A Christian Response to President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama

5 11 2008

Well, it’s the weekend after Barack Obama won the election. I have compiled a collection of responses from a Christian standpoint to his election with some of my own comments sprinkled in. 

After John McCain’s concession speech, several Christian supporters of Obama immediately began quoting Romans 13:1-7. 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

My first thought was to wonder if they would have had the same response if Obama had lost. If not, then the verse probably isn’t in correct context. I certainly did not have this particular verse locked and loaded to fire at Obama supporters had he lost. I assumed most knew that in American, power belongs to the people. The people temporarily loan it to elected leaders who do not rule over them. They are in place to interpret the Constitution in two areas: condone good and punish evil. Government has overstepped in bounds in the last 200+ years, but presidents who focus on these two aforementioned biblical roles are the most successful. For Americans, these authorities referenced in Romans is not a person, but the Constitution, which is amendable, by the way, by the people. It can also represent an employer or another entity but is not applicable in situations when the authority tramples on the Word of God, which Obama does. 

Also, as a bonus to my precious friends who fired Romans 13 across my bow, I respond with Psalms 2:1-4:

1 Why do the nations conspire  
       and the peoples plot in vain?

 2 The kings of the earth take their stand 
       and the rulers gather together 
       against the LORD 
       and against his Anointed One. 

 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, 
       “and throw off their fetters.”

 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; 
       the Lord scoffs at them.

Some said this verse in Psalms was out of context. It’s hard to take a Psalms out of context. Both verses are fully applicable. But I don’t think you can pluck one verse out and quote it to a group of people with whom you have moral agreements with, but variance on a list of political issues. 

And it was clear in this past election which candidate was mocking God: the one who couldn’t define life. 

James White — pastor, apologist, debater, author, and blogger — is on the same page in this video he made the day after the election:

For those wondering what conservatives do next, Michelle Malkin has some good advice:

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

Several Christians expressed disappointment with “hate speech” and “racism” they had supposedly seen from fellow Christians on social networking sites and in emails. Now, certainly some Christians calling Obama the anti-christ or islamic is a hit below the belt and does not measure up to the standard of perfection placed on Christians. But Obama’s election just helps to show how easy it will be for the anti-christ to deceive the masses and gain such a large unwavering allegiance. Besides, if Christians would bother to study their bible a little, they would realize the anti-christ is not a person. 

Here is the real racism and hate speech. And it’s coming from Obama supporters:

There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”

Go ahead and Google it. They’re blasting it on the streets of Chicago, saying it like a prayer in Durham, singing it on campus, and putting it on their kids’clothes in Harlem.

mypresidentisblack1

A sampling of news from around the country after Election Day:

Outside, cars drove across campus, honking triumphal horns as passengers leaned out windows heralding the news of Obama’s unprecedented win. Students giddily repeated the refrain, “My president is black.”

***

You couldn’t find a single copy of the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times on newsstands or in boxes anywhere in the city, from Hyde Park up to Evanston. And at least two tricked-out cars on shiny rims that rolled slowly down Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in the historic Bronzeville neighborhood on the city’s gritty South Side were blasting what appeared to be the city’s new unofficial hip-hop presidential anthem: Young Jeezy’s “My President Is Black.”

***

The energy around Benedict’s campus was palpable Wednesday, as students walking to and from classes excitedly discussed the election, some shouting “President Obama!” and singing lyrics to a popular song about Obama by the rapper Young Jeezy, “My President is Black.” 

La Shawn Barber exposes the new racism:

It’s a proud moment for many blacks, to be sure, but having a black man in the White House will not motivate black Americans to wait until marriage to have babies, to stop killing their babies (and at three times the rate of white women), or to stop uttering the word racism whenever they don’t get their way.

Of course, Obama never promised that his presidency would have any effect on these things.

As long as families (the foundation of society) are in shambles, conditions won’t improve much. But with Obama in office, white liberals can feel good about themselves and blacks can feel proud, fatherless children and dead babies be damned.

