Jump to content

rancher824

Member Since 22 Aug 2007
Offline Last Active Oct 15 2014 09:15 PM
-----

#353551 Wowzers! Heat/air Services Make A Killing!

Posted by rancher824 on 18 December 2013 - 12:51 AM

Did the 1200.00 just include the tear out and dehumidifier? Or did it include putting things back together? Such as coming back and putting the wood floor back down. 1200.00 sounds high if they are going to stop when they pick up the dehumidifier, but if they are putting the floor back together it sounds about right. Especially if he is like me and tries to include some of the might go wrongs in an estimate rather than have a bad surprise at the end for the customer. I just finished a cabinet job that I estimated between 10,000 and 11,000. The total ended up just shy of 9,000 and I had a very surprised but happy customer. Would much rather happy surprised than mad at the end of the day.




#340439 Pastor’S Salary Cap

Posted by rancher824 on 21 August 2013 - 12:49 PM

That verse is not speaking of a salary.  Can't be, for we find the same word in the next chapter of the epistle:

1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

If honor in 1 Timothy 5 means salary, then you need to be consistent and pay your boss that you work for instead of him paying you.  Bet you wouldn't even consider that, would you?

actually 1 Tim 6:1 does not prove your point. As a servant (slave) under the yoke (of bondage(a slave)), everything that one might bring in as a salary would be his masters!!! Even as a worker, I have heard of men not liking it that the boss was making a profit off of their labor. But without the boss there would be no job/income for the worker. So that verse on its own does not define the word honor.




#336917 Christ In The Old Testament

Posted by rancher824 on 20 July 2013 - 07:03 AM

Luke 1:6, And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 

 

Luke 1 is still OT.

 

But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one!

 

Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. 

 

For the good brethren that say righteousness under he law is the same as it is under grace don't know what they're saying. 

 

Duet. 6:25, and it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

That's not why you are righteous. 

 

Under NT grace, not by works of righteousness which we have done...

 

But that is not the case in the OT where there was no new birth. In the OT salvation is a combination of personal faith in what God told that man to do and the works are the proof of his belief (Abraham was justified by works! - say James)

 

Ever notice Job was called perfect and upright? That's the Holy Spirit commenting on the righteousness of Job. Paul would tell you that he was counting on his own righteous standing to be right with God, as a Jew. Philippians 3 he says that he has more confidence than other men, and that as touching righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 

Just like Zacharias and Elizabeth. 

 

That's not NT salvation. 

NT salvation is the righteousness of God without the law, .... but to him that worketh not, but beleiveth.... his faith is counted for righteousness...

 

So you have 2 groups of folks. Some teach that you have to do something right now to get saved, and there are those that say, NO!! but fail to rightly divide when it comes to OT, tribulation, the millennium. 

 

Ever wonder why the word faith only appears 2 times in the OT??

 

The rich young ruler comes up to Jesus, says Good master, WHAT GOOD THING shall I do, that I MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? 

And Jesus says, believe on the me and you;ll be saved! Help yourself, it's a free gift!

 

Uhmmm.... no, he didn't say that did he? He didn't quote Ephesians 2:8-9. 

 

Jesus said, IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (Matthew 19)

The young man says he has and is, and Jesus never contradicts him. In fact Jesus says, be perfect, and have treasure in heaven. No plan of NT salvation. 

 

The practical applications are not lost on me, so don't sermonize the passage, just read it and believe it. The practical application does not annul the doctrine of what Jesus said. 

 

What is it that changes everything between Luke 1, Matthew 19, Romans 4, Philippians 3 is this. The vicarious atonement of Jesus for our sin and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the New Birth. 

The OT has no sacrifices to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4), and no one was ever regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

 

God accepted the good works of a man who believed Him UNTIL the man's sins were paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross. 

 

ROMANS 3:25

 

Did that avoid the question? Or are you going to answer with as much scripture? 

 

God bless, 

calvary

 

 

Jesus said, IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (Matthew 19)

The young man says he has and is, and Jesus never contradicts him. In fact Jesus says, be perfect, and have treasure in heaven. No plan of NT salvation. 

