GSMontana wrote:
sc may be referring to the women on the show being immodest. I've never watched it since I don't watch tv (and wouldn't watch redneck reality shows even if I did), but I have seen pictures of the family on a book and remember one of the women being immodest.

Ladybug wrote:
The Robertsons believe in baptismal regeneration. This is interesting as well- http://pulpitandpen.org/2013/08/16/why-christianity-doesnt-need-duck-dynasty-or-other-celebrities/

s c wrote:
Some moral endorsement-
like the kettle calling the pot black.
Maybe Robertson should pull the beam out of his own eye when it comes to immorality so that he might see more clearly to deal with the speck in others.
So many "Christians" who protest sodomy are steeped in sexual immorality themselves.

s c wrote:
...just the fruit of a nation that wants to do it their way. No surprise. We embrace lewdness,promiscuity,glamorize prostitution,wink at infidelity,cram porn/immoral pictures down the throats of all to see,encourage our little girls/young women to dress like whores,watch slutty television programs like nfl football and dancing with the stars and other "reality" shows and then we wonder why men are so uncommitted.

because the person immodestly dressed isn't demanding a cake celebrating nakedness. Because the fornicator is demanding a cake celebrating immorality. Because the drunkard isn't demanding a cake with a bottle of whiskey as a topping. Because the thief isn't saying you need to bake a product that honors stealing. These same businesses would turn down a cake honoring abortion or rape. If you can't see an agenda being pushed by the LGBT group to shutdown and silence any opposition is different that what others are doing, then you haven't been reading the news articles here at SA.

It would be nice for a return to morality and decency in our society.(see II Timothy 3:13; Matthew 24:37) However, spending time condemning those who take a stand for righteousness because it is not at the top of your list of ungodly practices seems a little over the top.

Lurker wrote:
... your right to be wrong...

I am trying to point out that in the area of prophecy it is just not all black and white. My questions were legitimate questions and I appreciate your answers. I am thankful for your willingness to exhort in these areas.

It is obvious not all viewpoints can be correct. I don't believe if a pre-trib rapture occurs anyone will be saying I told you so on the way up. I don't think Christians will be comforted in the tribulation they face by someone saying I told your eschatology was wrong. (not saying you have said or insinuated that)

s c wrote:
If wedding-related businesses hadn't already compromised in catering to the fornicators and adulterers, they may not be in the position of having to set boundaries now when it comes to the homosexuals. Soon, we may be asking the same question when it comes to the union of pedophiles, beast lovers and incestuous partners. Welcome to the land of the "free".

Lurker wrote:
Not agreeing with your assertion that the prophecy speaks of ethnic Israel..

Paul did not say that the time in which he lived was the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 or even Isaiah 49.
As stated previously, Ezekiel 37 speaks of a king, Israel had none, it speaks of Israel as being a people walking in the ways of God, not true of them in Christ's and Paul's day.

Fulfilling one part of a passage from the O.T. in the N.T. is not necessarily the fulfilling of the entire text as you imply in your response.

Observe Micah 5:2 which was quoted of Christ's birth in Bethlehem, at what point did He govern and rule Israel?

Zechariah 13:7-9 speaks of judgment of fire and refinement on God's people, but verse 7 clearly refers to the crucifixion.

Hosea 10 is a passage about the Assyrian judgment upon the ten northern tribes, a past event, but verse 8 is quoted by Jesus as a future event. (Luke 23:30)

Lurker wrote:
...
So what, in particular, requires further explanation?

Lurker wrote:
This is getting interesting. If God brings about the salvation of Jews by their own freewill, their free will is not free.
Or is it that the Jews who do believe of their own, un-manipulated by God, free will are real ethnic Jews and those who don't never were ethnic Jews?
And then the question arises; what is the difference between the believing ethnic Jews and believing Gentiles? Will any of the unbelieving Jews inherit the promises? And what promise will the Christianized ethnic Jews receive? And what promise will Gentile Christians receive?
Quite a quagmire you've bought into.

pennned wrote:
Around 30 AD... Mark 13: 1-2 The disciples marveled at the temple, Jesus said, its so great? Its going to be destroyed.
Mark 13:4 Disciples asked when temple would be destroyed.
Mark 13:14 Jesus said per Daniel (9) just after abomination of desolation.
Mark wrote the book around 50 AD
[URL=http://https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm]]]blueletterbible, when Mark written?[/URL]
The Christians read the warnings.
The Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 AD[URL=http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat04.html]]]ecclesia, abomination of desolation[/URL]
70 AD --- The temple was destroyed.
In this way the Christians were warned ahead of time to what was about to take place. But a greater event is that the temple was destroyed, it was no longer needed. the curtain in half --the veil is gone, the holy of holies no longer just for priests. Christians are a royal priesthood, both Jew and Greek.

John UK wrote:
You have understood the question right well. Now please observe:
...

Pennned the following line goes beyond my understanding of what you are trying to say

when Jesus warned of the abomination that would directly preceed the fall of the temple, it was recorded in Mark 13, which was written some 20 plus years BEFORE the fall of the temple

Jim Lincoln wrote:
...
Any government that says anything different is wrong.

s c wrote:
Knowledge of how they partook of the Lord's Supper helps...

I Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper

(then he speaks of the agape feast you referenced, but Paul is clearly speaking of the way after the resurrection believer's practiced the Lord's Supper)

(v23-26) 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

s c wrote:
Instead of celebrating communion by partaking of wine, juice or bread/crackers which are symbolic and being unsure of which best represents it and to hat frequency, why don't Christians understand that every time we come together to meet and to glorify God, that we are celebrating communion in that we partake of Him (His Word) as in He is the Bread of Life and His Spirit (the new wine)?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
....In so far as prayer is concerned, the school is not a religious or home setting so perhaps,
Matthew 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.---...