GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Christian Politics Forum / Re: Jerry Brown
« Last post by Rella on Today at 07:03:26 »
He's such a weirdo.

Yep....  but is California.
General Discussion Forum / Re: THE RAPTURE
« Last post by Rella on Today at 06:53:17 »
You miss the much bigger point, Rella. Christ was telling his apostles in Luke 21:25a & Matthew 24:29-30a, in their time of ca. 30 A.D., that He shall not return to earth anytime during the next approximately 1,969 years. And because all three of the specific 1999 celestial events described by Christ in Matthew 24:29 come together only once every approximately 100,000 years, the year 1999 is undoubtedly the point in time on the timeline of history that Christ was referring to in Matthew 24:29, way back in 30 A.D. (For me and other Christian astronomers who are aware of this prophecy, it will be very interesting to find out how Christ learned of these three 1999 celestial events nearly 2,000 years beforehand after He returns.)

It's a real shame that no publisher that I contacted was interested in publishing my manuscript during 1994 - 2002 when I tried to find one without success.  But, as I have said before, I have learned from past precedents that notable figures such as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ were not recognized for their ministries until well after their ministries were over.

I am not missing the bigger point. We are told not to date set and even a mild stating sometime after 1999 is setting dates.

As to publishing....

You are aware that you are certainly capable of self publishing on the web and even selling yourself through various means.

DO IT so we can read what you are hyping about.

But also, put an addendum in you book with the replies from the world leaders you have received.

Johnb.  Well said. I am too.
General Discussion Forum / Re: THE RAPTURE
« Last post by Johnb on Today at 06:30:05 »
I have a savior and am saved by grace through faith so I don't care who is right or wrong on this subject. I am prepared. ::tippinghat::
Theology Forum / Re: God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men
« Last post by RB on Today at 06:26:01 »
Nothing there speaks of salvation.  It only speaks of how God might choose to use one for this purpose or that.
The question asked in verse 14 proves that Romans 9  is strictly dealing with God's mercy in giving eternal life to one and not to another.
Quote from: Paul
Romans 9:14~"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."
The Apostle anticipated the objection of the carnal mind to his doctrine. Does not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil, imply that there is injustice in God? This objection clearly proves that the view taken of the preceding passage is correct. For it is this view which suggests the objection. Is it just in God to love one who has done no good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the assertion respecting loving Jacob and hating Esau admitted of being explained away in the manner that you and many do, there could be no place for such an objection. And what is the Apostle’s reply? Nothing but a decided rejection of the supposition that God’s treatment of Jacob and Esau implied injustice. By asking the question if there be unrighteousness with God, he strongly denies that in God there is here any injustice; and this denial is sufficient for believers. According to the doctrine which Paul everywhere teaches, consistently and with that of the whole of Scripture, God is represented as infinitely just, as well as wise, holy, good, and faithful.

In the exercise of His sovereignty, therefore, all that God wills to do must be in strict conformity with the perfection of His character. He cannot deny Himself; He cannot act inconsistently with any of His Divine attributes and He does not.

General Discussion Forum / Re: THE RAPTURE
« Last post by Jaime on Today at 05:48:09 »
Star of David, I have NO problem with your message. I believe you would have way more luck selling it if you dropped the claim of being one of the the two witnesses. I don't believe the two actual witnesses, if they are individuals, would make a big deal about that. The Two Witnesses claim only detracts from your message. You can sell it ONLY with your astronomy knowledge and experience. Afterall as always, the message is important not the messenger. Try it, what do you have to lose. You say you want to maintain a small footprint, then do so and drop the two witness thing. I already agree with your three points. Always have. I have never bought into the Left Behind book and movie theme. A whole lot of people haven't. I totally buy into that we are in the end of the end of the age, and Jesus is coming very soon. If there is a Tribulation, we as Christians will go through it. Though we will be spared the second death. Our physical death and physical harm are of no consequence. The Left Behinders are promoting escapism. i disagree with that. We will endure horrible death, torture, etc. but we will not see the SECOND death. When the first Left Behind book came out I read the first 30 pages and threw it away. I knew of church congregations that were using it as a Sunday School text.
Theology Forum / Re: Hell
« Last post by RB on Today at 04:43:38 »
Continue from Reply #47~The Lord willing we shall wait until the end of these post to show the connection of verses 1-18 to  the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

We know that there are some sincere Christians who think that this story concerning Lazarus and the rich man is an actual true story, however, if a person would examine these scriptures with an unbiased mind, then they should have no problem of seeing that there are many reasons why it could not be an actual narrative detaining for us a punishment of sinners in an burning present hell fire~the reason being, if an literal event, then this story present to us many absurd conclusions.

Few examples~without symbolism, then it implies that rich men go to a present hell fire because they are rich literally clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. We DO NOT read they sin in any way particularly, or that this rich man treated the beggar in any way uncharitably, ONLY that he was rich and fared sumptuously EVERY DAY. It simply stated that this rich man had his riches IN THIS WORLD, and the beggars in the world to come! Is this not so? Of course, this is the teaching thus far into this story of the beggar, with the sores and the rich man with his life of ease while living in this world. 