 

This statement really bothered me. For it is twisting the passage way out of shape. You say Jesus NEVER contradicts him??? I see a very vivid contradiction. Lets look at the passage. I know I know, you said not to sermonize the passage, but it is a free country. First off the young man asked what good thing can I do. Now as Jerry posted, the blood of bulls and goats took away no sins. So him sacrificing could not save him. So what good thing could he do? Let's look at Jesus for a moment. When was he saved??? Oh wait a minute, he did not need to be saved. Why? Because he was perfect, never once did he break the law of God. He was sinless. What good thing did he do? He lived a perfect sinless life. Now back to the young man. He wants to get to eternal life on his own merit. He does not come to Jesus looking for salvation with a broken heart about sin. He comes in pride of what "I" can do. So Jesus answers him in accordance to his question. What can I do. So he tells him to do the same thing Jesus had, and was doing. Live a perfect sinless life. Keep the commandments. So the young man asks which of the commandments. This says that he was seeing himself as being perfect, for he wants Jesus to try to point out a flaw in him. Kind of like if you think I don't already keep them, point out one place I have failed. So Jesus names a few. Mat 19:18  He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man replies I have kept ALL these from my youth up. He sees himself as living a perfect life. Now as a side note, how many can say they have always honored their parents?? I cannot. I can say that my children do not, and they are only 2 and 4. I had a big argument with my 4 year old about whether her mother was her boss BEFORE she was 1. She would agree that I was her boss (that isn't always the case now) but would not give in that mommy was. After several minutes, she finally gave in. I do not believe for 1 minute that this young man always honored his parents. But he was so proud of his righteousness saving him, he could not see his flaws. So Jesus told him to sell what he had and give it to the poor. Why??? To show he did not live a perfect life. He did not keep the law in it's entirety. What laws did he break?? Well, I am not the judge, God is. But I can see some possibilities. It made him sad, because he had great possessions. He loved his fortune more than he loved the God who gave it to him. He had made it into an idol.

If he truely loved his neighbor as himself as he said he did, would he keep great treasures while seeing his neighbor live on the street hungry?? Or did he love himself so much more than he loved his neighbor that he did not care if his neighbor starved to death while he had a great feast and waisted much food for the fun of it????

  Did Jesus contradict him???? Very definitely.

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

No one lived good enough to bring themselves before a holy and righteous God besides Jesus who is God in the flesh.




#335570 Woman Declared 'dead' Awakens Just Before Doctors Harvest Her Organs

Posted by rancher824 on 09 July 2013 - 08:20 PM

They wanted us to sign so they could harvest my mothers organs in March of 2004 after she suffered a very major stroke. They said she was brain dead and could not function without the machines. I had a friend get mad at me for saying no. We kept her on the machines a week, then telling them it was time to turn the machines off and let her go (without organ donation) Today, Mom plays the piano, and plays games on her computer. She will never be the self sufficient person she once was, but she is alive!!! She loves to tell about her stroke to strangers and that God had things for her in mind.




#314144 Marriage Ceremony

Posted by rancher824 on 03 December 2012 - 06:22 AM

This is a place I feel pastors are beginning to feel they can add to the authority that the scriptures give them, or even to the church.Can anyone give me one example of a marriage that Jesus preformed? How about Peter, Paul, James, John or any of the church leaders in the Bible? No it is not there. The church did not get into marriage until I believe it was the counsel of Trent if memory serves correctly. Now what was the counsel of Trent? It was RCC deciding what they believe. It was not Baptist or our forfathers. Now if we look at the book of Ruth we find Boaz going to the gate (sanhedrin court) to take care of the legalities so that he could marry Ruth. Note also that the Bible refers mother in law, father in law, daughter in law. There is a legality in marriage.


#311617 Art Thou A Roman-Are You An American?

