JLW001

The places that Jesus prepares for the saints are in the New Jerusalem that comes down from Heaven to the earth.

I'm pasting parts of this from a reply of mine to another thread. Jesus admonishes us to be watchful and to not believe people who say that He is there or here or somewhere else. He says that we will know for certain when He comes because it will be like lightning splitting the sky from East to West. Jesus never differentiates between the ingathering of His Saint's and His Second Coming. (In fact, in Mathew 24 He talks about His coming splitting the sky from the east to the west and then gathering His people) This fact, along with the fact that the first resurrection does indeed occur at the rapture (notice I don't say there won't be a rapture) (I THess 4) and that saints beheaded for not receiving the mark of the beast will be included in the first resurrection (Rev 20). So, unless Jesus returns twice (once to the clouds and once to the earth-each time splitting the sky) and unless the first ressurection takes place all through the tribulation (starting at the rapture and continuing on while Saints die because of being persecuted by the antichrist/beast/false prophet), then the rapture must be after the appearance and world domination of the antichrist. Those are some big "unless" conditions.

I believe it to be very reasonable to place these verses as addressing the same events. Why? Because they all address the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the in gathering of His people to Him. I am very confused by those that claim that in the rapture that Jesus will return to just the clouds and then 7 years later He will return for His Second Coming. Wouldn't that at least make His Second Coming His 2 1/2 coming? Just a little humor there ....lol. Jesus admonishes us to be watchful and to not believe people who say that He is there or here or somewhere else. He says that we will know for certain when He comes because it will be like lightning splitting the sky from East to West. Jesus never differentiates between the ingathering of His Saint's and His Second Coming. This fact, along with the fact that the first resurrection does indeed occur at the rapture (notice I don't say there won't be a rapture) (I THess 4) and that saints beheaded for not receiving the mark of the beast will be included in the first resurrection (Rev 20). I know that people are very adamant about the Pre-Mid-Post Tribulation rapture, but I have tried to prove pre-trib to myself twice and for some reason I can't address the two facts mentioned above. I would very much like to be in agreement with the majority of the Church and to believe that we will be in heaven during this time of trouble. However, I have yet to convince myself of it by looking at God's Word. Now I do know that God will be with us, no matter what and that even one of the churches in Rev2-3 are told that they will be spared from the time of testing that is coming upon the whole world. Does this have any bearing? I honestly don't know. I would much rather be in agreement with the majority of Christians (including the doctrine of the church I attend, lol) than to not be, but I must follow what God reveals to me in scripture. I have no ill will or bear any malice or think less of saints who believe in the Pre-trib rapture and if I am wrong about things, may God open the eyes of my understanding. I try to keep an open mind when I read about Pre-trib or when my Pastor preaches it, but I have yet to be convinced of it in God's Word and that is what counts. I refuse to let satan use a doctrine of the end times to bring division into my heart. If you beleive in the Pre-Trib rapture, then I'll be seeing Jesus and you sooner than I expect and if you don't agree with Pre-Trib, then I understand exactly why you don't. Either way, it doesn't impact the love of God that I have in my heart for my fellow saints and or my right standing with God that Jesus Christ accomplished for me and I accepted through faith (that God gave me) and confession that "Jesus Christ is the living Son of the Living God".

Does the first resurrection (the resurrection of the saint's) occur at the rapture? At what point in events does the first resurrection occur? Don't take any man's word, only believe God's Word.

This is a key concept of Christianity and is what Paul calls the rudimentary or basic parts. Jesus solved the sin problem! Praise God! If we are in Christ Jesus, then our sins are fogiven. If we are not in Jesus, then our sins are not forgiven. It is that simple. If you are not in Jesus, you are in Adam....if you do not walk according to the Spirit then you walk according to the flesh.....If a Christian rejects Jesus, then he is no longer part of Jesus and is in Adam again and there is no longer any sacrifice that can place him back in Jesus Christ........ It is not a sin problem....it is whether or not you accept Jesus Christ. And if you accept Jesus Christ, the you are a new creation....you will love God and hate sin. While we fail and sin, because we are in Jesus, those sins are forgiven by the Blood. However, as new creatures we will not live in sin, but walk according to the spirit.

THis set of scripture refers to those who have been saved and who reject Jesus in order to embrace the world. It is not speaking of Christians who stumble and go through periods of sin. As was mentioned before, the sacrifice of Jesus is effective in forgiving sin for the CHristian who repents of his sin. However, if someone, openingly and with full cognition, rejects Jesus (note this is not sinning, but a rejection of Jesus and all that He is) then there remains no longer any sacrifice for them. Jesus destroyed the sin problem and if you accept, rely upon and believe Him, then your sins will be forgiven. However, if you have known Jesus and then knowingly reject Him, then you are dead to God. THere remains no further sacrifice for the remission of your sins and you will go into eternal damnation.