I don’t want to hear any more complaining from any black Americans about how they can’t succeed, but if La Shawn is right, this election only takes it to a new level.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

56 responses

10 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==After John McCain’s concession speech, several Christian supporters of Obama immediately began quoting Romans 13:1-7. ==

Of course, they ignore the parts of the Word that say that we are to elect GODLY government — that is, anti-abortion and anti-so-called “same-sex ‘marriage'”/homosexuality.

That’s the trouble with being a scoffer: He relies on the Word he despises and, as the consequence, leaves out important parts. Sound like someone?

10 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…certainly some Christians calling Obama the anti-christ or islamic is a hit below the belt and does not measure up to the standard of perfection placed on Christians.==

We are expected, according to the Word of God, to discern, separate the goats from the sheep. Christian “perfection” doesn’t require me to keep silent. In fact, God tells me to speak up with the Word.

Christians who say that he is the Anti-Christ don’t know their Word of God.

Bammy certainly may be in the loop that leads to the Anti-Christ’s rise. Nothing wrong with comparing him and his policies to the Word in order to discern the movements toward what is prophesied, and calling attention to the comparison. It’s what God wants us to do.

However, most Christians have be scared into hiding when it comes to measuring the world by the Word of God. I’m not one-a those. I don’t care what the world thinks about it, if the world works against the Word.

10 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I don’t want to hear any more complaining from any black Americans about how they can’t succeed…==

So, does this election mean the playing field is level? Does it mean that the complaining is over? Prob’ly not. They won’t be able to give up a “good thing.” It’s a money tree.

11 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”==

I wonder what would’ve happened had Whites said, “MY PRESIDENT IS WHITE!” when Bush was elected? Don’tcha think that we would’ve heard a leeetle sumpin’ from the Lib radicals?

11 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Some said this verse in Psalms was out of context.==

Outta what context? Do they ever explain that? Of course not.

Scoffers wanna disarm us. They wanna preclude the effect and impact of the Word of God and our use of It. They are afraid of It.

Those who want to dilute any of our references to the Word of God have one response: “It’s outta context!” They say that when they have no response to our use of the Word of God as a reference in our answers. This is a fine example of “stopping their mouths.” Just when they think they’ve rendered the Word of God ineffective — taken Him out of the play — He jumps up and gets back into the play, nary breakin’ stride.

18 11 2008
Garrett Oden

I lost you when you said that the Anti-Christ is not a person.

Throught the bible, it says that ‘he’ will do such and such. ‘He’ will decieve the nations, ‘he’ will persecute the Christians.

I would very much like to see where it says that the Anti-Christ is not a person!

Otherwise I am with you all the way to Heaven!

God bless.

19 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I would very much like to see where it says that the Anti-Christ is not a person!==

I would like to see the place, in KJV, the Word of God preserved in English, where He says that a particular person IS THE “Anti-Christ,” or THE “antichrist.”

The term, “Anti-Christ,” does not occur in KJV, the Word of God preserved in English. The closest is “antichrist” which occurs four times, all in the New Testament, and none of them refers to one person.

The Word does not use the term, “Anti-Christ,” nor, “antichrist,” to refer to A person who will take over the world. He — I have recently started to refer to the Word as “He” cuz “It” it is not; He is not a thing — refers to somebody, or some thing, who/that takes over the world, but not as “Anti-Christ,” nor, “antichrist.”

(1Jn 2:18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Me: not just A person; may be many; we are seeing that there are many

(1Jn 2:22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

(1Jn 4:3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Me: The “spirit of antichrist” infects many.

(2Jn 1:7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

19 11 2008
Garrett Oden

Well that is quite interesting.

I try to keep an open mind in topics such as these where you cannot be 100% sure. I will definitely keep this in mind.

Thanks!

God bless.

20 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Is Mr. Incredible a KJV only guy?==

There is ONLY One Way, and that’s It. The Devil, in error, says there are many ways, and he is happy that so many variations, versions and translations lead to such confusion as YOU have.

== It’s worse than I thought!==

Romans 8:1

In any case, is THAT all you got to contribute? We notice that you never answer questions. Could it be you have no answers? My bet is that you don’t.

20 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

By the way, Garrett, add

(1Jn 4:1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

to my verse list above.

