Leaderboard

As I See It, Jesus Will Stay In Heaven I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Hosea 5:15 Until The Second And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Revelation 19:11-14 Coming Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more. In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack. The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. Zephaniah 3:14-17 Glory~! Love, Your Brother Joe

I have to agree with Shiloh ,,,,,,the ONE person having a gun ,killing 50 people will be a cause that these anti-gun people will use to disarm Americans,law abiding citizens that are supposed to have the "right to bear arms",,,,,,I don't really know many owners of clubs & other like businesses here in South Florida that do not bear arms,,,,,,,,seems just negligent in my mind,,,,,,,,I don't know that when something so crazy,unexpected & unprovoked could have been avoided by anyone there having a gun anyway,really,,,,,,,,,,,,it is really being caught off guard and within seconds,people are dead,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,how do you prevent something like this?How did he get in the club armed? Did they not have doormen,was no one paying attention,,,,,,,I mean it was not a pea shooter he had,easily concealed,,,,,,I don't know,it is a tragedy But taking away the right to bear arms does nothing to prevent these things,the "bad guys" will be the only ones having guns because they obtain them illegally in the first place,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,senseless murder,satan at his finest God help us!

Blessings woundeddog Fantastic question! When I was younger & in my early walk with Jesus,I question my Salvation many times because of this particular thing I came to the Understanding of many things I could never have imagined,the Understanding of being "chosen" by God,pre-ordained,election and that from a wee child I knew my Lord & Savior,,,,,,,,,,,my years in the "wilderness" were not because I was not Saved',if it were NOT for the Grace of God I would never have survived my years in darkness & being up close and personal with the enemy,,,,, The specific moment of calling out to my Savior was not the moment of Salvation but the moment I relinquished "self" not to hinder the Power of the Holy Spirit in which I am indwelled,that was the moment the "delusion" was lifted & I Understood that I never again wanted to try to walk ALONE,,,,,,my Relationship with Jesus only grew,flourished & became what it is today because -lol God gave me enough rope to hang myself I am Saved,there is no question &n there was no "Aha Jesus moment",I knew Jesus as my LOrd & Saviour from my earliest recollection,,,,,Glory to God With love-in Christ,Kwik

If he does let's hope he rounds up the Muslims as well.

I have read the book myself. I have to say that evil Mr. Hitler has an uncommon way with words and can sway a fickle mind very easily. As to the reason it is becoming popular again I suppose that the generations which had see the evil perpetrated by Hitler has passed away and the new generation's blood doesnt exactly curdle on hearing the name Hitler. He is just another name in the history books. Not an evil man who has unleashed monstrous barbarity

Im with you on that.

I am not going to read it. My mind does not like to digest that kind of poison.

Every person and personality is sinful before conversion. Not "can be " but "is". But each one who is born again is a new creature (creation) in Christ, which means old things are passed away, behold all things are become new. God gives you a new slate in Christ, and works to develop in you and me the character of Christ.

How do you know it's not a salvation issue? And it's certainly not an, "I told you so!" issue. What if many of those who thought pretrib was accurate suddenly find themselves confronted with the persecution? What if they then find no strength to endure because they were not ready? What if their mind changes and they realize that all their preachers, pastors and friends were wrong? What if they then think that everything else they heard about God was wrong as well? To diminish the great truth of Jesus return and the gathering of the elect to the point of dismissing the reality may be a salvation issue for a great many people. For instance, what if some who not yet accepted Jesus as Lord, but had heard of this pre trib rapture, that turned out not to be true, were turned away because they now realize the believers that kept preaching it were wrong, and therefore wrong about everything? That would be a terrible example for others, for ourselves and would in no way glorify God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It is our duty to not only know the truth but to speak it, truthfully.

Depends on how you're defining wrath and which time space moment it occurs. Please notice that the wrath of God is what we are 'not appointed' to undergo. Tribulation and persecution by man is another story.

It goes way beyond your self assessed declaration, which still assumes that you are able to make the judgement that someone is either a false teacher or anti-Semite. I have also been here long enough to know what I never see reflected in anything you have to say, like kindness, patience, love, etc; therefore, you are not qualified at all to make any judgement towards others, period.

????????????? Ezra, look at this please and really think about it : 2 Thessalonians 2:2-5 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? If the day of Christ is a "Day of blessings" as you put it .. and .. is different to the "Day of the LORD" somehow .. then please explain this .. Q : Why would the brethren be "shaken in mind" and "troubled" that the day of Christ "were at hand" if it were a "day of blessings" ?? See the contradiction ? Sorry bro, but whoever thought this up really did a bad job of it 'caus I just sunk that boat in under 2 minutes !!