Posted by rancher824 on 31 October 2012 - 06:14 AM

Have you read the biographies of the kings of Israel? How many times did God say of the northern and southern tribes which kings followed God and which kings were did evil in the sight of the Lord? There IS such a thing as a righteous king. "If a ruler hearkeneth to lies, all his servants are wicked" and "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people". There are therefore righteous kings that cause righteousness over a kingdom.
And you keep quoting stewardship as if that means we are responsible for this government. "It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful". That is faithfulness to in our obligations TO HIM. I Peter 4:10.
You can't find one place in the Bible where "God gave us the responsibility of choosing those who are our servant-leaders". First of all, when the Bible was written, the governments were KINGDOMS, there was no voting process. KIngdoms were by succession not a democratic vote with the beginning of the Hebrew kingdom being appointed by God through Samuel.
Secondly, you must not know very much about how our voting system actually works. The districts are gerrymandered. You can have a majority of Republican votes in one district with more of the popular vote than another district and still lose the electoral vote. The voting process is totally rigged. Why do you think every four years we have a democratic president and a Republican house?? How does that happen? If the nation thought a democrat was the best person for the job, don't you think they would have voted for a democratic house and senate as well?? It's called "False Dichotemy". BOTH PARTIES have the same globalist agenda, your vote DOES NOT MATTER, the powers behind closed doors already have their leader chosen, and he is nothing more than a face to appease the people so they don't revolt while they slow roast the population in preparation for a new world order.

And yeah, you're right, masonry was different then than it is today, they were more blatant back then in killing people, now they are a little more subtle about it (Waco killing 17 unarmed women and children, killing Randy Weavers unarmed wife and 11 month old baby, killing Michael Cooper for speaking out against the Illuminati, killing the witnesses to Bill Clinton's White Water trial, killing Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his trial by a man dying of cancer-Jack Ruby. Of course that wasn't a conspiracy. It was a "magic bullet" that Lee Harvey, only a marksman pulled off by firing 3 shots in 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle at a moving target through trees that even three EXPERTS couldn't pull off on STATIONARY targets. And of course, JFK was shot the same week he refused to sign a bill proposed by Rockefeller regarding the Fed Reserve and he was warned what would happen if he didn't sign it). Yeah, I've studied freemasonry quite a bit, from the jesuits to Adam Weishaupt all the way down to the current president and presidential candidate (ALL high ranking Mormons are 33d masons, it's part of the ritual).

Freemasonry was just as evil in Washington's day as it is today, and every single piece of this nation's memorabilia was founded on it. I have studied freemasonry and the cults and occult for over 25 years, very familiar with it.

And yes, America is the arm of the RCC, who do you think started masonry? George Washington was brought into masonry by a jesuit priest and it was a jesuit priest that gave him his last rites and his top advisor, Hugh Mercer, was a Roman Catholic and Freemason. The entire body of architectures and designers that met with George ADMITTED that this country will be the arm that the Roman church uses to regain it's dominance.

Consider this: every time the media needs a religious representative, who do they go to? You ALWAYS see that little black suit and white collar "father". The name of our country is a MARY ca, named after Amerigo Vaspucci who was a DEVOUT ROMAN CATHOLIC. The founding of the land, by Christopher Columbus, sent from Franz and Elizabeth: CATHOLICS. Our nations capitol was founded in the most dominated Catholic state in the country, and is called MARY LAND. Our entire legal system is based on pax romana, why do you think lawyers have to take a course in LATIN (the language or ROME). On the back of your one dollar bill are all the masonic signs with new world order written under the pyramid IN LATIN with the date the Illuminati was founded IN ROMAN NUMERALS.

Those that haven't taken time to study these issues and just pass it off as non sense are in for a huge surprise

Actually, King David (a man after God's own heart) was a murderer and adulterer. He had a child with another mans wife and had the man killed to try and cover it up. Now my question is, how many would vote for David if he was running for president and how many would say I cannot vote for him because that would be voting for evil???


#306444 Real Citizenship

Posted by rancher824 on 27 August 2012 - 10:46 PM

Paul's love for Israel was in wanting them saved. Paul didn't act upon temporal nationalistic pride. The love Paul had for Israel was the same he had for the Gentiles, he wanted to see them won for Christ. Paul was concerned about their eternal souls, not about temporal nationalism.

Well I gave verses that said he felt that way for national Israel. Can you give verses that say he felt the same for the Gentiles? He was willing to give his life to see them saved, but where does he say he was willing to give his soul for the gentiles?