In other words, not everyone who SAYS he is born again IS born again cuz, also,

(Rom 9:6) Fo they are not all Israel, which are of Israel…

and, while I’m up…

Ecclesiastes 12:12

and let’s not forget Genesis 3, wherein the Devil, giving Eve his first, revised version/translation of the Word of God, asks, “Hath God said…?” and proceeded to substitute HIS version/translation for God’s version. This is the method of scoffers.

20 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==topics such as these where you cannot be 100% sure. ==

I don’t get it. After all that God did Himself and through Jesus, you say that you’re still not sure??? What does He need to do to make you certain? Did He not do enough?

20 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

I realize that KJV agrees, in the upper 90 percentile, with the Received Text [Textus Receptus], and with the Hebrew even higher in accuracy.

The Received Text agrees, in the upper 90 percentile, with over fifty-six hundred old manuscripts.

20 11 2008
Garrett Oden

I am not saying I am not 100% sure that Christ died for me. I have 100% faith that He did.

I personaly don’t think that God wants us to know many things, it keeps the word ‘faith’ in action. If we knew everything, we wouldn’t really need faith.

I don’t think it is safe to say that any interpretation of the end times is 100% correct. Things may happen not according to plan, and we could end up expecting other things, which may or may not happen.

But ultimately, God is real, and He sent his son to die on the cross for our sins; and if we spend too much time thinking about the end of time, we may lose focus on what really is goin on here.

So an open mind is what I shall keep, for my mission is to bring others to Christ, and to stand against the evil things of this world.

Keep up the lovin’

21 11 2008
pzefo3

Yes, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which IS a very late manuscript. I’m really not saying this to bust your balls, it is just inconceivable to me that 21st Americans still make the KJV only claim. May I suggest a more readable AND reliable translation such as the NASB or even the NLT? NASB is probably the closest (dynamic equivalent) and NLT is probably the most readable. Although, there are some places in the NLT where I think they chose the wrong word for translation.

21 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I personaly don’t think that God wants us to know many things…==

Like what? Cuz He says that He wants those who are born again to know “all things.”

== it keeps the word ‘faith’ in action. ==

However, as I say, He wants those who are born again to know all things…in faith.

==If we knew everything, we wouldn’t really need faith.==

However, that’s not what He says, Gar’.

==I don’t think it is safe to say that any interpretation of the end times is 100% correct. Things may happen not according to plan, and we could end up expecting other things, which may or may not happen.==

However, the Word is pretty clear about what is to happen.

==But ultimately, God is real, and He sent his son [sic] to die on the cross [sic] for our sins; and if we spend too much time thinking about the end of time, we may lose focus on what really is goin on here.==

However, the Word — Which came in the flesh — also speaks of the last days.

21 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…it is just inconceivable to me that 21st Americans still make the KJV only claim.==

There is ONLY One Way. ONLY One Christ. Which version, then, is it? Is there One, or are we to look for another?

== May I suggest a more readable AND reliable translation such as the NASB or even the NLT?==

You may, but I won’t bite. I won’t surrender to that temptation cuz they are not the Word of God, rather ABOUT the Word of God.

For instance, Romans 8:1, in those interpretations, is missing half the verse that is there, in KJV. It’s there, in KJV, cuz God said the whole thing, even though He repeats a part of it three verses later. This must mean that He wanted to drive home the Message. Men, relying on private interpretation, took out part of the verse. It was not God telling them to take it out for God doesn’t change. He said what He said, and men cannot change that. Yet, they tried in NASB and NLT.

In any case, it’s not supposed to be comfortable to read. It’s supposed to be difficult. Difficulty weeds out the casual, unserious reader, the scoffer. The difficult forces the serious student of the Word to ever-deeper study. It’s not supposed to be read as you read a newspaper.

21 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which IS a very late manuscript.===

Which, itself, is based on over 5600 manuscripts with which it is in the upper 90 percentile agreement.

21 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

We gotta remember that Satan, in the Garden, peddled the first, revised version of God’s Word. Eve also thought that a word ABOUT the Word is good enough, only to find that it isn’t.