In speaking about homosexuality in my church and in different venues around the country (and sometimes around the world), the most common question I’ve received (by far) is whether a Christian who believes homosexual behavior is wrong should attend a gay wedding. The question is often a painful one. It’s one thing to hold to biblical views on marriage and sexuality in a culture that increasingly hates those views. That’s hard enough. But to tell your son or daughter or brother or sister or mom or dad or cousin or buddy from college that you won’t attend their (ideally) once-in-a-lifetime event feels like too much offense to give and too much of a burden to bear. I sympathize with sincere believers who really want to honor God and communicate love to their friends and family at the same time. These are difficult days to be Christians with convictions about marriage. And yet, as much as we can feel the weight and the heartache of the question, the answer should be no. I’ve written on this subject before, but my response assumed in part that the wedding ceremony would have some religious component to it: That was the gist of my argument. I went on in the article to address a number popular objections (e.g., Jesus hung out with sinners; we should fear being contaminated by the world; we don’t want to turn people off to God’s love), and at the end I made a passing reference to ceremonies that were not religious in nature. But I didn’t deal head on with the question posed in the title of this post: What if the wedding is thoroughly secular, does that change the moral calculus? You may be thinking, “I get your point about a Christian wedding ceremony. But my friend doesn’t claim to be a Christian. He and his partner are total agnostics. Their service won’t be religious in the least. I’m not going to worship God. I’m just going so my friend knows I care about him.” I’ve heard conservative Christians make similar arguments several times. I see their appeal. I don’t, however, find them intellectually or spiritually compelling. In short, as personally painful as it may be, and as much as the world will call us names and castigate our motives, those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman should not attend a ceremony that purports to be the marrying of a man and a man or a woman and a woman, even if that ceremony is completely secular in nature. Why such a “hard line” stance? Here are three reasons. 1. The purpose of a wedding ceremony is to celebrate and solemnize.No matter the formal liturgy or no liturgy at all, the reason a couple puts together a wedding ceremony is so that others can join in celebrating with them. Isn’t this why invitations speak of “honoring us with your presence” or “join us as we celebrate”? Isn’t this why at a reception the couple invariably takes time to thank all their friends and family for coming? Isn’t this why we throw rice or blow bubbles or release balloons? Isn’t this why we wait in line to give the newlyweds a hug? Two (unmarried, of age) people can fill out the necessary paperwork and get married at the courthouse or on a beach or in the basement without any planning, any fanfare, or any guests. But hardly anyone gets married in this way. Instead they plan a party. They line up food and drink and music and invite their friends. There is nothing in the secular nature of a wedding ceremony that makes it less of a celebration. And there’s the rub: how can we celebrate what we deem to be a serious moral transgression and an definitional impossibility? 2. Wedding ceremonies are almost always public in nature. Many Christians are quick to parse out their support: “They know where I stand. They know what I believe. I’m not coming to support the marriage. I’m coming to support my son and let him know that I still love him.” Again, I sympathize with this reasoning and do not dismiss lightly. But in addition to minimizing the previous point about celebration and solemnization, this line of thinking ignores the public aspect of a wedding (and no matter how small the event, if you are being invited to attend it is a public ceremony). Attendees at a wedding bear witness to the exchanging vows and the making of promises. In a Christian understanding, they do so before God and man. In a secular environment, they still do so before a watching world. Why do we go to the trouble of having ceremonies for graduation or retirement or Super Bowl champions? Because the occasion calls for celebration, solemnization, and public recognition. Whatever beliefs we may espouse privately, when we attend a wedding we state publicly that the union, which the event creates and commemorates, is legitimate and deserving of honor. Consider an analogy. Suppose your friend was an avowed racist. You’ve known this friend for a long time. You’ve told him before that you don’t agree with his racist views. He finds those conversations offensive and hurtful, but the friendship endures. One day he invites you to his white robe and hood ceremony at the local chapter of the Klan (I have no idea if they have such a thing, but let’s imagine they do). There will be a small event at the local park to bestow this rank upon your friend. He would love for you to attend. Will you? I doubt any of us would. (1) We’d be too embarrassed to be seen in public at such an event, no matter what we’ve said in private about it. And (2) however much we care for our friend, we can’t have anything to do with an event that is so repugnant to the beliefs we hold dear. Yes, I understand analogies are imperfect. No, I am not suggesting that racism and attending a gay wedding are the same thing. The point of a negative analogy like this is to get you to reconsider one position you do like by comparing it with one you don’t like. Why would we normalize what would be better stigmatized? How can we publicly endorse what we claim to privately condemn? 3. The stark either/or options are not of our making. The emotional plea is strongly felt by friends and family members who want to maintain biblical fidelity without burning bridges: “If you really loved me, you would be there. You say you care about me, but you don’t care to show up on the most important day of my life. If you can’t be happy for me, how can we have a real relationship?” Most evangelicals don’t wake up in the morning looking for ways to compromise. It happens with a tug here and a pull there, often with the best of intentions, usually because of people we love. Who wants to burn bridges? Who wants to be a hater? Who likes upsetting people we care about? But this is where we need to remember that the either/or options were not (I trust) our idea. Not supporting a child’s decision in one area does not mean you are no longer interested in supporting him or her in other areas. Loving across our differences is a two way street. If traditional Christians have to learn to love gay and lesbian friends and family members despite decisions they disagree with, then gays and lesbians should learn to love their Christian friends and families despite decisions they disagree with. We should take time to hear why our attendance means so much to them. And then, hopefully, they will take time to hear why our faith in Christ and obedience to the Bible mean so much to us. We won’t agree. But maybe we can begin to almost, possibly, just a little bit, agree that we are going to be in this for the long haul so we better find out how to care for each other, even when we think the other person is living according to convictions that we can’t support. “I can’t say yes to your wedding invitation, but I’d love to have you over for dinner.” Give that a shot.

Jesus does talk to people right.

I wouldnt go to the wedding. It would give the appearance of approving of it. Thats what guests are: people who are witnesses and honoring the union. I couldnt do that.

