Hidden In Him

18 hours ago, Chrisy said:

I thank God for the beauty he gave me but honestly i'm having trouble. Boys keep flirting and asking to be my BF but i know my parents won't like it AT ALL. I give them signs to show i'm not interested but they don't listen and it's very annoying, alot of my friends have asked me out and i feel terrible when i say no but i don't want to go against my parents' wishes . What should i do?

Rough deal, but for starters I would certainly obey my parents. Most of those "boys," including the Christian ones, are not being motivated by the Spirit of God when they flirt with you; they're being driven by their fleshly lusts, and these are the LAST types you want as your "BF."

Try dressing down, and wearing less make up and jewelry. Scripture commands godly women to cloth themselves in humility (1 Timothy 2:9-10). One of the Greek words used in this passage is properly translated as "modesty," which means you seek to NOT be noticed by people, and for a beautiful woman this can take some work. But it also sends a signal that you are not "advertising," if you will. This will thin the herd some.

You might also try to avoid as much contact with them, but above all pray that the Lord guides you. If you pray to Him for ways to not be treated like an object, I can promise you He'll begin revealing to you things you can both say and do that will change the way people see you, and cause them to treat you with more respect.

God bless,

Hidden

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Have you considered this idea is not in keeping with the thesis of 2 Thess 2:1-7? This short passage is all about timing and order of the coming of the Lord and the gathering of the elect.

Paul begins with this. It's abundantly clear this is not about the beast's arrival but the Lord's.  Paul says as much in v 3, "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,". In this verse we see an impediment to the Day of Christ and the gathering; the apostasy and the appearance of the man-god. The former comes after the latter and in essence Paul says, "Apostasy and the man-god withhold the Coming of our Lord.", iterated in verse 6.

Since the purpose of the passage is to assure the brethren the day has not come, with facts about when the day will come, so they understand what conditions will exist before the day comes; Paul certainly did not switch mid-concept to the revealing of the beast when the Coming of Jesus is the thesis. 

I also think 'remains' is not appropriate. Even if it is a viable form it does not fit the concepts.  

Well that's ok. We appear to both be locked into our own interpretations on this passage. I think everything you are saying here is indeed inherent in the text. Our disagreement is simply with what this particular use of ginomai is in reference to. I place this passage in a very "up to the minute" present context because Paul is using present tense in v.11 in the better texts, and it refers to things that were already happening at the time, meaning he was referencing fulfillments of Matthew 24 already taking place, making the focus simply on all that remained now (the things you are talking about; the apostasy and the Antichrist's appearing).

Anyway, just thought I'd run it by you.

God bless!

Hidden 

1 hour ago, Micah collins said:

The Zoroastrian religion was founded in 3500 b.c.e while the earliest evidence for the Hebrew bible in written form is in 1000 b.c.e although it probably existed in oral form for a while longer so ultimately at best both religions have existed for around the same amount of time.

Again, Micah, this argument is based on assumptions. The consensus varies wildly on when Zarathustra lived, but no one with any credibility dates him to anything earlier than 1500 BCE, and most sources argue for a date of around 600 BCE. And the Avesta is where we get our actual knowledge of what Zoroastrianism was, which dates to 224–651 CE, not BCE, which is well after large text fragments of the New Testament were already in existence. The argument that Judeo-Christianity owes many of its doctrines to Zoroastrianism stands on very flimsy ground. The only reason it is widely accepted is because it is frequently parroted by faithless scholarship as if it were fact.

I don't want to turn this into a debate, and so I will probably just let it go rather than start making you think I am now addressing you any differently than when you were considering becoming a Christian. I'm simply advising you again not to take everything you hear as established "fact,"especially when it is coming from unbelievers.    

12 minutes ago, Micah collins said:

When I said irrational what I meant was that so far every reason I've found for someone believeing in the judeochristian theology has either been an emotional appeal or misconstruing of facts. The reason I had my rebound yesterday was for purely emotional reasons (when I looked up answers in genesis I remembered a simpler time when I was a young earth creationist and I wanted those emotions back). But the truth is that almost every scientific field contradicts the bible in some way biology geology nerology etc. And frankly history is in conflict with the bible alot of the judeochristian theology was copyed from Zoroastrianism the belief in a duel afterlife with a heaven and hell and resurection wasn't a part of jewish theology until they interacted with the Zoroastrians in fact the same applies to the belief in an apocalypse where the righteous are saved and everything else is destroyed. And the Jesus stories just happened to show up at around the same time that personal savior gods had become popular due to Hellenistic influence.

