Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 28, 2022, 06:17:32 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
283601 Posts in 27534 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 17, 2005, 03:42:27 PM
When I spoke of the Sun and Moon representing the Covenants I did not mean to imply that every mention contains this meaning, but I do believe there are allegorical instances supported by other scriputre where this applies.

When Paul says the New Jerusalem is the mother of us all we know, because he has said so, that he is speaking of the New Covenant, and not a human mother.

When Paul says-

Ephesians 5:8 - "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light"

- we understand because of his phrasing that he is not saying we are without flesh, but we are the light of the Lord because His Life is in us.

Jesus is the Light of the world. We know this does not mean He is the sunshine outside, but being Himself God He is the Light that gives understanding of God to the world. Since Jesus has used the term "light" to describe Himself who is the mediator of the Covenant if follows , in my opinion, that when the sun is being spoken of in allegorical terms it appiles to the New Covenant.

God, after light was created in Genesis, gave two great lights -one to rule the Day, and the the other the Night. we are children of the day, children of the new covenant. The night is where darkness is, and Jesus shined into the darkness of the Old Covenant and brough them the Light -Himself! Two great lights -the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old ruled the darkness - before the Light of Christ shone into the world. The New Covenat now rules the Day.

When I read from Matthew 24:29 -

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

-  I think of the scripture that Sis. Reba quoted and, from my point of view, consider that the stars of heaven represent the children of Israel, the children of the Old Covenant, and wonder at how this New Covenant has superceded the one passed down by fleshly lineage.

I understand you're saying everything is literally what it says, but at the same time there are admonishments from the Lord such as "let him who has ears to hear, hear, and "the words that I speak are Spirit and they are Life".  

When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, He did not mean literally, although Nicodemus was hearing it that way. At least Jesus did not mean it literally the way that Nicodemus thought. That is to say that the Bible always means what it says, but does not always clearly say what it means unless we have our ears spiritually tuned.

Paul said -

1 Corinthians 2:14 - "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

None of that means I am giving the right interpretation, and you the wrong, to spiritual things of course, but I am trying to establish some scriptures will have meaning other than what is on the surface.

Many have applied - and this is just for example, and not a trap or anything - Satan, or the anti-christ, to the Abomination of Desolation, and the White Horse. There is no scripture that says this, but I'm sure this is done because it is believed these scriptures, taken with the way other scriptures are interpreted from a particular point of view, point in that direction. I disagree with the interpretation, but I understand these are symbolic scriptures -particularly from Revelation.

When I say the Sun and the Moon represent the Covenants in some instances where the meaning appears to me symbolic I am admittedly not doing so because there is a scripture verse that says the Sun and Moon are that, anymore than there is a scripture verse that literally proclaims most of what gets said about Revelation. I am saying this because again, in my view, other scriptures with allegorical text appear, to me, to support it.

I know this debate becomes a bit circular Bronzesnake, but if this is the biggest disagreement we ever have in life we can count ourselves blessed! I appreciate the good tone you have kept through out and feel at ease calling you brother.  God bless you my friend.

Tom - I haven't tried to avoid your questions either, and I apologize for not having responded. Although I have Preterists leanings eschatology wise, for all I've written here I don't consider myself an expert, or anything. Actually eschatology is something I normally have avoided.  

I think that not all Preterists see every exact point the same. There are differing opinions there as in anything else. All would agree I think that 70A.D. was pivotal as the fulfillment of Matthew 24, and the last gasps of an already dead from Calvary Covenant.

It is not believed that the age of Grace ended, but rather that the age of Grace, or the New Covenant, is a world without end ( Eph.3:21).

You mention Revelation being written 20 years after 70 A.D, but many believe it was written before. I think the 90 A.D date comes from a man who wrongly said Jesus was 50 at the time of the crucifixion ( I promise I'm not making this up), so obviously his reliability is questioned.  It is also believed curious that John does not mention the destruction of the temple if Revelation is written later.  

If you're still interested in what Preterist believe about eschatology I think you can probably find more detailed answers than I can give at



Some preterist writers can be a little smug, which I don't care for, but there are some good things too. If I can answer anything I will be glad too, and honest if I cannot.

Just be patient with my slow responses Smiley

In His Grace....
2  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 16, 2005, 09:45:31 PM
Here, it is absolutely unambiguous - the sun is not a spiritual representation of the New Testament, it is literally the sun. The moon is not a spiritual representation of the Old Testament - it is literally the moon. Nowhere in the entire Bible can I find a single reference which corroborates your assertion that the sun ever represents the N.T. or the moon ever represents the O.T.

Forgive me for not getting up here sooner. Time just does not allow me.

Often times in the New Testament the inhabitants of the New Covenant are referred in terms of "light"

Matthew 5:14 - "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid."

1 Thessalonians 5:5 - "Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

Jesus came shone into the final days of the Old Covenant and it was said -

John 1:5 - "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

The light was Christ Himself, the Mediator of a better covenant. Where did the Light shine? In the religious world of that day. The darkness that did not comprehend Him was the priesthood of the Old Covenant.
Works never understands Grace.