21 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

So, men cut out half of what God actually said in KJV Romans 8:1. That’s significant when you read Amos 3:3 which compares to the cut-out half of Romas 8:1. One would not compare the two if they didn’t have that cut-out part. Maybe THAT’s part of the Devil’s plan, eh.

21 11 2008
pzefo3

Look, I know that i’m not going to convince you here, and I’m not trying to be a theological snob. But, the basic idea in textual criticism (i.e. – determining what the original text actually said) is that the shorter version is generally more acceptable. It’s more likely that a scribe would ADD to a verse but not shorten it.

Your Romans 8:1 is a great example. The EARLIEST manuscripts do not have the later part of that verse. Theologically speaking, the KJV is fine, although there are definitely some 15th century biases present. Some of those biases even effect other translations (i.e. – Do you know what the name for the book of James SHOULD be according to the Greek?)

And, OF COURSE it is supposed to be “comfortable to read.” How absurd to suggest otherwise!!! The NT was written in koine greek, which was the language of the common man! Ever heard of the Septuagint? It is the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible. Everytime Paul quotes from the OT he uses the Septuagint, NOT the Masoretic Text. Even Paul used the translation of his day.

21 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…the basic idea in textual criticism (i.e. – determining what the original text actually said) is that the shorter version is generally more acceptable. ==

Not in the case of men warping the actual Word of God.

==It’s more likely that a scribe would ADD to a verse but not shorten it.==

The copyists whose work over centuries ended in the Received Text were meticulous.

==Your Romans 8:1 is a great example. The EARLIEST manuscripts do not have the later part of that verse. ==

The Received Text does.

==…the KJV is fine, although there are definitely some 15th century biases present.==

Irrelevant to the spiritual journey.

== Some of those biases even effect other translations (i.e. – Do you know what the name for the book of James SHOULD be according to the Greek?)==

I don’t care cuz it has nothing to do with the spiritual journey.

==And, OF COURSE it is supposed to be “comfortable to read.”==

Obviously not, though.

==The NT was written in koine greek, which was the language of the common man! Ever heard of the Septuagint? It is the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Bible. Everytime Paul quotes from the OT he uses the Septuagint, NOT the Masoretic Text. Even Paul used the translation of his day.==

However, the final version is what it is.

22 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==wow…Lord bless him!==

Already done.

26 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Your Romans 8:1 is a great example. The EARLIEST manuscripts do not have the later part of that verse. ==

The Westcott-Hort Greek doesn’t have it. That’s cuz the copyists decided to leave out part of what God said. They felt that God said it again a few verses later and that they could make the Word better by editing God’s Statements. This means that the Westcott-Hort Greek and all the versions and translations that flow from it are corrupt.

The Received Text and earliest manuscripts on which it is based DO keep that part. After all, if God said it, it oughta be there, even if He repeated it a few verses later. He musta felt that He needed to repeat it.

You, it seems to me, are saying that He didn’t say that second part. It’s critical: Did He, or didn’t He?

Anyway, there’s ONLY One Word of God. All versions, translations and variations cannot be:

(Mat 11:3) And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

So, of all the versions, translations and variations, which is THE Word of God?

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==/==You, it seems to me, are saying that He didn’t say that second part. It’s critical: Did He, or didn’t He?==

He didn’t…Paul did!==

Who didn’t say it? God? We’re talking about the Word of God, not the word of Paul.

Fact is that, while Paul wrote it, God is the One Who told Him to write it. So, God said it. Paul merely reported What God said.

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

By the way, I thought you said that you weren’t gonna reply to me anymore. What happened to that?

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==We’re talking about a letter written to the church at Rome by Paul under the inspiration (NOT dictation) of the Holy Spirit.==

We’re talking about the Word of God, not the word of Paul.

==And, I decided to continue responding to you because it humors me!==

Translation: “I’m wishy-washy, and, so, nobody can rely on me cuz I’ll say one thing one minute, and another thing the next, and I’ll be so obvious in my trying to justify it.”

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==We’re talking about a letter written to the church at Rome by Paul under the inspiration (NOT dictation) of the Holy Spirit.==

So, tell us which parts of the Word of God are not the Word of God? You’ve already said that Paul’s letter is not pat of the Word of God. Which others?

