JERUSALEM
| Posted On: 01/21/08 07:34:17 PM |
Age 64, OH |
Just to take our good conversation further. You are correct we should follow Jesus; but Jesus has always existed and it is His Holy Spirit who wrote both the OT and NT, is it not. And yes, Jesus came to bring us a new covenant but also said it was not really new. It was new according to the law of Moses. But it was not really new because by the new covenant we are saved by trusting Jesus to save us the same as Abraham trusted Jesus to save him. Jerusalem is called the city of the Great King in both the NT and The OT. Who was this great King, the Holy Spirit told us it was God. When was God Almighty the King of Jerusalem. Lou
|
Schaeffer also warned about not believing The Bible
| Posted On: 01/19/08 06:23:00 PM |
Age 61, CO |
"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
Most Christians today (unless they are King James Bible only) simply do not believe 'the Bible' or any bible in any language is now the complete and infallible word of God. They have an imaginary "only the originals" version that nobody has seen and nobody agrees about.
Will K
|
And one more thing
| Posted On: 01/19/08 11:24:20 AM |
Age 30, MN |
The apostle Paul tells us we are to be “imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1). The word
“imitate” in Greek literally means “to mimic.” As followers of Jesus, we are to
do exactly what we see God doing: nothing more and nothing less. Paul then
spells out what this “mimicking” looks like when he goes on to say, “Live in
love, as Christ loved you and gave his life for you” (Eph. 5.2). So, we imitate
God when we imitate Jesus, and we imitate Jesus when we love people the way
Jesus loved us. More specifically, we imitate Jesus when we sacrifice for
others, the way Jesus sacrificed himself for us on Calvary.
This is the kingdom of God (literally, the dome in which God is King). Where
God reigns, it always looks like Jesus. This is why the Church is called “the
body of Christ” in the New Testament (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-13). We the
people of God are to do exactly what Jesus did in his earthly body. He showed
his love for all people by sacrificing for them. We are to show God’s love for
all people by sacrificing for them. This is what the Christian faith is all about.
It really is that simple.
Sadly, many today have made Christianity out to be about many other things. Some people claim if
you’re “really” a Christian, you’ll “of course” vote a certain way, support a certain candidate, take a
particular stand on a particular issue, etc. This is unfortunate because most political issues are ambiguous
enough that sincere, intelligent and Bible-believing people can and do strongly disagree about them.
Interestingly enough, neither Jesus nor any of his disciples ever thought like this. In fact, nowhere in the
New Testament does Jesus or any of his followers “weigh in” on any of the many divisive political issues
of their day. This doesn’t mean they didn’t have political opinions. They did – and they were very
different from each other. Matthew (a Tax Collector) and Simon (a Zealot) were much farther apart in
their views about political issues than (say) a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative Republican would be
today. Yet, we never read a word about which view was “better” in the Gospels. And the reason is that
their widely different political views are insignificant next to the one thing they are called to do as
followers of Jesus: express God’s love for others the sacrificial way God expressed his love for them.
So, if we’re thinking biblically about the kingdom of God, we have to conclude that it just doesn’t matter
whether you’re a conservative “Matthew” or a liberal “Simon.” If you’re a follower of Jesus Christ,
committed to building the Jesus-looking Kingdom by sacrificing for others, there’s room in the kingdom
for you.
|
Mike Huckabee is yet another SOCIALIST
| Posted On: 01/18/08 06:50:51 PM |
Age 64, OR |
Fact is, Mike Huckabee is a known socialist with ties to the Council on Foreign Relations. For you who are not familiar with the CFR it is a global socialist organization with a primary agenda to create a one-world government...something G.H.W.Bush (Sr.), Bill Clinton, and G.W. Bush have been forcing upon this once great nation for many, many years. A combination of the CFR (one-world government), Bilderbergs (one-world economy) and Trilateral Commission (one-world everything) have tentacles tied to ALL current presidential candidates except Ron Paul (and I do not like his libertarian thought). Only two former candidates did not have ties (hence no real support) to those anti-American, anti-Israel secretive organizations - Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. These two great patriots who love the sovereignty of America just could not muster the support of REAL Americans because the American voter has been deceived and brainwashed for so long they can't think or reason for themselves any more or have grown apathetic to politics.