In the book of Genesis I believe along with the story of creation - and yes I believe God  created all things by the Word of His Mouth - I believe there is also a level of spiritual depth as well. God said "let there be light" on the first day, and on the fourth day - after trees and grass and fruit - He created the Sun and Moon.

Genesis 1: 16-19   "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

But I think Reba has struck upon a problem with many of our interpretations of Revelation when she asks about your definition for the White Horse.

Unlike Matthew 24, which I believe to be more direct, John is writing a vision of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not a revelation of the earths final days. To this symbolism is assigned meanings that fit each ones particular view of eschatology. To some the White Horse equals Antichrist, but the text doesn't say so, or the beast equals Anti Christ, but again, the text doesn't say provide this definition.

Personally I don't know that Revelation can be read in the same chronological way that Matthew 24 can be. I am not trying to get around your questions, I just don't read it that way. You, and again this is by no means a cut,  read a verse and see, possibly,  attack helicopters. I read a verse and start wondering how this ties into the Covenants, or what the early Christians were going through. I am not saying which is right - time will certainly tell - I am saying that you and I come to some rather symbolic text in Revelation with different views.
Because I believe the Revelation of Jesus Christ will be about His Person, and His Covenant, that is what I am looking for. As I said earlier, this is not my "forte", I certainly have no lock upon biblical interpretation, particularly in the book of Revelation. I confess, however, that as I believe the New Testament is primarily about the establishment of the covenants I approach Revelation the same way.

I don't understand every symbol, and I would rather just admit that than to try to apply a definition I don't really see, or give an interpretive meaning not found in the text. When I find a corroborating scripture within the bible I am of the opinion that I should let the bible define itself , such as the Sea in Rev. 21. I believe what meaning I find in Revelation will have correlation in the rest of scripture as well. I don't belive either Revelation or the rest of scripture, without applying other definitions and ideas not found in the first century, readily teach the Rapture.

I'm sure these are not satisfactory responses, but I am trying to be as honest as I can. As always I hope it at least proves thoughtful. I truly do enjoy the reading, and I'm glad to answer what I can when I can. I'm sure we both have reached where we are over a period of time, and not over night. While I know will not agree on this particular matter I want you to know that I respect and honor you as a brother in Christ. Thank God for His unending love!

God Bless,
In His Grace....

3  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 13, 2005, 11:16:31 AM

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 

This confirm that Jesus wants us to know these things are "literal"

I believe these things did literally happen, but I also believe they have spirtual significance. The Sun and Moon for example. I belive it did really happen, but I believe the Sun and Moon has references to the covenants and not the orbs in the sky. The Old Covenant passed away, ant the earthly furnishings of the temple with it.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

This verse makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if we take it spiritually. Jesus nails it down to a specific day and hour (which only God knows) so if this is spiritual, how will you know when "it?" happens? It doesn't add up my friend. This is a literal message. These events will literally occur at a specific day and hour, which only the Father knows. Read the next verse - Jesus compares these Mat 24 verses to the literal Old Testament flood story.

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  

As surely as the flood occurred, so will the end times prophecies occur literally.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 

Jesus is confirming the literal warnings from Mat 24 - People in Noah's time did not take the warnings literal, just as some of us do not take the Mat 24 warnings literal.

I think I may be making myself misunderstood as to "Spirtual" and "Literal". I think it depends upon the context. My earlier point had been that I believe Revelation to be Spiritual book about Spirtual things. I do not mean that things do have have their literal counterpart, but I believe they must be understood spiritualy. The "Sea" in Rev 21 for example has it counterpart in 1Kings as the laver, which was called a Sea, for outer washings, but it must be spitually understood. When Jesus says, speaking of the temple, not one stone shall be left upon another it is eveident that is what will happen. When He say we must eat His flesh and drin His blood we understand He does not mean literally.

He told His discilple what the signs of the times would be. I believe it happened as He said.

Good point.  It was prophesied that He would be born of a virgin - that literally happened. It was prophesied that He would be born in Bethlehem - that literally happened. It was prophesied that He would be preceded by a messenger - that literally happened. It was prophesied that Jesus would come and He would be rejected by His own - that literally happened.
It was prophesied that He would be falsely accused and nailed through His hands and feet - that literally happened

A literal Kingdom was established. Jesus came to collect subjects for His Kingdom - that's us! - That literally happened.

Just as all the Old Testament prophecies were literal and literally happened - so are the New Testament prophecies literal, and, are and, will continue to literally happen.

I believe the New testamant is filled with Spiritual pictures of literal truths. I believe what Jesus said in Matthew 24 did happen, and I think if we skip 2000 years of history we may miss some things.  I believe the New Testament is a Spiritual Covenant that must be understood Spiritually.

I appreciate the discourse, and my goals have not been to persuade anyone out of their belief,  just trying to explain mine. I appreciate the good fellowship that is evident. When all is said and done I believe, and I know we agree, how we loved Him and one another is what counts.

In His Grace...
4  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 13, 2005, 11:11:47 AM

Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 

There is no possible way that every human being on earth could have been wiped out in 70 A.D.

I believe the subject is the destruction of the temple in Jersusalem. When it fell the people were so hungry they were eating shoes and belts. Had it gone longer I believe all would've died.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 

There is no account of another "Christ" performing wonders and miracles, which would cause even the "elect" to be fooled in 70 A.D.

I don't think it was possible to fool the elect, but others were fooled. Theudas is an example.

Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before. 

Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not. 

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 

Jesus drives the point home. When He returns the entire Universe will light up. There will be no doubt that it is Him. This did not happen in 70 A.D.

I believe what Jesus said happened, but when we say the universe will light up I believe we are adding meaning that is not present. That is not a cut or anything,  but just expressing my belief. I believe what happened was the great and terrible day of the Lord as  He came in judgement against the City that had rejected Him. I belive He established  for all to see that the temple, the Old Covenant, was not the wat to God.

There is an example of this in the Old Testament as well.

Isaiah 19:1 "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."

In this passage from Isaiah it is being prophesied that the Egyptians would be invaded by Assyria. Verse 1 above says the LORD shall come into Egypt, yet we understand that He did so by His judgment at the hands of Assyria.

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 

This also did not happen in 70 A.D. I really would have to struggle and stretch in order to pull a "spiritual" message from such literal descriptions as these in Mat 24.

I think the way we understand some things has much to do with the prism through which we read. Some read through a more "present to future prism", and some with a more "historical to present prism" I know that description does neither one of us justice, but I am only trying to establish history does provide events that, in my view, are evident without too much struggling.

Titus carried Roman Eagles statues into the temple area, and offered sacrifices to false god's. I believe God gave two lights  -the Sun ( the New Covenant) and the Moon (the Old Covenant), and the Sun was darkend for a time -the dark ages  - and the Moon has no light to give in the light of the Sun. That is to say we see by the New Covenant and not the Old. In 70A.D. the satrs fell from heaven and the powers of the heavens were shaken -the Jewish priesthood was destryed with the temple.

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 

Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 

Jesus Himself says He will return only "after" all these terrible events occur.

Again, I believe He came in judgement as explained above.

Now Jesus gives a very specific "end times " sign...

Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: 

The "fig tree" is Israel. Jesus is telling us that when the Jews return to Israel, which did not happen until 1948, and they gained control of the Holy City of Jerusalem in 1967, we would know the end is upon us.

Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.

Here again, Jesus says that when we see "all" these things - not some of them, but "all" of them, we will know the end is near.  If I was to stretch, and take all these literal terms and descriptions as spiritual - I would be confused as to what "the end" was a reference of. Surely not an end of evil, there's plenty of that going around. Surely not an end of persecution of the Jews - heck, there's even Christians who hate the Jews, let alone the radical Islamists, and others.

I believe Jesus kept the same subject matter throughout the passage. The end of the temple, the physical closing out of the Old Covenant that had in reality happened at Calvary, for all to see. I believe the fig tree is an allegory for whatching the signs. Many insert 1948 there, but again -in my opinion -  it has to be inserted. And I believe all these signs came to pass as I have, all too ininadequately I'm sure, tried to explain.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 

It is clear, that when taken within the context of these verses, the term "this generation" is in reference to the generation, which witnesses "all" these prophesies. These prophecies did not happen in 70 A.D. - they are happening now. We are "this generation"

With all kindness and respect, I just disagree. I believe history demonstrates the prophecies did happen within the generation to whom He said "this generation shall not pass". Believe my friend, I do not expect to be agreed with. I'm just trying to explain the position.

to continue...
5  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 13, 2005, 11:07:34 AM

Mat 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Surely you must concede that the Gospel was not preached throughout the world by 70 A.D.
I think it depends on how we define "all nations", and I promise I'm not trying to play word games here Smiley
What I mean is that we often interpret "all nations" to mean the entire globe, but I don't believe the Apostles necessarily interpret it that way. In one sense it could be said that Luke believed it happend with Peter's first gospel message at Pentecost, for he writes-

Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Certainly by the time of the writing of Colossians Paul believed that every creature under heaven had heard the gospel.

Col 1:23 "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;"

And again in Romans

Rom 16:26   "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:"

I believe the Apostles preached through out every known nation, as Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24, and fulfilled what was spoken before the destruction of the temple. I believe the destruction of the temple is so pivotal because it showed the the total departure of God from the Old Covenant, as well as established a further proof that Jesus was Who He said He for those who knew that He had foretold it.

Imagine being a Jew in those days and being told that God didn't dwell in the temple, but in His Son who came to establish a New Covenant, and that by believing in His Son He would dwell in you! They did not believe the temple could be destroyed, and surely anyone who had said such a thing had to be a false prophet. Now imagine how you would view everything else this Man had said when prophecy after prophecy was coming true! It was said that the Apostles had turned the worls upside down with their preaching of Jesus!

Indeed, it had been.

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)  

satan has not appeared standing in the Holy Place as of yet. he surely wasn't there in 70 A.D.

I don't believe the abomination of desolation is Satan. I know many do, and I respect their opinion, but when I read it I believe I would be adding Satan, or antichrist as some say, to the text since it is not there. The text here, and even more readily apparent in the parallel passage in  Mark 13, refer to the abomination as an "it" and not a person.

Josephus tell us that at the destruction of the temple sacrifices were being made to idols upon theruins of the temple.
"The Romans planted their eagles on the shapeless ruins, over against the eastern gate, offered their sacrifices to them, and proclaimed Titus Imperator with the greatest acclamations of Joy."

Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

The Jews, in  70 A.D. did not flee into the mountains. They were physically booted out of Israel and sent to the four corners of the earth.

I agree that is what happened to those Jews who did not believe Jesus. I believe many Jewish Christians escaped the city because they heeded Jesus' warning.

Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:  

Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.  

Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!  

Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

The above four verses describe an escape scenario. This did not happen in 70 A.D.

I believe it did. I believe there were those who read the signs, saw the Roman army, and got out of there.

Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 

As bad as it obviously was in 70 A.D. you would be hard pressed to deny things have gotten much, much worse. Therefore this verse was not in relation to 70 A.D. but rather to a future time when "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." 

I know there are always, sadly, inhumane things being to done to people by others, but at the same time -I believe - we can't discount what happened 70A.D. Along with with the recounting of Mary daughter of Eleazar we have this from Josephus -

"And as for those that are already dead in the war, it is reasonable we should esteem them blessed, for they are dead in defending, and not in betraying their liberty; but as to the multitude of those that are now under the Romans, who would not pity their condition? and who would not make haste to die, before he would suffer the same miseries with them? Some of them have been put upon the rack, and tortured with fire and whippings, and so died. Some have been half devoured by wild beasts, and yet have been reserved alive to be devoured by them a second time, in order to afford laughter and sport to our enemies; and such of those as are alive still are to be looked on as the most miserable, who, being so desirous of death, could not come at it. And where is now that great city, the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which vas fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins; some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the temple, and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach. Now who is there that revolves these things in his mind, and yet is able to bear the sight of the sun, though he might live out of danger? Who is there so much his country's enemy, or so unmanly, and so desirous of living, as not to repent that he is still alive? And I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner. "

to continue...
6  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 13, 2005, 11:00:32 AM
Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

This verse holds an important key. The disciples knew that Jesus would be leaving them. They also knew that His return would correspond to the "end of the world" Do you believe Jesus died in 33 A.D. then returned in 70 A.D.? Was that the "end of the world"?

I believe it was certainly the end of that age (world) wherein the people of Israel, or anyone else, could believe look to the temple -and the old covenant -as a way to God. As long as the temple stood scoffers could proclaim that Jesus wasn't the Way to God, because God dwelt in the temple. In 70 A.D. God allowed to be destroyed physically what had in reality been accomplished at Calvary. Jesus said He was the temple. The empty one was now desolate.

An example of a world passing away, but the earth remaining, can found in 2 Peter 2:4-5,

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

and 2 Peter 3:6-7, with verse 7, I believe, making reference to the coming end of the temple that stood at the time of it's writing.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

 Jesus went on to tell the disciples exactly what future generations should look for, to know when He would return.

When I read this passage it appears to me that Jesus is answering the question without moving from generation to generation. He begins in verse 2 with the destruction of the temple, is asked three questions in verse 3.

1. when this will happen,
2. what is the sign of your coming , and
3 the end of the age.

In verse 34 Jesus says this generation will not pass until ALL these things have happened. I know the preveleet thinking is that differen time frames are inserte between verses 3 and 34, but the answer in verse 34, in my understanding, ties it all back to the first questions. That is ti say it appears to be to be one train of thought without other times inserted. It seems to be that we do that, but I don't see it in the passage. I am not claiming an all encompassing unfailing understanding, but just trying to explain my position.

Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

This did not happen by 70 A.D.

Historicallly I believe it did, and it didn't take very long.

Scripture mentions Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8 who the people in Samaria proclaimed to tbe "the great power of God".

Josephus records that the time period after Jesus, and before 70 A.D, was filled with false prophets proclaiming themselves something. It appears to be a time period when Israel knew no shortage of such things.

In a specific example Josephus mentions Theudas who had convinced many to follow him to the Jordan river where he had promised to divide the water so they could cross. Of course that didn't happen, and his life ended with Felix having him beheaded.

Josephus also says "...these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them."

Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Mat 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Certainly there were wars in 70 A.D., but Jesus paints a very dire picture here which does not fit in with 70 A.D. Look at the history books, and you will not find such a scenario as what Jesus described any where near 70 A.D.
I believe the time from the crucifixion until 70A.D was frought with wars. I believe the word for Nations can also be used for race. Josephus records in Caesarea in 59 A.D. the Jews and Syrians fought for  the city, and twenty thousand Jews were killed. At Scythopolis, over 13,000 Jews were killed. This doesn't include Roman conquests throughout the time.
Earthquakes are recorded through out the time as well. Note that Jesus did not say there would be more earthquakes than ususal, but that they would happen. One is recorded in Acts 16:26 that shook the foundations of the prison, as well as others recorded in secular history -Crete 46AD, Rome 51AD, Apamaia 53AD, Laodicea 60AD, and Campania 62AD. Josephus say of an earthquake in Judea “that the constitution of the universe was confounded for the destruction of men."  
Of earthquakes at Rome Tacitus wrote, "Frequent earthquakes occurred, by which many houses were thrown down," and "twelve populous cities of Asia fell in ruins from an earthquake."