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

We always thought that the entire Thing is the Word of God.

However, now you’re telling us that what we thought is the Word of God is not the Word of God.

Give us your new edit of the Word of God.

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

Nevermind. The entire Thing is the Word of God. The Devil has been editing the Word ever since his first edit in the Garden. He gets it wrong every time.

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

We understand why you wanna humanize the Word of God. You wanna try to make Him imperfect.

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==We’re talking about a letter written to the church at Rome by Paul under the inspiration (NOT dictation) of the Holy Spirit.==

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, ALL Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. “Inspriation” is the Holy Spirit. “Inspiration” is not of the world.

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

When YOU talk about “inspiration,” you’re trying to discount the Word of God by discounting the God of the Word.

1 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…I decided to continue responding to you because it humors me!==

Translation: “I will confirm what everybody knows already: I’m not a serious poster.”

3 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…a letter written to the church at Rome by Paul under the inspiration (NOT dictation) of the Holy Spirit.==

The Holy Spirit IS the Inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is given “by inspiration of God.” It does not say by inspiration of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit IS the Inspiration of God. So, another name for the Holy Spirit is the “Inspiration” of God.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…if you want to take the hardline fundamentalist”ic” stance on inspiration of the Word, then you are more than welcome.==

Jesus took a “hardline fundamentalist’ic’ stance” on Inspiration of the Word. It’s the Devil who tries to get people to blur that line. I’m wise to his devices.

==I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.==

Nobody could persuade Jesus otherwise, either, as hard as they tried. I’m in Good Company!

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…if you want to take the hardline fundamentalist”ic” stance on inspiration of the Word…==

The Word of God is hardline and fundamentalist’ic’. I can be no less.

The Christ is intolerant, and Righteously so. I can be no less.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.==

The Word of God has a way of stopping mouths:

(Tit 1:10) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

(Tit 1:11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

However, as for me…

(Eph 5:6) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

(2Co 11:10) As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.==

That’s cuz the Word of God has no competition.

By the way, you’re not gonna change your mind again, are you? Cuz we’re havin’ trouble deciphering your “clap on, clap off” opinions.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.==

The LORD is my Shepherd, not you.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

If the Word of God is “hardline” and “fundamentalist’ic’,” who tries to blur that line and criticize the fundamentals of the Word and those who spread it?

Who wants to diminish the effect of the Word of God, to water it down?

Diluting the Word of God benefits God??? No, it doesn’t. Neither does it benefit His Children — that is, those who are born again.

So, when and where you see people advocate the softening/blurring of the “hardline” and criticizing people for spreading the “fundamentalist’ic'” Message of God’s Reconciliation, you need to be careful cuz you, then, are seeing and hearing the message of “the other one.”

The Word of God tells us to discern, to judge. This includes separating the goat thoughts from the sheep thoughts. Even sheep thoughts know His Voice. Those who advocate a blurring of the “hardline” of the Word want you not to know His Voice so you can say, “Gee, I don’t know.” Who wants you not to know? Guess.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.==

We know that you are overwhelmed, frustrated. We also know that you will deny it.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.==

Quit trying to convince me and tell us which parts of the Word of God are not the Word of God. You say, for example, that it’s — Romans — Paul’s word. So, which is it? It’s important to know, isn’t it? So, why don’t you tell us?

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==/==Jesus took a “hardline fundamentalist’ic’ stance” on Inspiration of the Word. ==

AGGGHHHH!!!! NO HE DIDN’T!!! ==

Yes, He did.

==YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!==

Jesus didn’t kid anybody, and neither do I.

==“You have heard it said….”(the hardline fundamentalistic pharisaical interpretation of Scripture…)

“But I say to you…”(Jesus’ non-fundamentalistic reinterpretation of Scripture…==

He denied the hardline LEGAL interpretation of Scripture and brought the Message of the Father’s Reconciliation Which is hardline on Grace: It’s His Way, or the highway.

==you’re incredulous!==

So, you changed your mind again and are now trying to convince me. We wish you’d make up your mind!