But post-tribbers say we are called to meet Jesus in the air and come straight back to earth. And believe me, if you ever read my posts, you would know I put a great deal of thought into every thing I communicate. But the Holy Spirit should never guide us wrong, when a large part of Christendom (either way) is wrong about a subject, (whoever is wrong) something is wrong with the Church, the Spirit should always lead us unto truth, he is the Spirit of truth. I really do not ever try to put too much emphasis on single verses here or there, I look at it as a Mosaic. The Pre-Trib fits for many reasons. God took the mantle from Israel, gave it to us for a set time, then will give it back to Israel. The 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel has Six goals that have to be met to usher in the End of time. The Tribulation period is all about Israel, not the Church. The Jewish Marriage Feast is traditionally one week. Paul who went to Heaven and got taught by the angels says that there is a Mystery.... and then says we will be Harpazoed, or snatched away. If we are in Heaven for the Marriage of the Lamb Rev. 19, how much time will that take ? The very first Seal is the Lambs wrath. Not the Anti-Christs. All will see Jesus at his Second Coming, that is true, but the Rapture is not the Second Coming, we have to go back to Heaven (Rev 19) as you agreed, so how is Jesus calling us to Heaven the Second Coming ? It doesn't fit. We Saints, come back with Jesus (Rev. 19) Immediately After the tribulation. That is the Second Coming. Only the true Christians, filled with the Holy Spirit hear the call to come up here !! A per the week long Marriage Feast, and the Rapture. Jesus gave a clue to who would be taken and left. Jesus said the Five Foolish Virgins did not fill their Lamp (Bodies) with Oil (Holy Spirit) so when the Bridegroom came, they were in the DARK !! They did not hear his call in other words, and missed the Marriage Feast. Jesus was cut-off after the 69th week, there really is no weeks, the word used means Sevened, and there were three distinct periods, 7x7, 62x7 and that leaves 1x7. These six things had to happen in order for the End to come to Israels punishment/reconciliation. 1. Finish the transgression 2. Make and end of sins 3. To make reconciliation for iniquity 4. Bring in everlasting righteousness 5. To seal up vision and prophecy 6. Anoint the most Holy This is all about Israel, and the Last Week or last set of Seven years has to finish their (Israels) Transgression/Revolt/Rebellion, bring and end to sin per Israel, they can only reconcile their sins by WHAT ? Accepting Jesus as their Messiah, that is the only way !! It's all about Israel. Only Jesus can bring in everlasting righteousness, so when this is fulfilled, Jesus will be ruling in his millennial kingdom. All of prophecy must be sealed up/closed up, by the time this prophecy comes to pass. That would be the End of the Age, of course. Anoint the most Holy. Amen. This is why the Tribulation or Jacobs Trouble is so important. It is all about Israel. Again, the confusion of the Rapture vs. the Second Coming is why this verse gets mixed up. There will be a great falling away, this is true, look at the churches today, look at what they allow............and the Anti-Christ will be revealed before the Second Coming, no doubt. But the Rapture happens before the Second Coming, (not before both events, typo) but as Paul said, it's a Mystery/Secret. We come back with Jesus in Rev. 19 remember ? So there has to be a Rapture First. GOD BLESS. By the way, I respect your journey to your opinion, I am not one that bashes others opinions. I just advocate my reasoning's which I have.

Amen~! Jesus And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 Is LORD For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 ~ PS: Love To See You On Worthy Always Enjoy Reading Your Provocative Posts Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore. Psalms 133 Always Point To Jesus Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39 And Keep On Keeping On Post Early Post Often Be Blessed Beloved Love, Your Brother Joe

*sigh* we shouldn't discuss Matthew 11:14 without Malachi 4:5 either, but apparently certain people ((for whatever reason)) think there should be a great divide maintained between these two verses. i suspect they're trying to preserve something they hold dear from possibly being exploded, but i'm probably wrong.

we do not discuss Matthew 1:8 without 2 Chronicles 22-26. and that does not make us disbelieve Matthew -- it enlightens our minds because we trust the scripture, and our understanding is broadened, and we learn something from this, and see other things in new light. at least that's how it's supposed to work, i think (!) - but some people are blinded when they see things like this, and others, incredulous. Look whose fan is in his hands Upon the ground of sifting Instruments with teeth A place for the called for We call it the floor into the air, In this time of threshing- D.E.E., 'The Threshing Floor' His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. - John Baptist (Matthew 3:12)

this is a benefit God has granted us that so many others never had. mysteries of godliness were revealed and are being revealed in us: Christ in us. when He came, and as the Spirit moved in and through His apostles after He was taken up, a great light shone that illuminated the prophets and the law that had come before Him. these things were all written and pointed to Him, but still He was not the Messiah they expected. we can see clearly now looking backwards ((mmm that 20/20 hindsight)) things like the inclusion of the Gentiles, the basis of grace, the Lamb that should offer Himself and be also both King and High Priest -- but these things were hidden. righteous men, fully believing the scriptures and trusting God, did not see these things. their understanding changed as new knowledge was revealed to them. even though we have all these scriptures, and we have a foretaste of the Spirit within us to teach us and guide us, we still see only dimly. we have understanding only in part, and knowledge only in part. when the fullness of His redemption is revealed, our eyes will be brightened even more, and our understanding will change. we will receive more knowledge, and we will see that our understanding was previously quite limited. don't we already see this as the years go by? have you read the Bible? how many times? don't you read it again, maybe for the 3rd or 10th or the 20th or even the hundredth time, and see things that you used to understand as mere dry facts as metaphors for some holy truth? don't you see every year, something you thought was substance, turning out to be a shadow after all, pointing towards an even more glorious facet of the gospel? don't we look back on our lives, and see that things we could not comprehend at all while they occurred were working together for our good? what we think we "know" and what we think is "meat" may turn out to be only an inkling, and to be only sweet milk. but i know one thing for certain: that Jesus is the Son of God, who came to earth to be born of flesh, who died for the atonement and sanctification for those who believe on Him, and was raised again, and ascended to heaven to prepare a place for me. that He will return again to gather me up to Himself, and that eternal life is to know Him. what that means i will spend eternity learning

I see your point and what I have been pondering is whether or not my attendance would seem an acceptance of gay marriage. Would it matter who it was...... the answer might be different if it was your son or daughter or grand kids than it would be for a friend so someone you work with.... I'm not sure I could answer this question right now. There are way to many variables that we don't have here.