This would take a massive amount of work to deal with, but just understand that there are a lot of believers out there who give themselves to rationalist thought who are not at all in agreement with the above conclusions. The arguments you are listing here are based upon assumption, and I speak as one who is college educated.

But it doesn't offend me if you choose to reject faith in Christ. Just thought I'd mention that there are many out there whose faith is rooted in more than simply emotional appeals or a misconstruing of facts.

5 minutes ago, Diaste said:

So what leads you to use 'remains' in verse 6?

He's referring to what still needs to occur. By the words, "Do you not remember that when I was with you I was telling you these things?" Paul is referring in all likelihood to having taught them Matthew 24, much of which was already coming to pass. What remained was for the man of lawlessness to be revealed, which is also discussed in the same discourse.

9 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Verse 6 would read, "And now you know it yet remains for Jesus to be revealed in His own time." That's good.

No. I think "it yet remains for him to be revealed" is in reference to the Antichrist.

10 hours ago, 6miker said:

I don't understand some Bible verses.
Matthew 10:34 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Luke 12:51-53 51 "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Luke 14:26 26 "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
I checked out a half-dozen different versions of the Bible and the all use the same word "hate".
I checked out my " The Complete Word Study New Testament" and the English word" hate" is translated from the Greek word "3404 (hatred) to detest (especially to persecute) by extension to love less – hate( – ful)"
I must have read right over these verses and not paid attention to the words and they contradict my beliefs and what I was taught about Jesus Christ.
If anyone can explain this verses (without ignoring words) I would appreciate that you respond to me.
Thank You

Jayne did a good job with the context. About the word "hate," a slightly better translation for the Greek word used here would be "despise," in the sense of having contempt for something or someone. It is used in the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) in verses like Deuteronomy 21:15-16, where it talks about a man having two wives, and being loving towards one but despising (i.e. having contempt for) the other. 

What Jesus was saying was that this will be the natural reaction of anyone who loves the Lord yet has family members who reject Him and try to tell them to turn from Him. It causes a natural disdain in the believer, and causes them to have contempt for them because their family is trying to force them to give up the God they love. He was teaching here that these situations may be unavoidable, so to be prepared to have to endure such things when they happen.

I have both prayed for you, and will be praying more.

On 5/6/2018 at 1:06 PM, Diaste said:

Brother,

I would be happy to hear anything on the subject. My ears are open these days, especially so as I see the beginning of the end approaching. 

Oops! LoL. I was checking back to see if you responded, and realized I highlighted the wrong word in translation. I has been corrected now, and reads:

On 5/6/2018 at 1:57 PM, Hidden In Him said:

"Do you not remember that when I was with you I was telling you these things? And you know it yet remains for him to be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already on its way to realization, only he is holding back at present until he manifests (or emerges) out of the midst, and then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ will destroy with the breath of His mouth and depose with the brightness of His coming." (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8)

The second usage of κατέχον I translate as "holding back."

Sorry if I confused you, brother.

1 hour ago, LadyKay said:

I was looking up something in the Bible when I came across Romans 13:3 which reads    For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 

While I do not know what the state of things were back in Bible times when Paul said this. If rulers and laws at that time were fair and just?  I do know that rules and laws in the US have not always been fair and just.  I know from personal experience that there have been people who have been living good and upright lives, only to be wrongly accused of something and wrongly punished for it. They now live with this fear  of authority and that such a thing could happen again to them. Back in slave times blacks lived in fear of the rulers and of authority for no other reason other then the fact they they were black. Many people though out history of the US have been punished by those in authority by unjust laws that went against a person's race.  So how then can it be true that doing right will allow you to live free from fear of authority? If unjust laws and dishonest people are placed in authority?  

The general teaching here, Kay, was to subject yourself humbly under the rule of those in authority (Romans 13:1), and lead what Paul taught elsewhere was a "quiet life," where you were not a nuisance to rulers but did your best to instead be a blessing to the cities and nations you were citizens of. The idea was not that they would be perfect in their judgments, but simply that they were not generally a terror to those who did things like praying for the peace and well-being of their nations (1 Timothy 2:1-4), but would be far more likely to be to those who demonstrated in the streets and threatened to rebel, as the Jews were doing against Rome, which would lead to their eventually being conquered and completely subjugated not many years later. 

This is essentially the same teaching Jesus was giving when he taught that if a Roman soldier commanded a Jew to walk a mile and carry has equipment by force, a disciple of Jesus should walk with him an additional mile as well, as a way of overcoming evil with good. So the teaching was not necessarily to expect the government to always be good and fair to you, but simply to understand that you would be much more agreeable to them if you were a blessing to their rule rather than a public nuisance and a potential threat to stability. 

