Bold Believer

There is only One good news. The Good News is that Our God reigns. By raising from the dead on the 3rd day, God reigns through Christ even over death.

Joe, Paul stated that the Gospel had already been preached to every creature under heaven (Col 1:23) in his own day. The tribulation was for Israel, and specifically for that part of Israel which was unrepentant. Jeremiah called it "The time of Jacob's trouble." It was meant as vengeance upon the Jewish leadership of that day for having lead the faithful astray for so many years, hence, 'the time of vengeance'. The Gospel has been taught to the whole world (Isaiah 2) the LORD's house became the top of the mountain and the world has benefited from the knowledge of Christ. The thousand years are over. It's Gog's turn now. But only for a little while.

The abomination of desolation was a specific event referring to the temple. It was also connected (by Jesus Himself in the book of Luke) to Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. This is why it can't be something for modern Believers to be concerned with. The idea that the prophecy concerns us is in error in all of its forms.

Maybe we shouldn't think in terms of a skinny little pole, but rather a thick wooden shaft. You can whack a wolf with it from a reasonable distance and send him packing. You can defend yourself with it against attackers within reason. It helps you to keep your balance. It can be used to flick away a snake. Quite useful.

You all DO realize the title of this thread says Split Womanhood Pants, right? I needed a good laugh.

Like I wrote before: Jesus said it all occurs on the Last Day, so there won't be anyone to explain anything.

4000 BC is the 'Ussher date', named for an Episcopal bishop by the surname of Ussher who did research. If I recall, he came up with 4004 BC as the age of the earth. That may or may not be correct. As far as the original question, it is answered in Scripture but not directly. If we read the Cain/Abel account, we find that they were grown men at the time of the incident, not mere boys as it is often suggested. They have chosen life-pursuits. Boys don't do that, they learn from their fathers. So then, we have no idea just how old they were, but we do known from Genesis 5 that Adam had other sons and daughters. We also know that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, so the incident of Abel's death happened at least 9 months (given modern human gestation) prior. We also know that it was not a sin to marry inter-lineally at that time, so Cain most likely married a cousin/niece well before the incident.

You're referring to what are called Noachide laws. Rules of life given by God in Genesis 9 to Noah after the Flood. In these laws is contained the very first death penalty and permission to eat meat. Nothing much else is written concerning conduct. It isn't until the establishment of Israel as a nation and the ascent to Mt Sinai that the Ten Commandments are given. Then the Mosaic Law springs FROM the Commandments. A ceremonial law is one that portrayed Christ to the Israeli nation, or made them stand out as different amongst the other nations. The one you mentioned for example, the mixing of material in clothing, means not to mix into other godless cultures. No eating pork or shellfish were dietary laws, and pretty common-sense, since living in a desert there was no way proper way to refrigerate/process these items and therefore they were a harbor for trichinosis and other food-borne diseases. Moral laws governed conduct. Don't murder, Honor God, Honor your parents, and so forth. They were for Israel and any stranger who came amongst them.

Wasn't the question how to explain the difference between the MORAL law and the ceremonial law? Ceremonial laws set Israel apart from the Gentile nations around them; the moral law was for all men before Christ came. Now the moral law is for sinners; Believers know what is right.

I believe he's referring to the slashing incident in which 14 people were injured yesterday or day before on a college campus. And yes, I certainly don't see Congress in a mad rush to ban edged weapons and sharp objects.

Someone I know came back to the LORD, but while they were away and living the sinner's life, they often told friends and other people things that weren't true. They told me what they had said, and none of those things would have caused another hurt. My friend did what he did to make himself look better, What he wants to know is, does he have to go back and find all of those people and tell them the truth? I'm not sure that such a thing is necessary, in fact it might cause more harm than good. Still, I'd like to see what opinions some of you have in the matter.

Someone I know came back to the LORD, but while they were away and living the sinner's life, they often told friends and other people things that weren't true. They told me what they had said, and none of those things would have caused another hurt. My friend did what he did to make himself look better, What he wants to know is, does he have to go back and find all of those people and tell them the truth? I'm not sure that such a thing is necessary, in fact it might cause more harm than good. Still, I'd like to see what opinions some of you have in the matter.

By the time they figure out what's happened, they will be before God. It all happens on the Last Day.

I thank God I have so much hair, because it makes pulling it out easier. I JUST WROTE THAT THE BEAST DID RECOVER. ROME RECOVERED AFTER A YEAR OF CIVIL WAR. Apparently some people are incapable of reading OR just don't want their personal bubble broken. Daniel, while man of sin and man of perdition are terms used in MODERN FUTURIST theology to describe an alleged future antichrist figure, they were never used by the writers in that context. The man of sin is one of two things: Nero as emperor, declaring himself 'god' or a future category of people. I tend to believe the latter, but other scholars prefer the former. I know you have a hard time when people question you about your belief, but please answer with grace, seasoned with salt. If you are "loosing your hair" over this conversation, perhaps a little vacation from it would be best? After you regain your composure, return and continue? Answering in the flesh only results in ungodly reactions. One, I have explained myself until my fingers ache. I've recommended books to further explain my position. I've given historical facts that support my understanding, and I still get the same questions, over and over and over. To NOT be frustrated would be superhuman. I don't mind answering about what I believe, what I mind is having to repeat my self over and over again with the same results, It seems from this end that people don't want to hear anything except pre-millennialism.

Apparently, you don't know the history behind antichrists, because if you did, you wouldn't make the statement your making. 1. Revelation was written about 69AD, contrary to popular belief. A lot of people believe in the early date. 2. I and II John was written somewhere in 90-93, hence, there are close to thirty years between the two books. 3. John thoroughly explains himself concerning antichrists. They came out from the church. They believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh. Nero on the other hand was never in the Church, and could've cared less whether Jesus was in the flesh or a spirit which inhabited a body as Gnostics taught. I never said that Nero came back to life. What I wrote was that Nero (being the personification of Rome at the time) suffered a fatal wound (being one of the heads of the Beast, just as the prophecy states) and that because of his fatal wound, the Empire went into chaos and NEARLY collapsed. For a year, it appeared that the Roman Empire would not survive his death, and people were saying that Rome was on its last legs, so to speak. This is the crux of the prophecy. I suggest you look at the history surrounding the time, then look at the prophecy and you will see that it does indeed fit the passage historically.