I didn't read all of this thread, but is that the one that is new age and on Opera talk show.

Your point being? The coming of Christ was already embedded in Genesis 3:15. When we examine any Scripture, it must always be in the light of Christ and His finished work. So we do not discuss God's command to Adam and its consequences without including the book of Revelation. We do not discuss Abel without the book of Hebrews. We do not discuss Abraham without the book of Romans.

i think you are thinking about what happened next -- about the whole story of this incident, not about what i quoted in particular. nothing wrong with that - it's part of the whole counsel of God, and it does have bearing on the topic as a whole, that the Creator has power to give life - but it's not to do with these particulars; these details were included, and i am sure the details are not without purpose, but also for our instruction in righteousness. what we ought to glean from this? o i have some ideas. but i'm told sometimes that what i post is "worthless" and that my opinion has "no value" -- so i'll spare the brethren. i'd like to see what those with understanding come up with, that's all - i thought it might have some bearing, but maybe i'm mistaken. love, your brother post

I don't know much about Trump, but I do not believe that anyone can make America great again. He may be the best candidate to do so, but there has been a lot of things going on in America that will not go away overnight or ever. Trump gets it, and has seen it encroach on America for decades. The economy and policies of this country have been sabotaged for a long time.

He attended invitations to many places, where it was obvious that the host was not in line by any means.

We take things on a case by case basis. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Word twisting is a pretty subjective thing. Misunderstanding another poster wouldn't typically be something we would ban someone from a thread for. However, a person taking something someone else said out of context and then turning that into an insult or an accusation, would probably fall into this category. For example: If I were to say "I love chili dogs" and another person took that statement and said "Well, he just said he loves chili dogs, so he obviously hates hamburgers and milk shakes, and anyone who hates milk shakes is quite obviously a terrible person." That would probably get someone removed from a thread. (For the record, I am a great fan of chili dogs, hamburgers, and milk shakes).

Greetings everyone, This is a reminder to please keep it civil in this thread (and all others).vI'd like to remind everyone of the ToS, a part of which states: Please remember that we are going to be banning people who behave in this manner from threads and issuing them warning points. As such, I have banned Esther from this thread and added a warning point to her account for the comments below: Please remember that there is absolutely no need to offer an opinion on the intellect, intentions, or disposition of another member on threads like these. If you truly have a problem with the other person, my suggestion is that you attempt to work it out with them and if that is not possible, just don't engage them. If you feel yourself getting angry, please take a breath and consider why and what you are posting before you post. Mar 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (31) And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. God bless, Steve

I don't think I have ever seen many instances where Shiloh agrees with anyone. Everything is either misquoted or meticulously rebuked on a regular basis to demonstrate something...I am not sure what. Maybe that we should vote for him for President because clearly he is always right and smarter than everyone to the point that no one hardly makes a valid point worth considering without thorough correction of some kind. I think you have demonstrated a lot of self control and grace in your response. It is an encouragement to me to see this.

Good questions,what do you all think?

Look at it this way. Two homosexuals, decide to get married and send out invitations to the people they know. In sending out invitations to those they know, they must know Jesus and in knowing Jesus, they must know the Father also. And, knowing Jesus and the Father, they must know how they feel about homosexuality, but they send Jesus an invitation anyway just to see what happens. I ask my self, Would Jesus attend their wedding, if asked?

I'm leaning towards post-Trib. I cant be certain - but with pre-Trib you have to make assumptions. Both theories are valid but pre-Trib only works if you already assume that there is a pre-Trib rapture. If you didn't know either way you would conclude that the rapture is post-Trib. Seeing as assumptions are usually made when people already believe that they have the answer before the question is asked, I can only conclude that the pre-Trib is the weaker of the two theories. So let's say at this stage I might be what you call a 'Post-Trib Agnostic'.

So what is your view so far or do you have one?

It's just more of the over-complicated stuff that made me suspect the pre-Trib in the first place. Pre-Tribbers are thinking too hard - they are making the simple complicated. Both theories are valid but pre-Trib is more complicated and somewhat unnecessary, and I believe that's what wishful thinking does to people. ~Almost nobody had heard of pre-Trib including great Christian thinkers until Darby proposed it and such a popular and comforting theory has become widely accepted. If it makes you feel better to think that Jesus returns wearing a banana-colored superman cape then there's nothing in scripture to say that he won't.

You've made some good points but it still seems to me that you've used the pre-Trib as a foregone conclusion and then made scripture fit it. Your first point: Of course wicked men will still be on the Earth while we are raptured but that apllies to Post-Trib just as much as it does pre-Trib. Christians endure the Trib and then they are snatched away while the wicked are still on Earth. There is nothing here that suggests we will be raptured before that. It works either way. You're just using the pre-Trib rapture as a foregone conclusion and then imagining the story to make it fit. Other points: Jesus calls with a shout. It's not secret, it's not subtle - therefore that is the second coming. If he comes again there is a third coming. Pre-Tribbers can't seem to get their heads around that and they attempt to ignore this second coming and pretend that it's not really a coming at all, when it is. So what if Israel are God's chosen people. That does not mean that Christians will be raptured before the Tribulation. The Jews have always been God's chosen people so it makes no difference -and once again, it's just an assumption made to fit in with the concept of a pre-Trib rapture. pre-Tribbers claim that the time of the gentiles will be over therefore Christians have to vanish. No Jews vanished during the time of the Gentiles did they? While all the above points show that a pre-Trib rapture is possible and it can't be ruled out, a post-Trib view fits just as well. Now when you consider that extra info as to be added to make the pre-Trib work (such as three comings of Christ) then I still conclude that the pre-Trib rapture is a fantasy. It requires a work around to make it valid. While the workaround is not unscriptural and therefore there is nothing wrong with that, you still have to add to scripture and why would you add to scripture unless you want to make your theory work? You have to assume that Christ comes to cllect us first before things get really bad, and then comes again to carry out judgement. If you'd never heard of the pre-Trib rapture you would never come to that conclusion. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. I'll leave you with this verse. a verse for all those pre-Tribbers who think that they won't be around to find out who the antiChrist is: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Question: "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the pretribulational view of the rapture (pretribulationism)?" Answer: In eschatology, it is important to remember that almost all Christians agree on these three things: 1) there is coming a time of great tribulation such as the world has never seen, 2) after the Tribulation, Christ will return to establish His kingdom on earth, and, 3) there will be a Rapture—a translation from mortality to immortality—for believers (John 14:1-3;1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). The question is when does the Rapture occur in relation to the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ? Through the years three main theories have emerged concerning the timing of the Rapture: pretribulationism (the belief that the Rapture will occur before the Tribulation begins), midtribulationism (the belief that the Rapture will occur at the midpoint of the Tribulation), and posttribulationism (the belief that the Rapture will occur at the end of the Tribulation). This article deals specifically with the pretribulational view. Pretribulationism teaches that the Rapture occurs before the Tribulation starts. At that time, the church will meet Christ in the air, and then sometime after that the Antichrist is revealed and the Tribulation begins. In other words, the Rapture and Christ’s Second Coming (to set up His kingdom) are separated by at least seven years. According to this view, the church does not experience any of the Tribulation. Scripturally, the pretribulational view has much to commend it. For example, the church is not appointed to wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 5:9), and believers will not be overtaken by the Day of the Lord (1 Thessalonians 5:1-9). The church of Philadelphia was promised to be kept from “the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world” (Revelation 3:10). Note that the promise is not preservation through the trial but deliverance from the hour, that is, from the time period of the trial. Pretribulationism also finds support in what is not found in Scripture. The word “church” appears nineteen times in the first three chapters of Revelation, but, significantly, the word is not used again until chapter 22. In other words, in the entire lengthy description of the Tribulation in Revelation, the word church is noticeably absent. In fact, the Bible never uses the word "church" in a passage relating to the Tribulation. Pretribulationism is the only theory which clearly maintains the distinction between Israel and the church and God’s separate plans for each. The seventy “sevens” of Daniel 9:24 are decreed upon Daniel’s people (the Jews) and Daniel’s holy city (Jerusalem). This prophecy makes it plain that the seventieth week (the Tribulation) is a time of purging and restoration for Israel and Jerusalem, not for the church. Also, pretribulationism has historical support. From John 21:22-23, it would seem that the early church viewed Christ’s return as imminent, that He could return at any moment. Otherwise, the rumor would not have persisted that Jesus would return within John’s lifetime. Imminence, which is incompatible with the other two Rapture theories, is a key tenet of pretribulationism. And the pretribulational view seems to be the most in keeping with God’s character and His desire to deliver the righteous from the judgment of the world. Biblical examples of God’s salvation include Noah, who was delivered from the worldwide flood; Lot, who was delivered from Sodom; and Rahab, who was delivered from Jericho (2 Peter 2:6-9). One perceived weakness of pretribulationism is its relatively recent development as a church doctrine, not having been formulated in detail until the early 1800s. Another weakness is that pretribulationism splits the return of Jesus Christ into two “phases”—the Rapture and the Second Coming—whereas the Bible does not clearly delineate any such phases. Another difficulty facing the pretribulational view is the fact that there will obviously be saints in the Tribulation (Revelation 13:7, 20:9). Pretribulationists answer this by distinguishing the saints of the Old Testament and the saints of the Tribulation from the church of the New Testament. Believers alive at the Rapture will be removed before the Tribulation, but there will be those who will come to Christ during the Tribulation. And a final weakness of the pretribulational view is shared by the other two theories: namely, the Bible does not give an explicit time line concerning future events. Scripture does not expressly teach one view over another, and that is why we have diversity of opinion concerning the end times and some variety on how the related prophecies should be harmonized. http://www.gotquestions.org/pretribulationism.html