As for your question about walking free of fear completely, I think this is only possible by walking ever closer to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, since He has not given us a spirit of fear, but One of love, power, and a sound mind.

On 4/14/2018 at 8:09 AM, LightShinesInTheDarkness said:

The Babylon Checklist:

• America is the great importer and customer of the world. She buys all its goods, and other nations profit from and depend upon her business.  (Revelation 18:3, 11-14)
• America has dominion over the kings of the earth economically, and perhaps militarily. (Revelation 17:18)
• America is a multicultural nation, as Rome also was. (Revelation 17:15)
• America bought slaves (the transatlantic slave trade)---and she still has them, in the form of secret slavery and sex slavery---just as Rome bought slaves. (Revelation 18:13)
• America is wealthy, as Rome was. (Revelation 18:16,17)
• America is a self-indulgent lover of pleasures, as Rome was. (Isaiah 47:8, Revelation 18:7)
• All the nations of the world have drunk the wine of the passion of America’s sexual immorality, through her sexually immoral and perverted movies and music, which are exported to the nations of the world and enjoyed by them. (Jeremiah 51:7, Revelation 17:2, 18:3)
• America is the mother of earth's abominations, via the influence of her movies and music, and her immoral pop-culture and values, which the nations of the world imbibe and emulate, corrupting themselves likewise. (Revelation 17:5)

Guys, I hate to sound contrarian here; there are certainly a number of similarities. But it's actually a reference to a city, not a nation. That city is Rome, which will become the head of denominational Christianity during the end-times, and return to killing the saints and prophets just as she did during the inquisition. The oath Jesuits take still contains wording to the effect that, if called upon, they must be willing and able to kill those who preach "heresy."

I do believe America will soon turn in a darker direction spiritually. But I don't think America is Mystery Babylon.

8 hours ago, Eslyn said:

What is your take on it is never too late for anyone who is alive? Does this include people who have been baptized as well?

Greetings, Eslyn. Yes, of course this includes people who have been baptized. Baptism is merely an outward ceremony symbolizing a deeper truth; that we are to die to the old man and be raised up in newness of life in the new, through the Holy Spirit (preferable the baptism in the Holy Spirit).

But there are many who have observed the outward ceremony who did not live out what it was meant to symbolize, whereas there are some who are living out the spiritual truth in their lives without having actually gone through the ceremony yet. So the more important question is: While it is never too late, are you ready to die to your old life and put on the new? 

9 hours ago, Tyler22 said:

anyone have the gift of "prophetic words of knowledge"?  received it today and am working on it.

I'm curious, Tyler. What makes you believe you have received it?

1 minute ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

I beg and plead you take the time to watch it .

Doki oki. Will do. 

Just now, frienduff thaylorde said:

Hidden in him,  you would do better to ask him WHAT MINISTERS he includes IN the BODY OF CHRIST.  ASK THAT . Ask it .

You sound like you know something I don't... but if you are just being curious, I suppose he is reading these posts and can respond.

12 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

To explain AWANA to any individual with a mindset determined to disparage my Lord's local bodies of Christ Jesus would be for me to engage in a vain debate.

Neighbor, I've noticed you tend to villainize anyone who criticizes "your Lord's local bodies." You do know we are a part of His body as well, yes? Or do you not recognize us as part of the body of Christ?

Just now, Yowm said:

I've read the results of polls and what the youths believe doctrinal wise, IT IS ABYSMAL. We are losing a generation to biblical literacy.

This I fully agree with, and also that preaching and teaching is often sorely lacking. But it's not just on the teacher end of things. They take little interest. So I think the argument is over how to get them to listen more.

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

My opinion..is that God is in charge of sending His Spirit and revival. We are responsible to teach all that the Lord has said to (Great Commission) that would include the reality of the Holy Spirit's power.

Well my position here is that the great revivals of history were all prayed for, so I think the responsibility lies predominantly with us rather than God. If you take the position that God is in charge of when we will have revival yet we rarely ever see any, it sort of makes Him out as if He isn't really concerned. But I think He is actually very deeply desirous of it .It is we who are the lackadaisical ones.

4 minutes ago, Yowm said:

What happens, I believe, is the Church Molly-coddles the youth. They ask what music and styles are they into and then mimicks the world to attract the youth. They need some good 'ol fashion preaching from Scripture. Then the youth will see there is a difference, a heaven and a hell, truth and relativism, immorality and righteousness, God's love and the world's games etc.

I agree here. They appear to make very little difference between themselves and the world, and in mimicking the world they present to kids things which the world can do better.

But now the problem for me is also that they need to present a form of Christianity that is more real; I believe the gifts of the Spirit with genuine supernatural manifestations are what kids today need to witness and experience. If not, it just comes off as a lot of theory, and kids don't buy into that sort of thing. 

Just my opinion.

On 5/6/2018 at 1:06 PM, Diaste said:

It's "emerge from out of the middle" or, "manifest in the midst" if you prefer. How the original got to be 'he that now letteth will let till he be taken out of the way' I can't imagine.

It's probably the most difficult passage in the NT to translate because of the use of κατέχον in verse 6 and then again in verse 7.

But emerge is excellent, and if you want my interpretation on the entire passage, the translation should read as follows, with κατέχον highlighted and underlined both times:

"Do you not remember that when I was with you I was telling you these things? And you know it yet remains for him to be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already on its way to realization, only he is holding back at present until he manifests (or emerges) out of the midst, and then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ will destroy with the breath of His mouth and depose with the brightness of His coming." (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8)

In verse 6 it is neuter, and refers to the report or prophecy about the Antichrist coming, as referred to in Matthew and Daniel. If you look up Liddell-Scott, the verb is occasionally used in the sense of "the report prevails" that such and such is happening or will happen, and this fits with the neuter usage in verse 6 perfectly.

In verse 7 it is masculine, and refers to the Antichrist himself, who would emerge out of the midst of the Roman empire as the one prophesied to fulfill the prophecy. Caligula came very close to fulfilling the prophesies concerning the Antichrist and even wanted to have a massive statue of himself in the form of Zues transported to Jerusalem and erected there, only he didn't succeed. But this is what made the apostles believe it was only a matter of time before an emperor arose who would fulfill the prophecy because relations between the Jews and the Romans were only getting worse, and indeed it would only be another 15 years or so from the time of Paul's writing 2nd Thessalonians before Jerusalem would be conquered.

This is why Paul stated that "the mystery of lawlessness is already on its way to realization, only he is holding back at present until he emerges out of the midst..."

I know this differs from what you currently accept about other aspects of the passage, and how tough it can be to have to rethink a passage through in some instances. But this is the way I interpret the passage, and it very much holds weight, not only with the actual grammar being used but with the history of what was going on at the time as well.

12 minutes ago, Diaste said:

These are the two most important points from the verse in question and they completely change the understanding of 2 Thess 2:7. This is a profound change especially in light of the real meaning of “what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.” In context what withholds is the fulfillment of apostasia and the revealing of the man of sin, that Jesus may be revealed in His time. The context of the passage is the 2nd coming and the fear of the people they missed it. Paul explains they did not miss this and relates what must occur first. Since apostasia and the revealing must happen before Jesus returns, WHAT withholds, not WHO, are the coming events of apostasia, and the revealing of the man of sin, and what they are withholding is the 2nd coming and the gathering of the elect.

You are very close in my opinion, brother. Your translation of "emerge" is good. I prefer "manifest," but either communicates the same point. We differ on "what withholds," as I think that is poorly translated as well. But I will withhold that unless it is something you want to hear.

So when did you come to see "emerge" as proper interpretation?  

1 hour ago, creativemechanic said:

Have any of you notices this occurring at your church? Or churches in general? If so why do you think it happens?

Without wanting to attack the church, yes. I have seen this happen a LOT in the last 20 years, even as a youth pastor for some time. 

Many differ on what they think the reason is, but my personal opinion is that it is because we do not raise up children in the way they should go, which is in the FEAR of the Lord (Psalm 34:11). We do not teach them about Hell from an early age, and I believe this is why as they get old enough to be on their own, they DO depart from it (Proverbs 22:6). Granted, I think it takes more than simply teaching them the fear of God; I think it also involves teaching them all the blessings that come with serving God, both in this life and the next. But as scripture says, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and that is where we must begin with them, or they will continue to be seduced away from the faith, as I have personally witnessed more times than I care to talk about. 

11 hours ago, 4LdKHVCzRDj2 said:

I have acquired plenty of self-control regarding that; thanks to God. As for fasting, I remember I did it a few times only (officially).

But still I am living a very lonely life and I desire so much at least one close friend. But I need a miracle to change this in my life.

I would say just keep giving your life to Him, 4Ld. If we keep giving ourselves to His service, eventually the call of God on our life becomes so strong that we have no choice but to enter ministry of some kind, and with that we find the Lord starts providing us with others who will help us in that ministry; people who are of similar or compatible callings, and who are like kindred spirits with us.

11 hours ago, 4LdKHVCzRDj2 said:

What is self-control in this context?

I was referring to sexual self-control specifically, LoL. But there is also a type of control we need to keep over our emotional nature as well.

11 hours ago, 4LdKHVCzRDj2 said:

This is true. But in my case I believe I need human help.

It is so hard for me to interact with people in the real life that I feel I need people to help me.

I think this is indeed the case, and there is nothing wrong with that. All Christians need someone, and God never intended us to be alone, even if we are single. He intends for all of us to be a body together, and a family, so that everyone has their needs met. But again, you will find strong companionship in the Lord if you find your true calling and purpose, and begin pursuing it. Then the Lord can move you into relationships that are lasting and meaningful, and based on service to God.  

I say all that because I was actually alone and lonely as a believer for many years, despite being married and despite having a lot of believers around me. But as I started entering my calling more, suddenly I was of more value to people, and since then I have developed many friends, and a few friendships with people who serve God with me side by side.

So just keep remaining faithful. The time will eventually come when He will provide you with such things.

2 hours ago, GreyDestiny said:

Many people detest the idea of having children someday. Many of these people, regardless of their desire to not have children, go out and about and engage in funny business anyway.

However, there is a growing movement (or movements) where people are basically celibate. No funny business, no dating, no holding hands, no marriage, you name it. The reasons are many. Some are caught up in the divisiveness between the sexes, some claim it as independence and freedom, some claiming to have no sexual desire whatsoever, the list goes on. 

What I am asking you is, do you think it's acceptable for a Christian to be the same way? Does a person have to get married and have children?

The passage Gary Lee cited is the one you are looking for on this issue. To fully explain it would require a full teaching on the importance of fasting in the early church (1 Corinthians 7:5), which has a taming effect upon the sex drive. But Paul's teaching makes it abundantly clear that he considered the single life as preferred over the married life, at least for those who could succeed at it without losing self-control.

The more a believer is free to pursue the things of God alone, the more he can be of use to Him, plain and simple. 

On 4/21/2018 at 8:15 AM, Adstar said:

PS: And only Christians and Jews have the option to remain Christians and Jewish under islamic law but they must pay the Jizyah tax and be made to feel subduded,, which is another way of saying they are to be second class citizens..

Yes, and I believe eventually this right will be withdrawn when the Islamic caliphate is finally established after the Mahdi assumes power. At that time the saying will be fulfilled which promised that "no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelations 13:7). Just because there is "no compulsion" now does not mean there won't be full compulsion eventually. Muslims are notorious for turning the tables on host countries once they gain significant enough numbers to have a political say in things.

On 5/2/2018 at 5:27 PM, HAZARD said:

The interpretation that seems to make sense to me is this. The "Eye of the Needle" was indeed a narrow gateway into Jerusalem. Since camels were heavily loaded with goods and riders, they would need to be un-loaded in order to pass through. Therefore, the analogy is that a rich man would have to similarly unload his material possessions in order to enter heaven.

Close. But I don't think He was saying here that it would be impossible for all rich men, "loaded down" or not, just difficult.

Paul allowed believers to maintain their wealth, so long as they still trusted in God and not their money, telling Timothy, "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." (1 Timothy 6:17). I think this was the same lesson Jesus wanted to teach the rich young ruler. He was one of the rich types who needed to be in a position where he would have to trust the Living God alone, i.e. without his money to save him. But the command was not that all rich men necessarily had to divest themselves of their wealth; simply that they needed to trust in God more than in their money.  

2 minutes ago, creativemechanic said:

what you think of this. i recently saw a clip from the stever Harvey show. in the ask Steve  segment,a woman  stood and said she had had a friend who for over 20 years and always makes sure to be there for her, even throwing parties etc but said friend doesn do the same for her eg she didnt recently attend her birthday which greatly disturbed her.  Steve's response (though not biblical )was interesting. He said loyalty has an expiration date and if we realise a friend of ours has gravitated away from us,they have given us permission to gravitate from them. so while we don't have to become enemies and maintain a familiarity, nothing wrong with moving them out of our lives.

what do you think?

Well, in a sense I agree, but for the Christian this especially needs be something they exercise discernment on. Maybe the friend simply forgot, or had another more important engagement, or was severely depressed and didn't want to be around anyone, or felt slighted by something WE had done without even realizing it...

I think this is where you go to God and ask for His heart on the matter. And if it calls for forgiveness, then strengthen yourself to obey your Heavenly Father (and theirs, hopefully).