We ask....Is having literal riches a sin? If so, then we have a problem with some great men of the scriptures~Solomon and a host of other prophets would be condemned.

Another problem we have is that this story implies that Lazarus was blessed because he was at the rich man's gate, full of sores, and begging crumbs while the dogs came and licked his sores. If all this indeed were to be interpreted as a literal narrative, based on what is written here, the only conclusion that we could draw is that beggars and those who have sores, go to heaven. While those wearing fine linen colored purple, or who is rich and has means, are destined for torments in a present hell fire. Of course, that makes no sense, but without a symbolic meaning, this is the only conclusion from the passages that we can reach.

The Bible shows us that many righteous men who were very rich. Righteous Joseph, the son of Israel, held the treasures of the Pharaoh and giving to whom he would, and was arrayed like a royal prince as the second man in the power in Egypt. Again, righteous Job was God blessed and a God-fearing man, and yet he was also so rich, Let not forget the father of the faithful Abraham.
Quote from: Moses
Genesis 13:2~"And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold."
And so God makes it clear that having physical riches is no measure of a man's salvation. Nor is anyone saved because they are beggars or physically poor. This is neither a literal historical narrative of what happens to rich people (and rich and poor are relative terms), nor a literal portrait of what will happen to poor people. It is a parable painting a spiritual portrait of those who are destitute or poor in spirit, and those who are proud or rich in spirit. In it, we see the humble versus the haughty, as it describes their destiny, based on this, their spiritual condition, not how much money they possess. It is the rich and poor as defined by~
Quote from: Paul
2nd Corinthians 8:9~"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich."
This is the sense of rich and poor that is in view in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Those brought low in humility and those lofty spirits who value themselves as self-sustaining.

Another example~ God gives that this story of Luke is not a literal narrative is that a literal drop of water on the tip of a single finger to cool the tongue of the rich man is absurd. It would not begin to cool him, nor lessen the problem of his torment in a hell fire. Besides, the man has no physical tongue as man's flesh and body becomes corrupted when he dies, and it cannot inherit the Kingdom of heaven. Nor can it be burnt in the grave. And unsaved man does not have a resurrected body until the 2nd resurrection, at "The Last Day". So how does the rich man in hell burning in a flame have a tongue, and yet this be a narrative of a historical event?

General Discussion Forum / Re: THE RAPTURE
« Last post by RB on Today at 03:41:43 »
Post a picture of your sackcloth. Our friendly poster Ken Sublett is AKA Piney. Crazier than an outhouse mouse.
LOL! I have talked a little with Ken~he's intelligent, and probably a nice gentleman, but, spiritually crazy would be speaking mildly of his positions on music, etc.
Quote from: KiwiChristian
THE RAPTURE Jesus Christ’s Second Coming for the Church Bible Reading: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; John 14:2,3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53; Titus 2:13; Rev. 4:1,2.
Sir, you start many posts but never stay around to debate them. I offered to debate this subject with you, but so far, no response. So, you must be a copy and paste guy, with no solid convictions of your own? Is this correct?
Quote from: Jaime
I don't believe in a 7 year tribulation. The AntiChrist is not an individual person. And there is certainly not a pre-trib rapture. I have been trying to explain this a multitude of times to this rag tag bunch.
Amen on all three.
Quote from: Jaime
And I am NOT one of God's two witnesses as you consider yourself. Are you sure you are not another Church of Christ plant? Piney, is this you?
The two witnesses are Jews and Gentiles that make up the church of Jesus Christ~so brother, you are correct that we are not AS SoD disturbingly thinks that he is, but "collectively" as believers in Jesus Christ we are. SoD is to be a pity for much learning has made him somewhat mentally an spiritual wacko.   
Theology Forum / Re: Hell
« Last post by l.a.providence on Today at 01:08:33 »
Right now as I'm reading this, that sounds right.
Theology Forum / Re: An Old Issue Re-Surfaces
« Last post by geronimo on Yesterday at 22:31:00 »
If an intruder is in your living room at 3 a.m. He/she is well past the deterrent stage, and your weapon of choice should be your personal preference. You can assume at that point, they are not there for cake and ice cream, or tea and crumpets.
Theology Forum / Re: God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men
« Last post by Michael2012 on Yesterday at 21:39:05 »
Nothing there speaks of salvation.  It only speaks of how God might choose to use one for this purpose or that.
To you apparently.

Looking at Romans 9 again:

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”[d] 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”[e]

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?

Why did Paul have to bring these questions up in vv.14 & 19, when all there was in the choosing of individuals without regards to their person and work, is not for the purpose of saving them, but for the purpose of using them to accomplish His purpose? 

And Paul's answer to v.19?

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

If nothing there speaks of salvation, and only speaks of how God might choose to use one for this purpose or that, then what is the sense of Paul's pointing out in vv.15-19 of God's mercy and compassion?

Also, why is it for you, not unjust for God to chose people to carry out His purpose, without them having a choice in this regard or without their free will, but on the other hand, take it unjust for God to chose people to save among sinful men?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10