No sense in reinventing the wheel ... This is down the line in reasoning with myself ... to arrive at the proper divisions that God speaks of is setting a comparative to established context in the hermeneutic side by side in analysis. Things to note in rightly dividing God’s Word 2 Ti 2:15 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV The catching away in contrast to the Revelation of Jesus at His coming Christ comes for His own 1Th 4:13-18 -----------------------Christ returns with His own Rev 19:14 Believers taken to Father's House Joh 14:3 ----------------Believers come with Jesus to Earth Mat 24:30 He is seen only by believers 1Co 15:52 ---------------------Every eye will see Him Mat 24:30 Earth not judged ---------------------------------------------------Earth judged Rev 20:4-5 A Mystery - 1 Co 15:51 -------------------------------------------Foretold in OT Zech 12:10 Christians taken first 1Th 4:13-18 3 Mat 13:28-30 --------Wicked are taken first Mat 25:1-13; Rev 3:8-10; Rev 4:1, He comes to present the Church to Himself 2 Co 11:2 --He comes with His Church for judgment and to set up his Kingdom Rev 19:6-9, Zec 14:3-4; Jud 1:14-15; Rev 19:11-21 Casts Satan out of heaven to earth Rev 12 -----------------Binds Satan for a thousand years Rev 20 Occurs in the twinkling of an eye 1Co 15:52------------- ---Comes to earth to do battle at specific locations Isa 63:1-3, Rev 16:16, Zec 12:9-10 Jesus descends with a shout. 1Th 4:16 8 --------------------No shout mentioned Rev 19:11-21 This above taken from a systematic divisional standpoint that substantiates for me pretrib biblical perspective... like I said yesterday there are three types of wrath within Scripture... determining which type of wrath is being spoken of and then specifics (if any) then placement in prophetical text as like subject matter is key to which outlay is right... here's a very good systematic approach to pre-tribulation Scripture and why I believe it to be the proper understanding <http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/rapture.htm> Love, Steven

Hello Brother in Christ. I will add my 2 cents worth. Paul called the Rapture or Hapazo (snatching away) a mystery. But in the bible, there are deep truths that shines the light on other truths. For instance in Rev. 19, there was much people in heaven in verse 1, then we marry the Lamb, put on white linen which is the righteousness of the Saints, ride white horses back with Jesus, and guess who is still on earth ? That's right, the Beast/Anti-Christ, his Kings and their Armies, awaiting to do battle with Jesus and us Saints, even though Jesus destroys them with the Sword of the Spirit. Without Hand. Do you catch the deep truth here ? How can the church be in heaven while the wicked men of the world are still on earth, without a Rapture ? It is not possible. The word Harpazo was what Paul the Apostle used, Rapio is the Latin word for snatched away or seized, Rapture comes from Rapio, so it was used by Paul almost 2000 years ago. Jesus calls us with a loud voice, we who have the Holy Spirit go to meet him in the air, and we then go to the Marriage Feast which by Jewish traditions usually lasts a week. Jesus came back a few times after he descended, he told Mary not to touch him because he had not yet descended to the Father, then he told Thomas to put his hands in his wounds 8 days later. Jesus is in the midst of us all when two are more are gathered, in Spirit I know here, but still, Jesus calling us to Heaven, is not the Second Coming. The Second Coming is in Rev. 19, and we Saints come back with him, from Heaven. These are pretty much the same, will answer below. Israel was Gods chosen people, because she sinned against God, and rejected God/Jesus the mantle of the dispensation of God's Holy Word was given unto the Gentiles, Jesus said that Jerusalem will be trodden under foot until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled............That denotes an ending point. After the Rapture of Christians it is again upon the Jewish nation to preach the gospel, the 144,000, the Two Witnesses etc. And the Holy Spirit is restraining or Blocking Satan from bringing the Anti-Christ/Beast to power, until his time, so he is only restraining the Anti-Christ until he (Holy Spirit) is taken out of the way by God or ordered to stop blocking Satan from bringing this Man of Sin to power. I do not for one second think the Holy Spirit leaves the earth, some think so, I don't, but the tribulation is only for Seven years, the judgments last 3 1/2 years, so everyone should be able to remember that which was preached unto them before the Rapture happened. And the Saints during the Rapture are new concerts. They are the Remnant (small part of) of the Woman's Seed (Jesus was that Seed said Paul in Galatians 3). So you don't think the Seals are Gods Judgments ? 6:16 clearly says that these men hid from the Wrath of the Lamb. God is symmetrical, He doesn't do things willy nilly, the Anti-Christ (First seal) Red Horse, Black Horse and Pale Green Horse are all God's Wrath, the 5th Seal is those that died by his hands, they want vengeance on those people on earth (denotes present tense, not past tense). Why would God need us to go through His wrath ? He is not angry at us. Jesus accepted Gods wrath for us. We are saved by Faith in Jesus, not by works. I think most just say they refuse to be preoccupied with that which confuses them. I have an End Time Biblical Prophecy site on Disqus and a blog elsewhere that says exactly what country the Anti-Christ is from. So I am not in that camp....SMILE. It is important for us to know so we can warn others, many of who no doubt will be left because they chose not to serve Christ. You can look at it like that, however that is not reality, but the reality is we will be gone before he comes to power. So either way, we are gone. God is only saying that if He had "Planned" the Great Tribulation for a longer period than 7 Years, no life would have been left. But God planned it for 7 years, not 10 or 20, that is why He is so Smart, He knows everything........SMILE. We are saved by Faith in Jesus....Sorry ole Satan, Game Over. As per the verse they shall deliver you up ti be afflicted and killed. That verse is not about the Tribulation, imho, only in verse 15 does Jesus say when the end will be, and that is after the Gospel has been preached unto all the world, then the end will come. The very next verse is about the Abomination of Desolation, so the verse you cited has to be way before the end times doesn't it brother ? God Bless.

Greetings kwikphilly, I appreciate your concern but even though I only joined a short time ago (January 13th 2016) I do not remember seeing that a condition of membership on this forum was to agree with the (“our” as you suggest) statement of faith. I have never read that statement of faith. I have not worked out what particular view or denomination Worthy Christian Forum represents and if you could explain this I would appreciate it. I reviewed my profile and I could find no evidence of any condition on that page at least. No I am not a “seeker” in the sense that you suggest, but I do continually seek for the truth of God’s word and seek to modify my understanding and way of life. I am not an unbeliever. Have you carefully considered John 8:28? Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Ezra, I appreciate your response. It may seem impressive quoting the Greek and giving a literal translation, but you have in effect rejected the KJV translation of John 8:28 “I am he”. Do you really believe that Jesus is claiming to be Deity in John 8:28? 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. He also says that the words that he spoke were only as a result of his being taught by his Father. Again is this saying he is Deity? He needed God the Father to teach him what to say. Jesus is the Son of man and the Son of God as he claims. I believe that Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham, in that when God created the world he had Jesus as central to the ultimate completion of his purpose Numbers 14:21, Psalm 8. I apologise for the length of my posts but I consider that it is necessary to clarify this important subject. In the previous Post I considered the various “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. The purpose of that Post was mainly to examine the meaning of the “I AM” passage of John 8:58. Many consider that this passage is quoting and alluding to Exodus 3:14 “I AM THAT I AM”. I also stated that it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. The following is a consideration of Exodus 3:14, not only to determine the meaning of this passage, but also to check if Exodus 3:14 is linked with John 8:58. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms: Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense. Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. The word “ehyeh” is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense: Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity. This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name: Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD. When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished: Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation. But this was not the ultimate completion of the Yahweh Name. God’s purpose with the earth was not complete with the salvation of Israel out of Egypt. God’s purpose was declared in the following, but sadly this was spoken at a time when the very generation that had been born through God’s deliverance failed. Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. The above raises the question of how and when will the earth be filled with the glory of God. One indication is found when the Psalmist uses the same words as Moses’ Song to speak of another deliverance: Psalm 118:14-25 (KJV): 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. The above is quoted at length to show that there was to be a greater salvation in fulfillment of the Yahweh Name. It is evident from the context that this salvation is by means of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the man of God’s right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The greater deliverance is revealed even in the conception and birth of the child: Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. The meaning of the name Jesus is revealed: “for he shall save his people from their sins”. Was Jesus to be an independent Saviour? No, the name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name, Je-sous, Jo-shua, or Yah-oshea. He was to be Yahweh’s Salvation. Here then is the extension or fulfillment of the Yahweh Name, Yahweh was to be, to become. He was to “become salvation” Exodus 15:2, in and through Jesus, the Son of God. Yahweh is the Saviour, Jesus is the Saviour. In other words Yahweh, God the Father is the Saviour through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh has become salvation. Salvation is now offered in the Name of Jesus Christ: Acts 4:10-12 (KJV): 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Kind regards Trevor

I have asked this question before. If a Believer in Christ dies say today or tomorrow; Where does his Soul go? Or those Believers who have already died, Where have their Souls gone? Describe the process: In Christ Montana Marv

The following is a few extracts from a book “History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ" by A Reville, a French Professor of the History of Religion, written in 1904 and translated into English in 1905. I thought this might be of interest showing the development from a belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God to the belief that Jesus was God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. These extracts also show some of the principal influences that caused this development. There are other more modern resources on this subject, but the following brief survey of some of the trends may be sufficient. Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it. After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says: Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians. Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration. Speaking of the developments in the second century: Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception. Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ. Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosphical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning. Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence. Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days. Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism. Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance. Speaking of the Nicene Creed: Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit. Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches. Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea. Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church. The adoption or acceptance of the Nicene Creed was by no means unanimous, and many areas of “Christendom” continued to reject this creed. As well as those that opposed the Nicene Creed there were some faithful individuals who continued also to believe in the Apostolic faith that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Many Trinitarians use John 10:30 in support of their beliefs. There is a need to look carefully at what Jesus actually says in v30, and also his explanation and response to the Jews. John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? The first thing to notice is that the same language that is used for the unity between the Father and Jesus is used for the unity between Jesus and the disciples: John 17:17-23 (KJV): 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. This shows that the unity in John 10:30 is not speaking of the Trinity, but that God the Father and Jesus have a unity of purpose and character, and the disciples will share in this unity. Jesus also draws attention to this unity by the works that he had done: John 10:32 (KJV):Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Jesus does not claim to work these miracles from his own initiative or power, but by means of the power from his Father. So again Jesus is not claiming to be God. Jesus also answers the Jews by speaking concerning the OT usage of the word “God”, “gods”, that is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. Jesus speaks concerning the fact that in the OT the judges were called God or gods. It is interesting to note that the translators had difficulty with the relevant verses where the Judges acted in the role of God (Hebrew Elohim): Exodus 21:6 (KJV): 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 21:6 (ASV): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. Exodus 22:8-9 (ASV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor. The role and responsibility of the judges is indicated in the following: Deuteronomy 1:17 (KJV): Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. 2 Chronicles 19:6 (KJV): And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. So the judges were called God or gods because they were united in administering the work or judgements of God. Jesus was claiming a similar though superior role as The Son of God, by calling and claiming God as His Father. A careful consideration of verses 30 and 36 show that Jesus is not claiming to be God, but the Son of God. John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? He was united with His Father in character and works. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Ezra, I have given my explanation of John 1. Genesis 1:1 is speaking of God the Father as the Creator. The plurality for example in Genesis 1:26 is speaking of God the Father and the angels as Psalm 8 testifies. Kind regards Trevor

