Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Private

#394797 Thank You

Posted by ThePilgrim on Yesterday, 02:07 PM

I can believe they quote those in your list.  I believe they think those in the list were or are intelligent human beings.  But does that equate to being thankful?

Leftists only use the writings or sayings of the people mentioned to excuse their actions, to justify themselves.  

Thankful?  No, not really.  Being thankful requires the ability to think beyond oneself . . . . the ability to believe that people can do something for someone else without it benefitting themselves . . . . selflessness.

#394846 Pilgrims & Baptists: The Little Known Connection

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 08:35 PM

Beware the sly attempt to of this article to make Baptists into protestants.

#394793 Way Of Life - Frank Garlock's Warning Against Vocal Sliding

Posted by Ukulelemike on Yesterday, 01:40 PM

Totally agree with you, Mike, but I have to admit it's a whole lot easier to listen to the words if the voice is pleasant...I've sat through some specials where the singer(s) couldn't carry a tune in a bucket making it very painful to listen even though the words were great.

Yes, there's definitely a fine line to be drawn here. Even in the OT, it was those skilled in making music that played at the temple, while the entire congregation sang together in praise. In my church, my wife and I are it, which is why we don't do much special music: it seems like "the Pastor Mike Show", and I try to stay away from that.

#394770 ...honour The King,

Posted by ThePilgrim on Yesterday, 11:51 AM


#394721 ...honour The King,

Posted by ThePilgrim on Yesterday, 08:49 AM

Why are the men (sometimes called The Founding Fathers) who instigated the rebellion against the God ordained power of King George such popular men in the eyes of American Christians?  Was it because there rebelion against God's appointed authority over them one somehow differernt than the God appointed authority over our reighning authorities?  I get so confused when I listen to the arguements in favor of never standing up to evil because the evil is believed to be God's will.  So confused.  

#394674 The Grand Jury

Posted by John81 on 25 November 2014 - 06:40 PM

Those calling the shots among the black "protestors" had already announced they were going to "protest" no matter the outcome. Yet a chief of police down there stated that he didn't forsee anything like last night happening. Well, considering virtually everyone else did, if he didn't then he needs to be replaced.


Considering all the evidence the Grand Jury had access to, which we now have, it seems this is a pretty clear case. The fact black agitators don't care about the evidence or facts is nothing new. To them, that's a "white thing" and used to "keep the black man down".

#394609 Matthew 24

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 24 November 2014 - 11:36 PM

An answer to post #51 please?


[  Just to be clear and not get too far off topic - what verse or verses say that the "70th week" is the "Tribulation"?  ] :th_popout: 


It doesn't say - "the seventieth week is the Tribulation", but it does definitely indicate that it is.


Daniel 9:24-27
  24   Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
  25   Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks(7 weeks), and threescore and two weeks(62 weeks): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
  26   And after threescore and two weeks(same 62 weeks as before) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
  27   And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week(1 week): and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


So, you have 69 weeks that have been accounted for in history. There is one week left over (verse 27) that hasn't happened yet...the 70th week. Christ referred to this very week as a future event (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 21:20). The "abomination of desolation" that Christ spoke of hasn't happened yet, nor has any of the other things mentioned in Daniel 9:27. Add to that, the beginning of the prophecy (Daniel 9:24) tells several things that will happen to FULFILL the 70 weeks...so, the 70th week, and all that is indicated by it, is still future and fits in with the description of the Tribulation period.


Now, I understand the Preterist/Partial-Preterist view of Daniel 9:24 and the remainder of the prophecy. So, I was just giving you the answer to your question.


It's there...for all to see...the 70th week will be the Tribulation period. It may not use the words that you asked in your question, but it's there. 


I don't mean this to be rude, but I hope it might help you understand where those of us who hold to a literal interpretation of God's word are coming from. Just as you can't see (?) the 70th week being the Tribulation, we can't see the spiritualization that Preterists/Partial-Preterists interpret scripture by. Spiritualizing literal events doesn't make a lick of sense to me.


My view is: I serve a real, living, and literal God...who gave us a real, living, and literal word...to be followed literally.


But no worries here...you can to believe as you wish. I'll not argue over it...just answering your question.  :yeah:

#394613 Matthew 24

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 25 November 2014 - 12:38 AM

Holy is an adjective, it isn't expressed as singular or plural, it is modifying a noun or pronoun that would express number.


Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


Holy is a masculine noun here. The capital H kind of gives it away.


קוֹדֶשׁ qodesh (ko'-desh) n-m <-- (n-m = noun-masculine)


I don't know how you feel about referencing Hebrew and Greek, but there it is.

#394544 Matthew 24

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 24 November 2014 - 04:23 PM

Except "holies" isn't a word, in English.


Just posting this to show that "holies" is a word...in English...and it's a noun.


Source - http://dictionary.re...owse/holies?s=t


adjective, holier, holiest.
1. specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated:
holy ground.

2. dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion:
a holy man.

3. saintly; godly; pious; devout:
a holy life.

4. having a spiritually pure quality:
a holy love.

5. entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred:
a holy relic.

6. religious:
holy rites.

7. inspiring fear, awe, or grave distress:
The director, when angry, is a holy terror.


noun, plural holies.
8. a place of worship; sacred place; sanctuary.

#394536 My Son....

Posted by WellWithMySoul on 24 November 2014 - 02:58 PM

Indeed...I shall continue to pray for your son with great first-hand understanding.  My youngest son returned from deployment to Afgh. in October.  All four of our kiddos have been military, with

the two youngest being career (only about 6 yrs left to retire)....and we have gone thru 7 deployments between them.  It's hard, and especially hard on moms.  It's just a part of our "make up" to be

protective of our children, and so yes...I will be praying for you and your son.

#394519 Way Of Life - Hating The Rapture

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 24 November 2014 - 11:05 AM

For what, paying attention in 5th grade English?

But no shame on some woman, for trying to argue doctrine with men?

No wonder our churches are a mess.


No...shame on you for your cutting and derogatory remarks that you make toward others. As a man, you choose to be part of this forum...a forum with female moderators. It's your choice. Shame on you...as a man, you should be setting an example of how to act toward others and how to treat a lady. Well, you are setting an example, and it's not very Christ-like.

#394395 A Response To Brother "prophet1"

Posted by Pastor Scott Markle on 23 November 2014 - 02:49 PM

First, to the moderators I must acknowledge that I had no real clue where best to place this thread.  If it is in the wrong place, I am more than willing for a correction to be made.


Second, to all I give an explanation for this thread.  In the thread on Matthew 24, I employed the phrase "holy of holies" in one of my postings.  In response to this, Brother "Prophet1" presented the following reproof --


Holy is an adjective.

There can be no such thing as "Holies".

Try using the Scripture, instead of parroting men.

The Scripture calls it the "Most Holy Place".

The Scripture doesn't use the word "rapture", which in English is an abstract and not a concrete noun, so it couldn't possibly be the name of an event.
In fact, by definition, rapture is imagined.

Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is one of them.

You've dashed your foot against a stumbling stone, and fallen into Rome's mire, Brother. 

Of course, I'll be ridiculed and chided for this post, but, no matter.

The children of Light are watching,
His sheep hear His voice. 


It is my intention to provide a response to this reproof against me by Brother "Prophet1."  However, I did not wish to hijack the other thread and thereby to turn it aside from its primary focus upon Matthew 24.  Thus I am presenting my response in a new thread posting.


Third, to Brother "Prophet1" I would first present my intention with this posting -- (1) to acknowledge a fault, (2) to present a defense, and (3) to return a reproof.


1.  My acknowledgement of fault -- I must acknowledge that in the King James translation the phrase "holy of holies" is never employed.  Furthermore, I must acknowledge that the King James translation does indeed employ the phrase "the most holy place" for the innermost holy place of tabernacle/temple.  Therefore, I will acknowledge that for the sake of Biblical precision and Biblical understanding, it would have been better that I employed the phrase "the most holy place;" and I shall pursue such a change in the future.  (However, I do also recognize the truth of Brother "Beameup's" posting #45 concerning the Hebrew as God the Holy Spirit originally moved the Old Testament writers to communicate.  As such, I recognize that in Hebrew an adjective can be used as a substantive (in the place of a noun), and that the doubling of the Hebrew adjective for "holy" would present such a meaning as "the holy place of holy places."  With this understanding in mind, I am unwilling to acknowledge any doctrinal error on my part; and thus I am unwilling to acknowledge any sin as having been committed.)


2.  My presentation of defense -- You declared that there is no such thing in the English language as the noun "holies."  This is not strictly accurate.  In the Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th edition, the word "holy" includes the following within its definition presentation -- "n., pl. --lies a holy thing or place."


3.  My return of reproof -- In your reproof against me, you made the following statement, "Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is [are] one of them."  Now, the doctrinal truth concerning Satan certainly is a matter of Biblical doctrine.  Yet in God's Holy Word there is no indication whatsoever that Satan has a "bejeweled sleeve."  In fact, the word "bejeweled" is not found anywhere whatsoever throughout the entirety of the King James translation.  Furthermore, in God's Holy Word there is no indication whatsoever that Satan even has sleeves.  In fact, the word "sleeve" is not found anywhere whatsoever throughout the entirety of the King James translation.  Therefore, as my return of reproof, I shall "parrot" a reproof that I recently encountered, "Try using Scripture.  Satan has more than one trick . . . , and extra-Biblical terms is [are] one of them."  Indeed, the thrust for this return of reproof is not that I myself actually believe it is an inherent sin to employ doctrinal terms that are not strictly found in the King James translation.  Rather, the thrust for this return of reproof is that if you intend to reprove others on the ground of this position, I would counsel you to remain strictly consistent in your own communication, lest your contradiction to yourself create damage to your credibility.



(Edited to correct typographical errors.)

#394279 My Son....

Posted by Rosie on 22 November 2014 - 11:06 AM

I will pray for him

#394217 My Son....

Posted by Jim_Alaska on 21 November 2014 - 10:19 PM

I'll take this to the Lord in prayer HC. Thanks for letting us know.

#394205 My Son....

Posted by John81 on 21 November 2014 - 08:45 PM

Praying...and adding this to my prayer list.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500