Famines occurred as well. A famine recorded by  Tacitus, Suetonius, and Eusebius, and is also said to have been severe in Jerusalem. Josephus says that many people perished for want of food.  The disciples sent aid to those in Judea (Acts 11:27-29). Tacitus speaks of a "failure in the crops, and a famine consequent thereupon." Eusebius also mentions famines during this time in Rome, Judea, and Greece. The Bible speaks of famines (Acts 11:27-29) during the reign of Claudius in 41-54 AD.

As for the seige of Jerusalem during 70 A.D - well..it becomes, as I said earlier, horrific. From Josephus, speaking of a woman called Mary daughter of Eleazar -

"Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, "My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews." With these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place. But the rebels were on her at once, smelling roasted meat, and threatening to kill her instantly if she did not produce it. She assured them she had saved them a share, and revealed the remains of her child. Seized with horror and stupefaction, they stood paralyzed at the sight. But she said, "This is my own child, and my own handiwork. Eat, for I have eaten already. Do not show yourselves weaker than a woman, or more pitiful than a mother. But if you have pious scruples, and shrink away from human sacrifice, then what I have eaten can count as your share, and I will eat what is left as well." At that they slunk away, trembling, not daring to eat, although they were reluctant to yield even this food to the mother. The whole city soon rang with the abomination. When people heard of it, they shuddered, as though they had done it themselves"

Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

This does not fit in with 70 A.D. either.

Here again it seems to be that history is filled with examples.  Of course these things happen in our modern day as well. The servant is still not greater than the Master, and we as disciples are as hated in many of our modern cultures as those to Whom Jesus specifically spoke to at the time. And I don't think the world has known a shortage of false prohets for 2000 years, including the time between the crucifixion and 70 A.D.  Paul addresses them often in his letters.

Galatians 1: 6-8 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 2:3-5 "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you"

Philippians 3:18-19 "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."

to continue...
7  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 11, 2005, 12:40:10 PM
I must say it is encouraging to read the respectful way that folks involved in this conversation are treating one another. Regardless of the view the Love of Christ is certainly being exemplified, and that alone is a pleasure all too rare whn brethren disagree even on issues of secondary importance.

And it is nice to meet you as well Reba. In reading your posts I believe you and I have much agreement in this area. I believe 70 ad was pivotal. The things that happened inside Jersusalem during the siege were horrific and, I believe, the fullfilling of Matthew 24.

I believe when Jesus said "this generation" those to whom He was speaking expected that His meaning was to them - that generation.  It certainly seems to read that way to me. Otherwise, in my opinion, we have to interject explanations that do not appear present in the text.

I covered in my previous post what I believe about Rev.20 and 21. I understand what Bronzesnake is saying, and I appreciate brother your godly attitude in presenting it. I personally don't see the 2000 year jump, but then as I said I see these scriptures in Revelation as Spirtual representations of spiritual truth, while you believe them to be literal. That's ok -I know I'm in the minority. Smiley

For example the Book of Life - a literal physical book, or descriptive of our position in the New Covenant? I believe it is descriptive. Jesus is the Life and if we believe in Him we are resurrected from our deadness in sin into the New life that He has purchased.

If I read things in the context of "this generation" being the one to whom Jesus spoke then, in my understanding, it gives to many scriptures a covenant context.

2 Peter 3:1-4 "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

In the last days of the Old Covenant there were scoffers against those who accepted Christ as Lord. Israel was looking for a super David to kick Rome out, so if He was the Christ where was the promise of His coming? All things continued, and a literal kingdom wasn't established. They did not accept Jesus, and Peter, Paul, and the others spent a good deal of time on these who did not understand the gospel.

2 Peter 3:5-7 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Willfully ignorant. Not accepting what was already in their scriptures as precursor for Their time.  The earth and sky remained yet a "world", Noah's world, had already been destroyed. That is what the Bible says -not me. A "heavens and the earth", another world, a covenant, was about to be destroyed being reserved unto fire.

2 Peter 3:8-9 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

God's timing can be whatever God wants it to be. Yet when God is specific -this generation -I think we can safely be so too. In context Peter is telling those enduring the scoffing, questioning the reality of Jesus was because to their natural eyes nothing had changed, not to worry.  They were certainly anticipating what Jesus had said -this generation - but the period in which they were enduring the scoffing was Gods mercy. The Word was being preached. Israel was hearing and being judged.

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

The DAY of the Lord, a day of judgement. And it came as Jesus said, and the elements of that world, that covenant, were destroyed. The templed was left without one stone upon another.