These secretive organizations hand pick our Presidents - excluding Ronald Reagon who refused to saddle up with them. The next President has already been chosen - Hillary Clinton. Wait and see, and Bill Clinton will be appointed some globalist position - perhaps Secretary of State. It is likely that Barack Obama or John Edwards will be her V.P., and it likely will be Obama because Edwards is too radically LEFT.
|
Confusion???
| Posted On: 01/18/08 09:32:03 AM |
Age 30, MN |
Wow I'm glad recieved such a reaction from my christain brothers that tells me you all care a great deal about your faith and thats good to see. My message I guess should have been more clear, sometimes I try to hard and talk to much and people get confused. What I was trying to point out is that when elections come around we have politicions that love to wrap our faith in Jesus christ in the ugliness of politics, also I knew that as soon as I said anything negative about making bible law someone would find a passage in the old testament to try and prove me wrong. As christains we need to be primarily concerned with the teachings of Jesus and try to imitate him. When did Jesus ever wrap his faith in god into politics of his day???? Answere is never, we need to be very weary of a canidate that is going to want to make the bible law. To the poster who said he knows what political side I come from I would like to correct you. I don't associate something as beutiful as my faith in christ with something as ugly and ambigous as politics. The side I come from is that Jesus christ and the new covenant.
|
FREEDOM OF SPEECH COMES FOR THE BOOK OF JOB
| Posted On: 01/17/08 03:46:55 PM |
Age 64, OH |
Dear friend; all you do is show your lack of understanding of the Holy scriptures. The scriptures say - THE LETTER OF THE LAW BRINGS DEATH BUT THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW BRINGS LIFE. The right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right for one to defend himself and his family, and freedom itself all originated in the Holy Scriptures. Have you never read the Book of Job. Satan himself came into the throne room of heaven. And God did not censor Satan, but instead invited Satan to speak and then did not blot out his words but recorded the very words of Satan for all to read and decide for themselves who was true and who was the liar. There is no illustration of freedom of speech older than this since this is probably the oldest book in the Bible. Lou
|
your choice
| Posted On: 01/17/08 09:51:54 AM |
Age 00, KS |
mcain cant stand truth
rommney luciferian
ron paul crazy democrat plant
thompson christian dont know what type
huckabee is not perfect but with out god
what happen you go over to isreal try to destroy it break it up is that what god says
its not uncivil war in the democrat party
it,s the greed of politicians republicans
club for growth is anti Christian this nation is headed destruction regardles it turned it,s back on god
|
Mike Huckabee said what????
| Posted On: 01/17/08 07:42:29 AM |
Age 30, TX |
It's clear to everyone from which camp you come! I pray the scales will be removed from your eyes before you stand before the Lord in judgement and it's too late! I encourage you to read Matthew 5:17-48 in the King James as you pray. And by the way, Matthew 15:10-11 is referring to FOOD.
|
To: freedom and ethos
| Posted On: 01/17/08 07:32:08 AM |
Age 57, TX |
Freedom and ethos,Age 57, NC,'s, flowery babble NEONS his lack of understanding! Our ONLY "freedom" is in our complete emersion into God's Word resulting in our trumpeting what He declares "sin" and "abomination". It's time to draw the line in the sand and decide do we stand WITH Jesus ALL THE WAY or not. Goats to the left.
|
to "age 30, mn"
| Posted On: 01/17/08 07:11:19 AM |
Age 57, TX |
'Proverbs' 17:28. paraphrased,It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. "Age 30" should get in-depth Biblical counsel before speaking out. And I say this in love!
|
Code Blue
| Posted On: 01/16/08 09:17:33 PM |
Age 61, FL |
I fully agree with what your assessment is of the churches in general in the USA. When a church incorporates as a non profit business, it becomes a "creation of the state" or an artificial person. It also puts itself under the sovereignity of the state and not God. That is the first error. To compound the injury, the "church" then applies to the Federal Government for "privledges" under 26USC501(c)3. There are always strings attached and there are ropes attached to the 501(c)3 church or ministry. In order to mantain that status, the church is given a list of things they cannot do and say in order to retain their privledges, like speak out against homosexuality and refuse to hire them in the ministry. Another no-no is speaking out about candidates for office. The church in America is a state church and will be increasingly controlled by the government to the point that they won't be salt (which they aren't now) and eventually light either. This surrender of the church could be a significant reason God has withdrawn from such "churches" and they have increasingly departed from Biblical standards to further conform to the world's standards.
|
Mike Huckabee said What????
| Posted On: 01/16/08 10:38:40 AM |
Age 30, MN |
I know what I'm writing about is a little off topic but I it has somewhat to do with what Brannon is talking about so give it a chance.