Let me also add that if you were a homosexual and were born again and in a moment of weakness committed a physical act, but after doing so you truly repented of it, then Jesus sacrifice is there for you. I was speaking about those who continue in that lifestyle, while claiming to be saved by grace, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think this discussion must be brought to consideration of living in "sin". While it is a fact that all Christians sin, the blood of Jesus erases those sin when we come to Him in TRUE REPENTENCE . If we do not repent of our sins, then Jesus has not forgiven them as 1 John clearly reveals. A Christian does not want to sin. (See Pauls writings in Romans) There is no other way of expressing it. Those who are born again are born of the Spirit and if we are born of the Spirit, then we must walk according to the Spirit. If we walk according to the Spirit, then we will not "live" in sin. How can someone serve God and serve sin? We are either a "slave" to God or a slave to sin. There is no in between. So, those who walk according to the Spirit, walk trying to please God and when we stumble, we go to Jesus and repent and are forgiven. Those who walk accoding to the flesh seek to please the flesh and not God and are living in sin. How can someone born of God be a practicing homosexual? What part does God have with satan? If you are a homosexual, you have my uptmost concern. Not only do you sin against your Father, but you also sin against your own body and will reap the consequences. However, if you were a homosexual and you have been born again, then you are no longer a slave of that sin and thus you will not practice that lifestyle. Will you fall into lust and commit sins of the heart? Yes, but with God you will overcome. Will a homosexual person who has been born again live the "lifestyle" and continue to commit such acts? No! So, if you know someone who is a practicing homosexual and claims to be born again, you can assured that the delivering power of Jesus Christ is NOT at work in them. Jesus Christ is powerful and the Spirit of God will deliver you from sin. As I said, you may continue to commit sins of the heart, but you will not live in sin if you are born again. Willfully continuing in sin after coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ means that there is no more sacrifice for you. Paul clearly mentions this. To be forgiven of willfully living in sin after coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ would require Jesus to be crucified again and the Father is not willing for that to happen again. Willfully living in sin after coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the same as calling Jesus' sacrifice ineffective and slandering our most precious Lord.

I think the best understanding of this issue of the church replacing Israel is found by examining Romans 8-12. THere you will find a description of a tree...an olive tree. This tree represents the family of God. Jesus is the root of the tree and Israel are the branches. Some of the branches were removed (notice not all the branches were removed) and other "wild" branches (read as gentiles) were grated into this family by faith. Paul cautions us in thinking too highly of ourselves and becoming belligerent to the original branches. If God was willing to replace the original branches, then replacing the wild branches is even more possible. Paul goes on to mention that once the whole of the gentiles to be saved are grafted into the tree, then thw hole of Israel will be saved. You see, God knows which gentiles are to be grafted in and once we have been grafted in, then He will save the whole of Israel. He will remove the blindness and deafness that has come upon them for our (the gentiles) sake. Then God will complete His family tree with the rest of Israel. It is so very beautiful to see what God is doing. Israel is only temporarily blinded to what God is doing. They will be saved. Why would any Christian think that God has thrown away Israel? If He did, how could we ever be certain that one day He would not throw us (the church) away as well?

I have a little thought experiement I would like to recommend to anyone who doubts the existence of a creator. Think about what it is in the physical world that allows you to tell if time is going forward or backward. Bear with me. Is there a reason for time to flow only forward and not ebb back and forth or jump around? Why do junked cars not spontaneously fall back into working order or broken dishes not simply fall back together? As a matter of fact spontaneous processes are the reason we see time as flowing in one direction. Rust forms from iron that is exposed to oxygen. Why doesn't iron ore form oxygen, slag and pure iron spontaneously? I think its safe to say that everyone can agree that there is a preferred direction of time in the universe. By saying this I am indicating that certain events are spontaneous, while others are not. So we see a preference for some event to occur. In engineering, this is called design. vehicles do not simply spontaneously form. An engineer must design the vehicle and we must do work on matter in order to build a car. We know that someone did work and someone designed the car because we see the car and by what we know about spontaneous processes, we know that cars do not happen spontaneously. When we look at the natural world, design is apparent. Birds fly, animals walk, fish swim and by the nature of these things we see a design. There is a process that takes place within the womb of a mother than takes matter and forms it into an object that has design. The process that occurs within a womb does not happen spontaneously. If it did, creatures would suddenly appear from the ground or trees would suddenly form from the CO2, O2, H2, and minerals in the ground. This just doesn't happen. In order for some process to be "spontaneous" it must occur without outside interference or it must happen without the input of effort or energy. Energy, interference, or what we call design, is required for something to happen that is not spontaneous. Another aspect of spontaneous occurences is that they repeat. If iron metal comes into the presence of O2, you will form rust. This process occurs repeatedly, without interference, However, rust does not repeatedly turn into iron and O2 without outside interference. So, if animal ever spontaneously formed, they would still be spontaneously forming. Lets go back one step further. If matter or energy ever spontaneously formed, then by what we know of spontaneous processes, they would still be spontaneously forming. THat's something to think about. For things to happen, that are not spontaneous, an outside action must take place and that action requires..............an actor. Now, I have only shown that there is good reason to believe in some outside actor that has designed and acted upon the universe and is still acting on the universe. I have not shown whether that actor is the cosmic wiz, buddha, allah or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But, the directional preference of time means that any man that considers the natural world around him must concluded that something is behind these processes that are non-spontaneous. Atheism is an indefensible position to take. You may say that you don't believe in Jesus Christ, but to say that something non-spontaneous occurs spontaneously requires an amount of faith greater than anything I can imagine. I believe that not only is there an actor outside of the universe that acts on the universe to order non-spontaneous events, but that this Actor must take an interest in His design and would communicate His plans to the cognizantaspect of His design. Not only that, but the life of Jesus Christ has convinced me that He and His Father and His Spirit are indeed that Actor. Don't listen to what other people say to you. Think for yourself!

Yes, I would agree with this. As Christians we must judge (discern) between spirits or ideas, but it is not up to us to condemn people. We should judge rightly. If we judge rightly, then we should have no fear of being judged as we judge. However, if we condemn, then we should be fearful of being condemned. We should do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.... That sounds familiar.... Micah 6 anyone?

I think that there are various words in the bible that are translated as Hell. I also believe that when most Christians say hell, they are referring to the lake of fire, which is the place prepared for satan and the fallen angels and for the beast and false prophet. However, there is hell (Sheol) and hell (Gehenna). Sheol is the holding place of the dead and it is the place mentioned in Peter's writings where Jesus preached the Gospel to the dead. Gehenna is the place mentioned in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. So, what I call hell is the lake of fire. It is the place prepared for satan. the fallen angels, the beast, and the false prophets. It is also the place into which some or all of those who are raised in the 2nd resurrection (those who face the White Throne judgement) are placed. The lake of fire is a literal place or state of being. If you reject Jesus, you will be placed there. When is your last chance to accept Jesus? I don't know. Some near death experiences seem to indicate that you can accept Him even at death's door or beyond. I will leave that to God. In my own life I have received Him now and wouldn't have it any other way with me.

CO2 increases have never proceeded temperature increase in any ice core data samples. Look at the data for yourself rather than copying and pasting from certain sites. CO2 always lags temperature because it takes time for the oceans to respond to temperature changes in the atmosphere and release or take in the carbon....don't take their word for it...look at the data yourself. If CO2 were causing the current warming trend, then the layer of our atmosphere containg the CO2 should be hottest and it should be convecting or conducting the heat to the rest of the atmosphere.......Guess What? The CO2 containing layers are not warmer than the rest of the atmosphere....they are colder....so how in the world is the CO2 heating the climate? o.0 You see I do have a far bit of scientific training and I looked into the details that the GW proponents were talking about. They are correct in that we are going through a warming spell, but if you look at the sun's cycles and the behavior of clouds you can see why we are warming. CO2 is an indicator of what global temperature was doing in our recent past, it does not drive the climate. Its like saying that my fever has given me the flu, when I know full well that my fever is but a symptom of the flu bug that is at work in my body. Trend does not mean cause and effect.

I have hate and am negative because I don't buy into Al Gore's CO2 driven global warming? o.0

If you want to call someone stupid, then you ought to do a better job of informing yourself as to science behind an issue that which you are accusing them of being ignorant of. Warm climatic periods are not always preceded by increases in CO2 concentrations, as other climatic forces can force climate changes as well. However, the trend is very clear. Absent other mitigating factors, such as orbital and or solar variations, increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations results in climatic warming. The causation is basic thermal physics, and the correlation is backed by multiple lines of peer-reviewed evidence. Now, warm periods can result in higher CO2 lagging the warm periods if those warm periods are the result of orbital variations or solar forcing. This is due to sequestered carbon being released as a result of higher global temps. Yeah, other things impact global termperature (as a matter of they are what drive the climate of our earth), but I'm talking about huge periods of time...not 10 years....so all the other variations are aliased out.....In other words a large increase of CO2 (over a enormous period of time) never proceeds temperture increases, it always comes afterward...in the whole ice core data set. You get it? Sequestered carbon...you mean like the huge amount in the oceans? Hmm and is the amount of carbon that the oceans can hold dependent on temperature? Do they hold less at high temperature and more with low temperatures? I never called Al Gore stupid, I only said he has no credentials as a scientist.