Bold Believer

That's still pointing to the innefective condoms and not the behavior for the high rate. I've pointed to behavior many times through the thread, I admit that the biggest problem in the spread of sti's is behaviour, I just point to a different behavior as the cause than you do. I don't think that homosexuality is as big a contributing factor as it is made out to be, the significance of it is blown out of proportion due to religious doctrine. Infidelity in relationships and promiscuity are what drive the spread of sti's and the problem is then magnified by things like homosexuality and poverty, but it is not these things that drive it. If sexual relations were kept within the bounds of committed relationships, the spread of sti's would be trivial. Wrongorooski. God says the lifestyle is an abomination and they will continue to die in droves as the consequence of their abomination, until Christ comes back and quick fries the lot of them to a crackly crunch along with the other godless sinners. They are SO spiritually blind that they can't even figure out that what they're doing makes absolutely NO SENSE. They hate God SO much that they would rather die and reap the consequences than repent and gain eternal life. They want what they want and everyone and everything else be cursed. Only God says 'no' and 'if you do, you'll die cursed", but they do it anyway. They do the same thing over and over and expect different results: THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY.

Humanist is the religion of Satan-Gog. It encompasses the tenets of the first lie with Communism. It currently pervades the governments of nearly every country on earth and the United Nations. It is the most wicked spiritual evil on the planet, bar none.

I cant believe this thread is even here. I don't understand why we are debation over homosexuals since their lifestyle is sin and doomed to death LOL, well true that, however, we never know who might view the thread and read it and perhaps come to salvation.

Even though the term rapture is never used, (harpazo comes close) it refers to the change of the body of a living Believer at the resurrection on the last day. Faithful Jews believed in the resurrection and they believed it occurred on the last day (see Martha's response to Jesus in the gospel of John)

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one. 1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil. 2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ. 3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil. I will simply say this. #1 When John said anti christ ''singular would come he was referring to who we know as ''The Anti christ''. #2 antichristos means in place of Christ not against Christ. The anti christ will come as if he is Christ he will come in the place of Christ he will not come as if he is against Christ. #3 Paul was speaking of an individual ''The Man of Sin'' singular. I realize your mind is made up and no one will convince otherwise, but that does not mean your ''truth'' is true. I expected a better polemic from you Zeke. You have not proven me wrong. You've simply made blanket statements which I've already given refutation to. What do you with I John 4:3 when John says that antichrist is a spirit? The Greek prefix anti can mean either in place of OR against, depending upon context. There is no evidence that Paul was speaking strictly of an individual. IF he was, (and I am not saying that he is), then by context, he would have to be speaking of Gog as the 'man of sin'. There is a restraint which must be removed and it's mentioned in Revelation 20. In order for apostasy to occur, Satan must be released (Rev 20) to be able to deceive the nations on a mass scale.

What part of 'abomination' do people not understand? Here let me help: tow`ebah: A detestable thing. What part of against nature do people not understand? para physis: to be beside nature as opposed to being FOR nature (as to be beside one's self...aka nuts)

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one. 1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil. 2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ. 3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil.

You'll never know if you don't ask. Let's look for a second at the verses commonly used to describe the rapture. I Thess 4 tells us that we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortal (this body) to immortal (a resurrected body). I Cor 15 pretty much tells us the same thing. So then the context of the rapture is the resurrection of the Believer's body. Does Scripture tell us when this happens? Yes. Straight from the mouth of Jesus. Jhn 6:39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jhn 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. Now, if the words of Jesus are not enough, how about Martha? Jhn 11:24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." As you will notice, there is a very recurrent theme there. I've emboldened and underlined it. Jesus said the resurrection would occur at the last day. Martha (and other Jews) apparently believed it would be on the last day as well. Jesus never tells her any different. Perhaps we should consider listening to them?