The catholic church does and probably still does. I, as a child was taught by the sisters, God is three beings in one body. The father Son and Holy Ghost are one. Not in unity, THEY ARE ONE IN BODY, just like a chook's egg. Shell, egg white and yolk? One egg, three parts, I, even as a child thought that was absolute rubbish. They jammed that rubbish and a million hail Maries three times a dy, down out throats until it hurt! I have nothing to do with Mormons, never ever have and never ever will. . Sorry, It seems to me that it is you who are clearly in grave error, ignoring hundreds of Scriptures clearly and plainly describing God as He is. Do you want me to post the all again just for you? Ok, I will. Keeping this in mind, a God who could not make Himself clear, or had to be interpreted and be declared a mystery is no God at all. Let us believe, like sensible people, that God can make Himself understood. He will hold us all responsible for what He says, not for what men interpret His words to say. He has a right to judge us in the end if we constantly make Him false in all that He says, if we listen to satanic theories. "He that rejecteth me, and recieveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48; Rev. 20:11-15). This should be enough for believers to quit the foolishness of changing God's Word to mean anything they want it to mean? It is the height of ignorance for anyone to claim to know God better than He has revealed Himself to be. God's Word, teaches us that God has a body with bodily parts, hands, feet, eyes, head, mouth, hair, that He speaks, listenes, has a heart, eats food etc. I have listed many Scriptures which shows this and many more can be found. Many catholics I have spoken with regarding these Scriptures do not believe them because it is contrary to their belief that God can be reduced to a sliver of bread and held in a monstrance or tabernacle. God has a spirit body with bodily parts like a man. This is proved by hundreds of Scriptures that do not need interpretation. God is a Spirit being, infinate, eternal, immutable, self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, invisible, impartial, immortal, absolutely holy, full of wisdom, full of knowledge, and just in all things. God is known in Scripture by over two hundred names. He is describes as being like any other person as to having a body, soul, and spirit (Job 13:8; Heb. 1:3; Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-7). He is a spirit being with a body (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-6, 9-19, Exodus 24:11; Gen. 18' 32:24-32; Ezek. 1:26-28; Acts 7:54-59; Rev. 4:2-4; 5:1, 5-7; 22:4-5); shape (John 5:37); form (Phil. 2:5-7, same Greek word as in Mark 16:12, which refers to bodily form); and an image and likeness of a man (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Ezek. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 11:7; jas. 3:9; Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-6). He has a heart (Gen. 6:6; 8:21); hands and fingers (Exod. 31:18; Psalms 8:3-6; Rev. 5:1, 6-7); Nostrils (Ps. 18:8); mouth (Num. 12:8); lips and tongue (Isa. 30:27; feet (Ezek. 1:27; Exodus 24:10); eyes, eyelids, sight (Ps. 11:4; 18:24; 33:18); voice (Ps. 29; Rev. 10:3-4; Gen. 1); breath (Gen. 2:70; ears (Ps. 18:6); head, hair, face, arms (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; Rev. 5:1; loins (Ezek. 1:26:28; 8:1-4); bodily presence (Gen. 3:8; 18:1-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Exodus 24:10-11); and many other bodily parts as required by Him to be a person with a body. God goes from place to place just like any one else (Gen. 3:8; 11:5; 18:1-22, 33; 19:24; 32:24-32; 35:13; Zech. 14:5; Titus 2:13). God is omnipresent but not omni body, that is His presence can be felt everywhere but His body is not everywhere. God wears cloths (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; God eats food (Gen. 18:1-22; Exodus 24:11). There is not one Scripture in the Bible which states that God is intangible, immaterial, without a body, or bodily parts, and passions except John 4:24, "God is a spirit," and this certainly does not teach that He is without a body. Paul speaks of the human flesh and bone bodies in the resurrection as being "Spiritual" (1 Cor. 15:42-44), like unto Christs glorious body (Luke 24:39; Phil. 3:20-21); so if human bodies that become spiritualized are still material and tangible, then certainly God and other spirits have bodies just as real and still be spirit beings. John 4:24 is a statement of fact that God is a Spirit, but it does not define or analyze a spirit. Turn to Genesis, chapter one. God had been busy for a number of days during that re-creation week, making various CREATURES of the land, sea, and air. Nothing is said about them having the form of God Himself. After all those creatures were created notice what God says in verses 26,27, "....Let us MAKE MAN in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS.. ..So God created MAN in His OWN IMAGE, in the IMAGE OF GOD created he him; male and female...."

Greetings angels4u, I believe that “The Word” in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the personification of “Wisdom” as a wise woman in Proverbs 8. The Word existed before its full manifestation in Jesus. When Jesus was revealed at the age of 30 he was full of grace and truth. The glory he revealed was a result of his begettal, and the process of this begettal is revealed in Matthew and Luke, where God the Father is his father, and Mary his mother. Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. There are also semi-personifications of “word” in Psalm 33 and Isaiah 55: Psalm 33:6,9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Isaiah 55:8-11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. There is one God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings bopeep1909, I do not find this definition in the Bible, nor the word “The Trinity”, nor the many concepts that are used to try to explain the Trinity. The following is one example of Apostolic belief: 1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him There is one God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor