", the "kingdom of God", and the "kingdom" on the earth (ie: Millennial Kingdom), and who will "populate" (for lack of a better word) those "kingdoms".

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:32-33

Yes, they are not the same. What cause the confusion is that both share some of the same characteristics.

But, the kingdom of God cannot be taken with violence (Matthew 11:12).

6 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

Well sir, unless you have me on ignore, I'm left with no alternative than to assume that you ignored my questions, because you've been active on the forum since I asked the questions. I am therefore left to assume that as I originally suspected, your involvement here is more than likely just a game for you. Wherefore, I will no longer "play". It's my hope and prayer that you'll be saved.

I haven't been ignoring you. I just haven't been reading any of your responses.

Nothing in any of my posts has been gameplay. All has been sound doctrine.

18 hours ago, beameup said:

I would suggest that Ezekiel 40-48 shows that temple worship will be reinstated and sacrifices reestablished during the Millennium under Messiah.

You are correct. Under the New Covenant during the Millennium the temple and sacrifices will be reinstituted. When did this become hard to believe? These people just toss out any verses that go against IFB teachings or just spiritualize them away. Forget literal fulfillment. Just observe above poster. He's straight out saying Ezekiel 40-48 is wrong because Paul said this over here. No attempt to reconcile the two perceived contradictions is attempted. No need to because his IFB school or church taught differently and no way can they be wrong. I honestly believe most in here don't actually read the bible. They just read portions of the bible that back IFB teachings. Or spend most of their time doing word studies of the "original languages" which are dead for a reason. 

The gospel was hid in the OT. It was there (mostly in type) and the prophets earnestly sought it out but it was hidden (I Peter 1:10-12). In fact, not even the twelve Disciples understood what Jesus was talking about when he told them of his death, burial and resurrection (Luke 18:31-34). And this was AFTER he commanded them to go forth and preach the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom gospel they preached was NOT the death, burial and resurrection gospel that we preach today. That gospel was revealed to Paul who made it known to all the saints including Peter himself (Romans 16:25,26). Also, along with this revelation went the truth that Jew and Gentile would be united in one body called the church (i.e. the body of Christ). Anything that John may have written about was AFTER Paul's revelation and was brought back to his remembrance in due time by the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). This would explain why John's gospel is so much different than Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Read the verses. It's clear as midday sky. Only those set in the teachings of their denomination or the "original languages" over the bible will not see it. 

28 minutes ago, John81 said:

Could you provide a step-by-step scriptural guide for this?

It's been done a bunch of times in the past (ex. Rick Schworer) and you didn't receive it. You won't this time around either so I won't waste our time.

The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are two different kingdoms. You can't get into one without getting into the other first, though.

16 minutes ago, John81 said:

What happened to the teaching the pope is or will be the anti-christ? Those books and booklets I read from the 70s and early 80s dealing with the end times all preached this or something similar. Some had the pope and RCC filling another evil end-time role, but they all had the pope/RCC as prominent players in the end-time evil. I notice very little preaching or writing about this anymore.

While I know many non-IFB churches have embraced the RCC to one extent or another, has this infected many IFB churches to the extent they no longer preach the pope is antichrist? I know of a couple IFB churches which yoke with the local RCC for "community service and political benefit" and while they don't publicly say the RCC is Christian, they also have no preaching against the RCC or mention of the pope in end times sermons.

What is the current prevailing view?

He's the closest thing to the man of sin there is right now. 

Also, I see nothing wrong with a bunch of IFBers joining with Catholics to protest against destructive things within the community as long as it doesn't go anything further than that (ex. interfaith services). I'm probably in the minority here, though.

1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

 

Jesus said in John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. if you are correct wouldn't Jesus say, You are the light of the world?

Doesn't the verse he quoted say that the nation of Israel would be a light to the Gentiles? Didn't Jesus say Christians are a light in this world? I don't see what the problem is. The Gentiles will be drawn to Christ through how he deals with his people. Just think of it as the moon reflecting the light of the sun.

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

I am NOT a preterist.  If you ever read my posts when we had preterists on here you see that I disagreed with them, as it be clearly shewn that preterism was invented by the Jesuits as was futurism.  

" and as such, all (or most all) prophecies have already been fulfilled."  I am an historicist which is absolutely different from preterism Preterism is part-and-parcel with "Replacement Theology".Well I don't accept replcement theology either  Do you also reject the Millennium?  In have always believed in historic pre millenniumism but the nonsense that you and others post is beginning to make me question if I was correct or not. How about the Tribulation? Which one?  There are several tribulations mentioned in scripture,  And although you keep saying it is for seven years, the only one scripture gives a time for is 10 days.  How about the Rapture? I beiieve that  we will meet the Lord in the air and the descend with him,  Rapture is not a scriture word, I think it was first used by the Irvingites and their Catholic Apostolic Church, at least that is the earliest I have found, but if you can find an earlier ref before say 1825, I will accept that, Do you believe that Revelation is all "symbolic"?  Mostly yes.  Which shows I am not preterist as they are literalists taking the temple to be the pre AD 70 temple..  Whereas I believe in accordance with Peter and Paul's teaching that the temple is the chursh and the book of Revelation is a progressive history of the church and its tribulations throughout history, mainly by your friends the RCC.    

 

You are an amillennialist. Which is historically the eschatological position of the RCC. It was systematized by Augustine. Talk about being friends with the RCC. At the end of the day you are in essence a preterist since you still take the promises of God to the nation of Israel and place them upon the church. That is Replacement Theology. The result is the same.

19 hours ago, beameup said:

Here is a side-view of the ridge upon which was built the Antonia Fortress, the Temple, and the City of David (far right):

 

Interesting. Where exactly is the Dome of the Rock located today. Where Fort Antonia is or the Temple platform?

It's still strange that the scripture says that the temple was located at Mt. Moriah yet in that diagram above it's just a slope on a hill. 

18 hours ago, beameup said:

It means that the Temple can immediately be built, as the land is under Israeli control, not Muslim control.  Get ready for the rapture.

I still think the Antichrist will level the Dome of the Rock. This is how he'll incur favor with the Jews. 

On 2/15/2016 at 9:16 PM, beameup said:

And as they went about to kill him [Paul in the Temple], tidings came unto the chief captain of the band [Roman chief captain], that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who [Roman captain] immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them [from Antonia Fortress to the Temple]: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they [Jews] left beating of Paul. Acts 21:31-32

The Romans rescued Paul from the Jews by "running down" from the fortress to the Temple.  Clearly, the Word of God identifies the location as being "lower" than the Roman garrison.  In fact, the "threshing floor" location of the Temple is 600 feet below the Roman Antonia Fortress (ie: Temple Mount).  In fact, the real Temple was so obliterated by the Romans (not only in 70AD, but about 139AD as well) that there remain "no stone upon another".  Modern Jews reject Jesus because the "wailing wall" still remains, as they claim that Jesus made a false prophecy of "no stone upon another".

So much for "Josephus"....

Wouldn't Mount Moriah make it one of the highest points within the city? And couldn't they running down be a reference to them running down the stairs of the tower of the fortress?

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit will be removed? II Thess. 2:7 doesn't say the "he" is the Holy Ghost. People have assumed that the "he" of the passage is the Holy Ghost but nothing in the context suggests that it is. You have to read that into the passage based on a preconceived theological belief. 

Actually, following the rules of English grammar the "he" in the passage is the the mystery of iniquity (aka the man of sin) but really, that doesn't make much sense.

IMO, "he" that withholds is Michael and he will be taken out of the way at the rapture.

Daniel 10:20,21

[20] Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.
[21] But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

44 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Matthew 1:21 And she (Mary) shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The question becomes who is "his people". Some teach this is the Jewish Nation. They are Mary's people and Jesus is Mary's son. What did Jesus say? 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Well that would mean everyone is "his people". God owning all the people, Jews & Gentiles.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Notice how Jesus uses the word "He" making it personal. So Jesus is saying salvation is personal not national. Did Jesus save his people from their sins? Do Jews have the way to Heaven? Do Gentiles have the way to Heaven? Is Jesus the way to salvation?

All you say is true but remember the gospel of John was written way after Matthew and even Paul's revelation. The gospel went first to the Jew then to the Gentile. 

Matthew 10:5-7

[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The Gentiles are the other sheep he was to bring into the fold.