I direct you to my latest thread: Let's play Who's the Antichrist this Week? :-) I will give the tidy sum of one million dollars to anyone who finds the term antichrist anywhere in Scripture outside of the letters of John. Not synonyms, not other terms which people claim means antichrist, I mean the word antichrist. If this guy exists, why didn't Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, Andrew (etc) ever mention him? It's inconceivable that they were afraid of such a one. They stood up to Roman emperors, kings, tetrarchs, centurians and so forth. They stood up to Satan himself. So why did they ever mention this supposed antichrist. Simple. HE DOESN'T EXIST. HE NEVER DID. The pope is not 'the' antichrist. Luther is not 'the' antichrist. There IS NO 'the' antichrist. It's been made up from verses taken out of context. We've been sold a bill of goods and the Church has bought it, hook, line and sinker. We are called to study so that we show ourselves approved to our Lord, workers who have need to be ashamed. So why is it then that we are willing to fall for this? Makes one wonder, or at least it should.

It's popular in Christian circles (and has been for several centuries) to play a ridiculous guessing game which I shall call "Who's the Antichrist THIS WEEK?" Every time a new President is elected, every time a new political figure arises on the world scene, every time some Middle Eastern leader passes gas and causes a stir (LOL), the game begins again. It caused the LORD to make me step back about 25 years ago and take an interesting look at the whole teaching of a personal antichrist dictator. What I found shocked me. I did a search for the term antichrist. When I did, I found: 1. It is only used 4 times in the entire New Testament. 2. Only one NT writer, John, ever used it. 3. Not one of the other NT writers ever uses it. 4. When the term isused, it's never used of a single individual, but of a group of individuals. 5. It is never used in the context of a world dictator. 6. It's never used in the Book of Revelation, even though John is the only NT writer to use the term. 7. Jesus never used the term. The fact that Jesus never once used the term made me wonder: If Jesus, the LORD of all things, Maker of Heaven and Earth, never bothered to tell us about 'the antichrist' then maybe, just maybe, something is wrong with using the term the way we're using it. God is not stupid, obviously. If this 'antichrist dictator figure' existed and was SO important, why in the world did Jesus never mention him? Furthermore, John, the only writer of the NT to ever use the term, never uses it to describe such a person. The people he does use it to describe, he defines so that there is no question in the mind of the reader just whom he is describing. I urge each of you to do as I did and see if you come to the same conclusions. I suspect if you're really honest, you will.

The word naos describes the very Holy of Holies, not just the outer and inner courts. When Paul says that the man of sin will set himself up in the temple, he means the human heart. Our heart of hearts was meant to be a temple for God. As for the 'antichrist' if you mean a dictator who will allegedly take over the world, this is a concept foreign to Scripture after Daniel 7. THere were four beasts, whom theologians and historians agree were Babylon, Media Persia, Greece and Rome. The fourth beast was Rome. Rome broke up into ten kingdoms and the Kingdom of God (Daniel's mountain) then took them over as the Gospel went out. There is no personal antichrist dictator figure. Nero was the 666 of Revelation 13. His name adds up to 666 in the Hebrew language. (Ksr Nrwn) John is the only New Testament writer to use the term antichrist. He uses it 5 times, 4 of which are plural. Antichrists are gnostics who believed that Christ was only a spirit. They believed that the body was evil and that Christ didn't really have a body. (There are different types of gnosticism, so let's not go there, we've not the time to explain them all.) Not one of the other NT writers ever uses the term antichrist(s). Most importantly, Jesus never uses the term either, nor does He ever speak of antichrist or antichrists! This is itself should be enough to make us step back as Believers and take a look at what we're being taught.

What we DO know is that the Garden was somewhere in the area of what we know today as Iraq. There was originally a single river which flowed out of Eden and divided into four smaller watercourses, the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates. The latter two still exist. The former two do not, having been broken up in the Noahic flood. I am of the belief that the Keruv (Cherubim warrior angels) once stationed there have been relieved of that duty since there is now effectively no way to find the entrance except through belief in Christ Jesus. Revelation 2:7 says that the Overcomer will be allowed to eat from the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. Obviously, the Garden is still existing. It does NOT exist on our plane of existence, it exists where the LORD is. Eden may well have been the portal between the material plane and the spiritual plane, but since the Scripture is not clear in the matter, speculating is useless.