Well, you may have already heard about it. Huckabee publicly proclaimed that we need to amend the constitution to bring it into conformity with "God's standards."
You can check out the minute and a half clip HERE.
Man, is he going after the evangelical vote, or what?!
Now, I can't help but wonder what this sincere man means when he says he wants to "amend the constitution to fit God's standards." Of course, he probably means he wants to outlaw gay marriage, since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. But if we're going to make our constitution fit "God's standards," as reflected in the Bible, why stop there?
Marriage throughout most of the book of "God's standards" allowed for polygamy and even concubines. If the Bible is to be our standard for marriage in America, perhaps our constitution should be amended to reflect its comprehensive view of marriage.
So too, the Bible allows for (and even occasionally commands) slavery, as the good old pre-abolition Christian South was eager to point out to the liberal secularist in the North. Would Huckabee have us amend our constitution to fit this aspect of the book of "God's standards"? Why not? If our goal is to conform to "God's standards," why be selective?
How about the way women are treated as property throughout much of the Bible? And lets not forget the pervasive "holy wars" we find in the Old Testament. If we want a constitution that truly reflects "God's standards," why not incorporate these as well?
And of course, the Bible knows absolutely nothing of any "inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." This comes out of John Locke, not the Bible. So maybe these pagan concepts should be jettisoned if we're going to seek to have a constitution that conforms to "God's standards."
Then again, for Christians "God's standards" are centered on Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Since Huckabee is appealing to Christian voters, and apparently wants to promote a "Christian America," why shouldn't he center his constitution amending policy on this central aspect of the book of "God's standards"?
Now that would be interesting.
Can you imagine if it was in the U.S. constitution that whenever we as individuals or as a nation were attacked, we by law would have to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, bless our assailants, do good to our persecutors, refuse to retaliate, offer them whatever they ask (expecting nothing in return), offer to feed them, clothe them and provide housing for them, and of course offer our lives up on their behalf, however evil they may be (e.g. Lk 6:27-35; Mt 5:39; Rom. 12:17-21)?
Goodbye to "the right to bear arms"!
If this is the direction Huckabee would like to amend our beloved constitution, I would greatly admire his courage and wish him the best -- because there's no way in perdition Christians would get him elected if that is what he meant! They may want a constitution that "conforms to God's standards," but only certain passages carefully selected out of his book of holy "standards," and certainly not the standards set by Jesus Christ!
Isn't it ironic?
Now please hear me. My point is not to weigh in on the political issue of gay marriage. Vote your faith and values (like anyone doesn't do this). My point is that there's something profoundly naive, if not disingenuous, about trying to pretend like we can resolve this or any other political issue in our pluralistic society by trying to make the Bible law.
Even worse -- much worse -- when Huckabee and other well-intentioned Christians talk this way, they earn the right to be despised by non-Christians, and thus to have the Gospel they claim to represent despised as well. The beauty of God's self-sacrificial love is once again smothered in the ugliness of politics.
Jesus never let politics get in the way of the message he was sent to bring. And the central job of his followers is to simply imitate him (Eph. 5:1-2).
How I'd love it if Huckabee would call on all Christians to consider their own sins to be much worse than the sins of gay people (Mt 7:1-3; I Tim. 1:15-16) and to commit to demonstrating God's love for gay people by sacrificially serving them.
Of course, he'd never get elected.
He might get crucified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never
|
freedom and ethos
| Posted On: 01/15/08 07:03:26 PM |
Age 57, NC |
One great truth Francis Schaffer taught in his books was as we passed from our Christian worldview to post modern secular worldview, that the very basis of our freedom would collapse. He made a comparison of our reformation-spawned revolution, which brought freedom, to the renaissance based French revolution, which brought massive blood shed. He postulated that we were never a theocracy but we had a(past tense) Judeo Christian ethos, and it allowed us to have freedom with form. This allowed freedom because we could basically control ourselves. There has always been exceptions, but as our ethos has waned the number of persons in prisons has exploded. We are only one major catastrophic terror attack away from despotism. I guess it is too much to hope our culture would go back to this ethos, maybe too much to hope our churches would.
|
|
|
|
|