#306315 Real Citizenship

Posted by rancher824 on 26 August 2012 - 09:08 PM

But Paul did love his nation according to the flesh, Israel. There is nothing wrong with a christian loving their country enough to die for her. They should be praying for the salvation of those around them in their nation. Paul loved national Israel enough he was not only willing to give his life for her, he was willing to give his soul for her salvation. Now if it was wrong to love a country enough to die for it, would Paul not have been in the wrong for being willing to give his soul? He was called to the gentiles, yet he did not make the statement about the gentiles. He did not make it about mankind. He made it about national Israel.

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.


#305540 To Fight, Or Not To Fight? That Is The Question.

Posted by rancher824 on 20 August 2012 - 05:46 AM

If a person has doubt about being a soldier, them He should not.

Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


I did not ask about a person having doubt. I asked is it a sin for a christian to be a soldier, period. I used the examples of a stripper and a bartender to get that picture across. Are you trying not to actually answer for some reason. You seem to be evading the question. Is it that hard of a question?


#305444 Israel Warns Of Monthlong War After Possible Strike On Iran's Nuclear Pro...

Posted by rancher824 on 18 August 2012 - 02:25 PM

Go back and look who the post was a reply, directed to, anyone with comprehensions skills can tell who it was meant for. The reply was to me, & he used the word, "You." Not you all, not y'all.

Thank you. I was speaking in general terms not specifically.

I'm pretty sure that if someone broke into Jerry's home and started to rape his wife right in front of him he'd do everything in his power to stop it including busting the guys head open with a baseball bat. Imagine the testimony this would bring to the unsaved if he didn't try to stop it? It's all about whether you have the power or not to prevent evil.

I posted Wilchbla's reply again in case you missed it (though I highly doubt it). They made it clear they were not calling you anything, but was speaking in general terms. Are you saying they are lying? It is clear to anyone with comprehensions skills, by reading the entire paragraph ,that that is what they were saying. If a man sits by as his wife, daughter, or even a friend is raped or murdered, while it is in their power to stop it, they ( yes I know they Wilchbla said you) are lowlifes. Does they scripture back this up? You had better believe it. 1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. The scripture says they have denied the faith and are worse than a infidel. Different words than what Wilchbla used, but the same ideas.


#305301 Israel Warns Of Monthlong War After Possible Strike On Iran's Nuclear Pro...

Posted by rancher824 on 17 August 2012 - 06:24 AM

Apples and oranges. Your application is way off and even dangerous. The communists used Acts 2 to try to form a method of government and made matters worse.

I'm really amazed at how some of you folks think it's spiritual to allow yourself and your family to be butchered. Why have any laws whatsoever if this is the case? Just keep turning the cheek and let the wicked and enemies of this nation run rampant. If God allows my wife to be raped, my child kidnapped and forced into prostitution then this means I should allow it or that it was the will of God to begin with. What kind of thinking is this? This is not the mind of Christ. I don't care what anyone think. If you are in a situation where you are powerless to stop it then, yes, you submit to whatever God allows to happen. But if you have the power and you don't deliver? You are a lowlife which words can't describe.

I'm speechless, what an awful thing to say about the Preacher. I sure hope you'll repent and apologize.


I believe you need to look at the entire paragraph. Wilchbla said (in short) if you allow your family to be raped and killed, while having the ability to stop it, you are a lowlife. What does scripture say?
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

This is speaking of a widow, but I believe the same could be brought into consideration of a wife or daughter. We are to provide!! What are we to provide? Only food and clothing, or protection? I think protection would fall into this. So the apostle said that is we do not protect our widows we are worse than an infidel!!! Now is a infidel worse or better than a lowlife?? I do not know.

As far as the stand against Jerry's statement, what does the scripture say about that?