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==TR – You’ve got to block this Joker!==

The Lib method of debate is to stop opponents from opposing, appealing to some authority to do what the Lib cannot do by debate.

== Or block me so I am not tempted to be drawn in any longer!!!!!==

It’s not up to him to stop you from surrendering to temptation. My goodness, can’t you take your own resonsibility?? Can’t you stop yourself??? You keep saying that you won’t respond to me, then you respond to me and say that you’re doing it to humor yourself. Then you say that you’ll stop trying to convnce me, and, then, you continue to try to convince me. Then, again, you put the onus on TR to stop me cuz you are overwhelmed and frustrated. Then, you appeal to him to stop you cuz you can’t stop you. WOW! And you call ME “incredulous.”

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==TR – You’ve got to block this Joker!==

Why should he block ME? Cuz you don’t like what I post? I’m the only poster providing anything to discuss, beside TR, of course, and I ain’t stopping anybody from posting. There are enough electrons for everybody. It’s not a requirement to be liked; I’m not runnin’ for president.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==“You have heard it said….”(the hardline fundamentalistic pharisaical interpretation of Scripture…)

“But I say to you…”(Jesus’ non-fundamentalistic reinterpretation of Scripture…==

The Christ’s Way == Grace — is fundamental[ist][ic] for those who are born again. For those who are not, the pharisaical is fundamental. They re both hardline: The Pharisees said that the Law is the ONLY way, and Christ says that He is the ONLY Way. The Way of Christ is supported by what God says in His offer of Reconciliation, and He/it is hardline intolerant of any other ways to the Father.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

So, then, which parts of the Word of God are not the Word of God? So far, you say thta Paul’s words are NOT the Word of God. So, to YOU, all that Paul physically wrote is not part of the Word of God. What else?

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==TR – You’ve got to block this Joker!==

Notice, everybody, that I don’t say that TR should block this guy. I welcome this guy’s responses…when, of course, he has changed his mind to respond after telling us that he won’t respond after telling us that he finds it humorous to respond then tells us he’ll stop trying to convince me….MY GOODNESS!!! Can you follow all that??? Pretty danged confusing, huh?

However, you’ll also notice that he is the one wanting TR to block me. “For what reason?” you might aks. Cuz, apparently, he’s too frustrated and overwhelmed and overtaxed, and outta this confused state, he is just stabbing at the air in hostility. Gosh.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

Jesus didn’t compromise God’s offer of Reconciliation and the terms thereof. He is intolerant which, in the context of the Word as He pertains to Salvation, is, what Martha Stewart would call, “A good thing.”

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

So, is the Gospel of John part of the Word of God, or is it the word of John? Cuz, if we apply YOUR standard, John’s stuff is his word, not God’s Word. So, what else? Enlighten us.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==/==So, is the Gospel of John part of the Word of God, or is it the word of John? ==

Yes, it is.==

“Yes, It is” what?

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

And, so, you’ve “clapped on,” surrendered to temptation and responded to me again.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html

Well, looks like this thing ain’t over yet.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

==the Word of God and the words of John==

Cannot be the word of a man and the Word of God. The word of a man is not holy.

We understand, as I said, your trying to make the Word the image of men so that you can claim He is imperfect. He, however, is the Image of God, not of men.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

They could not speak of God’s mysteries of their own might. They did not choose the words they physically wrote:

(Act 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

(1Co 1:5) That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;

(2Co 8:7) Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

(Eph 6:19) And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

(Col 4:3) Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

When God told Moses to speak to the children of Israel, He told Moses to say what He told Moses to say, not to say what Moses chose to say, not to approximate/paraphrase, in his own words, what God told him to say.

As 2 Timothy 3:15 says, ALL Scripture is given by Inspiration of God.
2 Peter 1:20 says that NO Scripture is of private interpretation.

4 12 2008
Mr. Incredible

…So, the Word of God cannot be both Holy Spirit interpretation AND private interpretation at the same time. He’s one, or the other.

We understand that you wanna make Him men’s imperfect, private interpretation — in the image of men — so you can say that he is imperfect.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: