Redirectionalism

[Dan00]

=

Is that you?

 

[jasoncran]

hitch?

 

[Dan00]

I have read them all. but we cant force man to serve jesus. you protest when the humanist force their views on you but then don't mind if you force ours on them.

the nation didn't even have a pledge until the 1890's and under god wasn't even until 1954. the nation wasn't meant to be a theocracy. which demonation should have reign in said schools. the majority of my county isn't pentacostal. I am. so I should force my kids to hear the anti tounge rants of the Baptists? I would love for men to do that but it must come from the heart not laws.

others change the first amendment to only Christians may be in America. people will come here and they will have differing views and not all will be Christians. the church could have stopped that but it didn't. the issue is that not all states had mandated bible studies, in fact on three states did it when it was banned all the others stopped. so to blame the scotus when that trend was already happening is wrong. they went with the prevailing view.

so Christ said to set up a theocracy? if what you said is true then why did the founders actually want the first amendment. it would be easier to have a unique culture of Christians only. sure they wanted it but they said only if the people wanted it. was it the goverments job to actually teach the bible. if so show me in the constitution? or was it the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

cases that lead up to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut

1940!

1947!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

now then if the constution was only for the states then ok each state could then ban guns and impose speech limits. careful what one asks for one just might get it. im sure you like guns. I do. the second amendment has been ruled to apply to all states. a federal theocracy is no better then a state one and vice versa!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education

1948 and well jews were having classes in schools they were voluntary. imagine that.

I wonder why there were no Supreme Court rulings preventing prayer in school for a century and a half. Were our earlier courts that ignorant of the Constitution? Did we really have to wait unto the 1940's to find enough smart people to interpret the Constitution correctly?

One would think the very first Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Jay--one of the authors of the Federalist Papers--would have stopped any and all "Church and State" legislation in its tracks. Some states even went so far as to sanction Christianity over other religions in their state constitutions, and there was not a whisper about it from the Supreme Court of those days.

The opinions of the 2nd Chief Justice, John Marshall, are frequently used to argue cases even today. Yet, not once to my knowledge, did he ever criticize the use of public money to promote Christianity. Jefferson used public money and buildings to promote Christianity--and Jefferson and Marshall were not on friendly terms because of Marbury vs. Madison; yet Marshall never said Jefferson was violating Separation of Church and State. Maybe Marshall read the other part of the Amendment:

". . . .nor prohibit the FREE EXERCISE thereof."

Or, maybe Marshall understood that our nation was founded by Christians who wanted a Christian nation. The fact that there are few references to Christianity in the Constitution is because it would have been redundant. Everyone was a Christian. Recall the statement from my earlier post from George Washington's farewell address:

"With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles." (George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19,1796)

That is why in many areas of the nation, until the 1960's or later, you could go on vacation without locking your house, or for the life of your car without locking the doors. When I was a kid I used to visit the local Chevrolet dealer and play in the 1955-56 Chevy's on the lot. None were locked on the weekends.

But since the all out war against Christianity began in the 20th century, this nation has turned into cesspool of filth, crime, and more laws than anyone can possible keep up with.

Thank you, Judaism, the religion of Antichrist.

 

[reba]

Me an angel ? nope a PK

 

[Dan00]

if we allow one Christian in office to pray using his position then all must or none. the first admendment allows the government to be neutral.

I wonder whose God this guy was praying to:

My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944

 

[JLB]

That term, "natural man," in routinely found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14


This is found in the Bible. NKJV


JLB

 

[JLB]

JLB,

I inquired about this verse:

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

Are you saying Stephen saw the son of Man coming in his Kingdom?

Thanks,

Dan

You can see plainly what I said concerning Stephen.

John saw Jesus Coming in His kingdom...

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:11-16

John saw it before He tasted death.


JLB

 

[Dan00]

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14


This is found in the Bible. NKJV

JLB

It is also found in the original King James, only in that one verse. I thought it ironic that you use the same term as Scofield, and profess much of the same Darby doctrine: third temple, "this generation" is open-ended, etc.

 

[Dan00]

You can see plainly what I said concerning Stephen.

John saw Jesus Coming in His kingdom...

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:11-16

John saw it before He tasted death.


JLB

Who were the others? Recall Jesus said,

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28)

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1)

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27)

 

[JLB]

I understand. Jesus was not talking about coming in their lifetime; only that one or more would see a vision of him coming in the future. That makes sense.

Now help me understand this. Matthew 10 begins with this verse:

"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease." (Matthew 10:23)

Then Jesus sent them (with their newly received powers) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:5-8)

Then he gives them various warnings about what will occur during their journeys. And he says this:

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” (Matthew 10:23)

Jesus continues with his instructions to his disciples until the end of the chapter. The next chapter begins with this verse:

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities." (Matthew 11:1)

Help me reconcile Matthew 10:23. How can it be a prophecy of the distant future?

Thanks,

Dan

Who said Jesus words in Matthew 10:23 were a prophecy about the distant future.

He sent out His disciples and they came back and reported to Him when He came to them again.

You can read this same account in Luke 10 as well.

Even the demons are subject to us in your name....


JLB

 

[JLB]

Who were the others? Recall Jesus said,

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28)

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1)

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27)

Name all the ones standing there at the time Jesus said that.

I personally don't know everything He showed to every person standing there.

Furthermore, everything He showed to everyone standing there was not recorded in the Bible.


I gave you two examples of people that saw Jesus in His kingdom, before they died.


JLB

 

[JLB]

It is also found in the original King James, only in that one verse. I thought it ironic that you use the same term as Scofield, and profess much of the same Darby doctrine: third temple, "this generation" is open-ended, etc.

Yes, that is very ironic, that two different people would use the same biblical phrase.

Very ironic!


JLB

 

[Dan00]

Who said Jesus words in Matthew 10:23 were a prophecy about the distant future.

JLB

I thought you believed his "coming" was in the future. I guess I misunderstood. Then you do agree that Jesus' "coming" was in the generation of the disciples:

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” (Matthew 10:23)

Dan

 

[Dan00]

He sent out His disciples and they came back and reported to Him when He came to them again.

I thought his disciples mission was open-ended. Here they are in the cornfield and there was no mention of them leaving or returning:

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat." (Matt 12:1)

I do recall him sending others out about that time, and they returned.

"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. . . And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name." (Luke 10:1,17)

Dan

 

[Dan00]

Who said Jesus words in Matthew 10:23 were a prophecy about the distant future.

He sent out His disciples and they came back and reported to Him when He came to them again.

You can read this same account in Luke 10 as well.

Even the demons are subject to us in your name....

JLB

I found it:

"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where." (Luke 9:6)

" And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida." (Luke 9:10)

So the coming of Jesus happened sometime during those five verses?

I don't think so. I believe their mission was open-ended, and Jesus' coming happened before they had visited all the cities of Israel, just like Jesus said:

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” (Matthew 10:23)

Dan

 

[JLB]

I found it:

"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where." (Luke 9:6)

" And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida." (Luke 9:10)

So the coming of Jesus happened sometime during those five verses?

I don't think so. I believe their mission was open-ended, and Jesus' coming happened before they had visited all the cities of Israel, just like Jesus said:

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” (Matthew 10:23)

Dan

You can read for yourself, that they returned to Him after He said that in Matthew 10:23

 

[Dan00]

Yes, that is very ironic, that two different people would use the same biblical phrase.

Very ironic!

JLB

More than that. Both of you have similar doctrines, as well, and you said you had never heard of him.

Dan

 

[reba]

to


Like it or not you guys are brothers in the Lord...

 

[Dan00]

You can read for yourself, that they returned to Him after He said that in Matthew 10:23

JLB,

What about this?

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” (Matthew 10:23)

Does that not imply the coming of Christ in the disciples generation? I am not discounting the possibility that it could mean something else altogether.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Dan00]

to

Like it or not you guys are brothers in the Lord...

Hi, Reba,

Most everyone in my Church believes similar to JLB, and they are all my friends. But they will not debate me. JLB is a rare find. He defends what he believes, and I appreciate that. I have no animosity toward him, whatsoever. In fact, I might learn something, and I have.

Don't you agree that JLB and I are being much more civilized than we were the past few days?

Dan