2 Peter 3:11-12 "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"

Now I have often found this part interesting. Peter says that their conversation and conduct could hasten the coming of that day. How? Because the gospel was being preached, and the more it was preached, the more the old covenant was exposed for what it was -finished! And the more Israel was judged as they rejected the Messiah who was the fulfillment of all that their covenant looked to. And before that generation passed away the physical aspects of that covenant suffered the fate that the covenant itself experienced on crucifixion day - they were dissolved.

2 Peter 3:13-14 "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

Amen - We are not looking backward to covenant of animal sacrifices, and other works -but ever forward into this New Covenant of Life. Because of this be found of Him in peace. Trust in Him.

2 Peter 3:15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

On the surface I think you have to wonder when did Paul ever speak of these things? He certainly did not use a lot of the terminology -heavens melting with a fervent heat and so forth, but then when you understand that Peter is talking about the covenants, why that is exactly what Paul talked about! Romans, Galatians, and not least of all 2 Cor 3 - the New Covenant! Old things are passed away and behold all things are made new!

Just some thoughts for consideration. Offered not so much to persuade, to offer a biblical basis for this point of view.

My compliments again on the kind spirit exhibited.

In His Grace...
8  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 09, 2005, 02:08:49 PM

John is speaking about the same thing that Paul speaks of so often -the changing of the covenants. The Old Covenant is passed away being fulfilled in Christ.

Another confirmation is found in the latter part of the verse "there was no more sea". Thinking naturally we would assume John means there is no large body of water, but spiritually speaking, and allowing the scriptures to interpret themselves, I believe the true nature of the sea is more readily found in 1Kings 7. The chapter is about the furnishings of the temple (obviously Old Covenant) in Jerusalem. We read in verses 23-25– "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward"  

The "sea" in the temple was for outer washings so those doing service could cleanse themselves before going into the presence of God. What is being revealed in John’s vision, consistently considering scripture, is there is no need for a "sea" in this New Covenant! It is Jesus who has cleansed us, and by His grace washed us from sin! We cannot cleanse ourselves! There is no more "sea" because this is not a covenant of works, but a covenant grace through faith! The Lord God Himself does the cleansing, and anything else is an insult to the Spirit of Grace!

Rev 21: 2 "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

This is the same as Hebrews 12:22 – we in the New Covenant, the church, are the New Jerusalem that John is revealing, that needs no "sea".

Rev 21:3 "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God"

This is the relationship that each Christian has with God. God IS in with us, and He DOES dwell in us. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Corinthians 3:16

Rev 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

The former things, the Old Covenant, have passed away. No more tears and crying as men try to justify themselves with the weight of rules and regulations from the Law of Moses. No sorrow from never being good enough, no pain of laboring under a law that never justified, or saved a soul. The Old Covenant is no longer binding – rejoice in the grace of our God! The Law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ!

Rev 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful"

Old things, the Covenant of works, are passed away! All things are made new in Jesus!

Rev 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

It is done! The law satisfied, and completed by the living Christ! "It is finished" John 19:30.  So that now "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." John 7:38.
Rev 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son"

We only overcome by faith in Christ! He is our God, and we are His children purchased with His own Blood! Trusting in our works, or the works of the Old Covenant, is to be outside the Grace of God. This I believe is what is being revealed in the Revelation of Jesus Christ – He is God and there is no way to eternal life but through Him.

I believe it is the same in Revelation 20. The white throne is not something to come but, as is Revelation 21, descriptive of something that is.

Rev 20:11 "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

Heaven, the first heaven -the Old Covenant, and earth, those who trusted in it, are fled away from Him. There is no place for the Old Covenant, or anyone who would approach God by works, in the New Covenant.

The throne of God is in our hearts –we are the temple of God. Where He is Holy.

Rev 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

All stand before God. As the Book of Life is where the names of believers are written by virtue of the New Covenant, it is the Old Covenant where men are judged according to their works. As The Book of Life is the New Covenant, it is consistent then that the "books" are the law and the prophets – the Old Covenant.

Rev 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works"

Another reference to the Old Covenant as the "Sea" –the system of works – along with death and hell – the state or place of those with out Christ – give up the dead where they are judged according to their works.

Rev 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Judgment is all that awaits those would be justified by the works of the Law.

Rev 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Only those who justified by Christ, and not works, walk in Life!

As I said earlier, eschatology isn’t my strongest area. I don’t have all the answers, and can’t pretend to have unraveled Revelation anymore than anyone else. I do understand God’s grace, and that most of the New Testament is dealing with the Covenant’s, and the primacy of the New over the Old.  It is my opinion this extends into the book of Revelation as well.

I am not able to be on the board as often as I would like, and I don't expect to be much agreed with on this topic, but I hope to have added a thoughtful post.

In His Grace
9  Theology / General Theology / Re:Rapture on: August 09, 2005, 01:50:03 PM
I have been reading through this interesting topic today. It has been a while since I have been here, but it is good to read again the thoughtful posts of Blackeyedpeas and Bronzesnake as well as the others.

Since I am rarely able to make it up here I have considered not posting on this subject at all as my somewhat preterist opinion differs with others I have come to respect through their manner and godly attitudes. Allow me to say with all sincerity that I would rather remain completely silent on this topic then to cause anyone to disregard anything I have said on essential matters -God's everlasting grace in Christ - because of a differing view on the Rapture, which I consider secondary. My posts are not given with the intent of causing anger. If we disagree on eschatology, I assure you we agree that Christ is Lord, and there is no Way but Him. Much of my post is from a conversation I had recently at my church.

I admit freely that Eschatology is not my "forte’". I know for some it is a very important issue. In the end I find, for me, the thing that matters isn't my eschatological views so much, but do I have a relationship with the Lord my God through Jesus Christ? I can be wrong about eschatology -I must not be wrong  about trusting Jesus. I do not say that to minimize those to whom eschatology, whatever the view, is of prime importance. I am only being honest about my own simple understanding.

Much, not all, of what we believe about eschatology is taken from the book of revelation. The book of Revelation is, to say the least, a difficult book. The question for many is how literally do we take it? In my opinion -not very, at least not in the sense that events or places are described as they actually are, but rather events and places are used as descriptive of Spiritual truths -most specifically as it concerns the New Covenant.

Now of course the question becomes by what authority would this be said?

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." Revelation 1:1-3

The "revealing" of Jesus to show things that must shortly (a distinct time frame) come to pass was given to John in the words of this prophecy for the time was "at hand". Notice the word "signify".  The Revelation was signified by the following vision, or series of visions, and was written down as John was instructed in 1:11, "What thou seest, write in a book."

So were the visions literal or spiritual? I believe they were spiritual. The New Covenant is spiritual. God is Spirit, Jesus said the words that I speak they are Spirit and they are Life. The first Adam was earthly; the second Adam is the Lord from Heaven. Jesus told Nicodemus that if he didn't understand when He spoke to him of earthly things how would he understand if He spoke to him of heavenly things. I believe Revelation is speaking to us symbolically of heavenly things.

I think most would agree there is not a literal woman out in space clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. Most would agree there is no literal seven headed, ten horned, crowned beast somewhere out in the sea awaiting for the appropriate time to make itself known. Most accept these as spiritual illustrations. Being full of spiritual illustrations explaining spiritual truths I accept the entire book as spiritual, and often best understood in light of the epistles, or other books of the Bible.

For example the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 3:12  "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

Revelation 21: 1-4 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Hebrews 12:22-24 "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

John and the writer of Hebrews are speaking of the same thing; only the language in Hebrews is not from the vision that John was given. Notice the present tense of his wording -ye are come to the heavenly Jerusalem. The writer is not looking for it in the distance; he sees it as a present reality. How? By the blood of Jesus!

The heavenly Jerusalem is not seen as a literal city of brick and mortar, or literal gold for that matter, but rather the writer sees the Heavenly Jerusalem as the place that God’s people now dwell in Christ - in the New Covenant! As literal, or "natural" Jerusalem was the earthly place of residency for the priesthood in the Old Covenant, and so corresponds to that covenant, so now do we as a "royal priesthood" (1Peter 2:9) dwell in the everlasting Covenant that Jesus established by His Cross!

Establishing again that we are now, and not later, seated in heavenly places Paul said in Ephesians 2: 4-6, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

Notice the wording again is not that God will raise us up so that we will one day sit in heavenly places, but that He has (or hath) -past tense - already done these things. So what are these Heavenly places? Paul is using the same illustration that was given in Hebrews, and so establishing again the heavenly place, or heavenly Jerusalem as the writer of Hebrews called it, is the New Covenant. This is where we live.

Can this be demonstrated in Revelation? I believe it can if we remain consistent in the definitions the Bible writers used. Being consistent it would follow that what the New Jerusalem is in one book (those who dwell in the New Covenant), it must also be in another. Keeping this in mind I would like to take a look at a few scriptures again.

Rev 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

If the new heaven, or New Jerusalem, is the New Covenant in Ephesians, and Hebrews, then what John’s Revelation is revealing to us is also about the Covenants.

to be continued...
10  Entertainment / Politics and Political Issues / Re:Election 2004! on: October 26, 2004, 11:21:37 AM
Truth is that if Christians would simply VOTE their morality, their character, the election wouldn't even be close. Abortion, homosexuality, etc, should be enough for Christians to vote for whatever candidate takes the stand that lines up biblically with these issues.

Far too many Christians vote for their political party instead of asking themselves why? How? How do Christians support that which God despises? It is not a political party that deserves a Christian's allegiance, but what saith the Lord our God! Not to mention the Christians who won't vote; who live in this country that God has blessed with FREEDOM, where they can make a difference, and refuse to make a Godly stand   Cry

In this country not voting for the right is voting for the wrong! Something like 38 million Christians didn't vote in 2000 - another election that should not have been close.

Why does the USA have the moral problems it does today? Because evil men out number the good? NO! Because Christians, again and again, have been willing to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage; to sell out what is right for a political party that promises economic prosperity while tearing at the righteous foundation that we as Christians say we stand on.