1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
1Ti 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Are there 2 or 3 witnesses? Yes, both made their statements on an open cite for all to see. Scripture then says that if Jerry made a statement that did not agree with scripture he should be rebuked before all. Jerry brought up rape and murder. Jerry then said that God's ways are not our ways. He mentioned turning the other cheek. He then brought out the stoning of Stephen. It pretty well said to me he considers that it would be best to turn the other cheek about rape and murder. And yet the scripture says to provide for ones own. Jesus told the disciples to bring a sword. Yes we are to pray for the protection of our homes, but does that mean we are to just sit and pray as we see the door busted down? Pray as we watch our daughters raped in front of our eyes? Let's look at it this way, prayer is a very powerful tool. I know as I have seen it's power in my family. But does that mean I should simply pray for the salvation of those around me, while I sit in my house and never go to them? Is not my going (yes I know God has commanded that I go) putting faith in a man (myself) to save them? Would I not do better to spend more time praying and less time talking?? No, God expects me to go and to pray. Does he send me to the same people as he does you? No. Does he expect me to use the exact same words you would use? No, though He expects me to use the same Bible. Did Stephens death bring about Paul's convertion? possibly, though I do not see it as a thing we to be dogmatic about. But does that mean we should seek out ways of being martered so that others will be saved? No, we are to seek out the will of the father. For me it may be to die so some will be saved. For you it may be to live, so that some may be saved. We are all to work together, but we do not all have the same jods. Those in the new testament laid down their lives. But some in the old testament fought to advance the will of God. Moses stood to protect his people. Was he wrong for killing the egyptian who was beating the jew? If so, he was a rebel.


#287860 Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Posted by rancher824 on 25 January 2012 - 07:35 PM

For those who say we should never vote for the lesser of two evils, Would you vote for a man who had an affair while in office and then gave orders to end her husband to the front line so he would be killed? if not you would not vote for a man like David, a man after God's own heart. Or perhaps a man with 700 wives and 300 more women on the side? Then you would not vote for Solomon, the man God had build the temple in Jerusalem. You see if we are not willing to vote for imperfect men, we would not approve of the men God put into place. Perhap if a man who was righteous enough to be a pastor was running we could vote for him, or would we critisize him for not preaching the gospel instead!!! As to Jesus not doing anything in politics, his entire reason for coming would have been undermind if he had, as he would have had to overthrow the roman empire, and become king. Then he would not have been crusified. He WILL come again one day and set up a kingdom. Now tell me how will me voting for a man that is not perfect undermine my work here on this earth? If I feel led (which I do not) to be president, how would that destroy my work for Christ? If I was led to do so it might be that God would use it to spread the Gospel through freedom. Another thought,(I have mentioned this before) Christ did not have a home (owned or rented). He traveled from town to town preaching. Those who feel that since Jesus did nothing political, neither should we need to move out of their homes (if they own they need to sell), quit trying to be conected to this old world, and travel preaching. Some may say "I do preach" but still have a home. Christ Never Had A Home, so neither should you!!!


#287517 Can You Disprove This?

Posted by rancher824 on 22 January 2012 - 03:07 PM

I was predetermined to not believe that, lol.


#286575 Biggest Loser Contest at Work

Posted by rancher824 on 13 January 2012 - 08:16 AM

I didn't see that Jesus ever competed for a prize in His some 33 years, & He set the example for us to follow.


Jesus never held a full time job, but lived as a poor man off of nothing but donations. I guess when we are saved we should all quit our jobs and go into full time service. Jesus never owned a home (Mat 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.) so none of us Christians should tie ourselves to this wicked world by owning a home or land.

Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Act 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Act 4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

The example of Jesus is he never owned and these in acts when they got closest to God they sold there homes and land. You don't know of any Christians who are so far away from putting their full faith in God that they feel a need to be tied to this wicked world by owning a home do you Jerry?


#282949 Herman Cain

Posted by rancher824 on 01 December 2011 - 12:06 AM



I agree with HC. I will totally change my mind if FACTS come out that Cain was wrong. So far, there are NO facts, only accusations by very questionable (and ugly...sorry) women. I would think, honestly and frankly, if Cain were to choose somebody to wreck his marriage over, it would be a classier and prettier woman than any of these.


That's a very bad example for a young Christian lady to set that is a moderator on a Christian web site, calling women that you never met sorry & ugly.


Yes she said sorry & ugly, its quite easy to prove, its pasted right above this. That's not the least bit Christ like.

And I see that some have their ears hid.

Trouble with politics, it makes even saved people think & act like worldly people.

So it is plain that anyone, be it kitagrl or anyone else, says she did not say the women were sorry are lying. You have it right there in black and white. Oh and btw I understood kitagrl the same as happy. The sorry was refering to the ugly not to the women. Perhaps ugly was a strong word, but an effective one for what she was saying.




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500