I firmly believe that if Christians would stand united then both political party's would return to the morality of our fore-fathers. If the party that constantly stands opposed to Godliness were to realize that they would never again gain power without being moral I am convinced they would suddenly find it expedient to be moral. Once upon a time political parties disagreed simply on economic matters and the like, but had a shared morality. That day has passed.

If only Christians would stand united. But they didn't in the 60's and prayer in schools is gone. They didn't in the 70's and now we have legalized abortion. They didn't in the 80's and 90's and now homosexual civil unions, even marriage, is seriously discussed. Will Christians unite on Nov 2, 2004?

I won't hold my breath. Too many will vote for the devil and call it for "the working man".

I pray God has mercy on us again.
11  Entertainment / Music / Re:"Old School" Christian Music? on: April 16, 2004, 12:19:49 PM
Hope and Faith - The band that Kerry Livgren, the guitar player and writer of the majority of Kansas songs, formed along with the Dave Hope who was the bass player for Kansas, is called "AD". They are one my favorites too, along with Petra, REZ, Deagarmo & Key, and others mentioned here.

This Mother's Day evening Greg X. Volz, the former lead singer for Petra, will be at our Church here in Louisville Ky. We are very excited!
12  Theology / Apologetics / Re:Secure on: January 15, 2004, 10:47:21 PM

While I'm glad that you enjoyed the story about my daughter I am so sorry for the anguish expressed in your post.

I don't want to simply give pat answers as I know your lonliness is real, but I would encourage you that 55 is not too old to find and marry someone special and share the rest of your life with. While I know it may be challenging, I would not doubt the reward. Please, if you are not already, be involved in bible studies or other activities ( movie nights, game nights, etc..) with a church group that will bring you in further fellowship with someone that God may have waiting for that certain someone.

I hope to read in a future post that God has given you and someone else to each other to, as Ecc. says, keep warm in God's ever loving embrace.

In His Grace..
13  Theology / Apologetics / Secure on: January 14, 2004, 10:37:51 AM
There are moments that are frozen in the mind.
Moments joyous in the happening and heart breaking in their brevity at the same time.  If one could live there forever you would do it in a heartbeat.
For me many of those moments have happened since I was married 10 years ago, and contain the hugs of our children, their laughter, and a good night kiss.

My seven-year-old daughter Rachel provided such a moment recently.

She has her own bedclothes, but many times she likes to sleep in her mother’s gowns or her big brother’s old tee shirts because they are loose and comfortable on her. I had just gotten her out of the shower and, while she stood by wrapped in her towel, I was going through fresh laundry trying to find something that she would like to wear. It was one of those times when she wanted to wear none of the clothes that I suggested.

Finally, I lifted from the basket a shirt of mine that would drape over her and reach to her feet. I asked if she would like to wear that?

She took my shirt into her hands and buried her face into it and inhaled deeply.

“Yes”, she said thoughtfully and in a soft voice. “It smells like you”.

At such moments I am speechless.  Teary eyes and a gentle hug are the only response I have before such obvious and innocent love from this child who now has, and always will have, my heart.

How I long for the scent of my God.  How I love knowing the presence of my Father; to feel the safety and comfort of being wrapped in Him.

How I desire to be further clothed upon.

“I will never leave you, nor forsake you” He said.

Can we be secure in God?


Gabriel Hoskins
14  Entertainment / Music / Re:Anyone Like Uriah Heap? on: November 07, 2003, 06:47:03 PM
I too liked Stryper, but I assumed I was in enough trouble already! (LOL)

I saw them on the "Soldier's Under Command" tour and Michael Sweet's newest , "Truth", is excellent! I met Michael Sweet at a Family Bookstore for a CD signing on his first solo cd. He seems like a nice guy.

I've seen Petra 5 times, including John Schlitt's first concert with them in Evansville Indiana on the first night of the "Back To The Street" tour.

The REZ "Hostage" album was so well played that my cassette tape broke! As a matter of fact I pretty much liked all that you mentioned.

Rock on indeed!
15  Entertainment / Music / Re:Anyone Like Uriah Heap? on: November 07, 2003, 11:46:07 AM
I just know I'm going to get in trouble with this, and it probably has more to do with nostalgia than anything else, but.. uh  -just now and then- does anyone else listen to Kiss or Van Halen? I know, I know..And I don't mean buy into the blood spitting theatrics or anything like that, but just the urge to hear something LOUD.

Don't get me wrong - my music of choice is Christian and as far as I'm concerned give me some good Petra, Keith Green, Rez, or Degarmo & Key most any day. I also listen to anything from Bluegrass to Classical except for rap, but just every now and then I'll get "I Was Made for Loving You" or "Rock and Roll All Nite", or "Dance the Night Away" in my head.

As I said, I'll probably regret that post -but don't completely expel me! I don't post that often and most of them don't generate responses anyway!

Ok..now where did I put my copy of REZ's "Between Heaven and Hell"?
Pages: [1] 2 3

More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs

Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media