![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 91°F ~ Low: 64°F Thursday, May 24, 2012 |
|
Jews , Gentiles House of Israel, What are We?Posted Sunday, September 21, 2008, at 4:16 PM
It is unfortunate that most people have so many mistaken ideas about their religion, due largely to the many mistranslations of words in the commonly-used King James Version of the Bible. One of these mistaken ideas is that most of the people of the United States and Western Europe - in fact, nearly all the Christians in the world - are "Gentiles". You hear many of them - even clergymen, who should know better - say, "I'm just a Gentile, saved by grace." I think it is high time that we learned something about one of the most misused words, "Gentile."
First, you might be surprised to know that there is no such word in the Bible, in its original languages. Oh yes, I know that you are now riffling the pages of your King James Version, looking for some of the many places you will find "Gentile" in it. But I said that there is no such word in the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. The word was put into it by translators, who changed the wording of the Bible centuries after the last book in the Bible was written. If you are a good Christian, you will surely agree with me that what the prophets originally wrote in the books which make up our Bible was inspired by God. It was correct as the prophets wrote it. But not one of them wrote in English, remember, because no such language as English existed until many centuries after the prophets lived. It was written in Hebrew, as to the Old Testament; and the New Testament was originally written in the language which Jesus Christ spoke, Aramaic, a Semitic dialect somewhat similar to, but not the same as, Hebrew. But Aramaic was not generally understood outside of Western Asia; so when Christianity began to spread into southern and southeastern Europe, the New Testament had to be translated into a language which was widely used in Europe. Greek served this purpose nicely, for it was understood by well-educated men over nearly all of Europe. Therefore, the New Testament was first translated into Greek. Protestant English-language translations of the Bible, today, are nearly all translated from Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. So, let us start at the beginning, with the Old Testament. The word "Gentile" is not even once used in any Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament, for the good reason that there is no such word in Hebrew, nor any word which corresponds to it. Everywhere you find the word "Gentile" used in the Old Testament, it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "GOY," which means "NATION." The plural form of it is "GOYIM." Since it means "nation," why didn't they translate it correctly? Sometimes they did; but for the most part, they translated it to fit the official doctrines of the church of their day, no matter what violence that did to the true meaning of the word. The church hierarchy had long since determined what its doctrines should be: and if the Bible didn't agree with them, so much the worse for the Bible. Men were still being burned at the stake for heresy, in those days, and "heresy" meant any religious idea which differed from the official doctrines proclaimed by the bishops. So the translators did the best the Church would allow them to do. Let us take some examples. In Genesis 12:2, God said to Abram, "I will make of thee a great nation." In Hebrew, God said "I will make of thee a great GOY." It would have been too silly to translate that "I will make a Gentile of you," so they correctly translated it "nation." Again Genesis 25:23, Rebekah was pregnant with the twins, Esau and Jacob; and while still in her womb, the unborn children were struggling against each other; so she wondered at this, and asked of God what was the meaning of this? God said to her, "Two GOYIM are in thy womb." Certainly God was not telling her, "You are an adulteress, pregnant with two Gentile children, when your husband is not a Gentile." God said "Two NATIONS are in thy womb," and that is the way it was translated; but it is that same word, "GOYIM," which elsewhere they generally translate as "Gentiles." Now let us take some examples from the New Testament. Here the word mistranslated "Gentile" is nearly always the Greek word, "ETHNOS" which means just exactly "NATION," the same as the Hebrew word "Goy." Luke 7 begins with the incident of a Roman Centurion who appealed to Jesus Christ to heal his servant who was sick unto death. The Elders of the Jews praised him to Jesus, saying "He loveth our ETHNOS, and hath built us a synagogue." These Jews would never praise anyone for loving the Gentiles; and the Centurion would not have built a synagogue for Gentiles. So, to avoid complete absurdity, the translators were forced to translate "ETHNOS" correctly, as "NATION." Again, in John 11:50, we find that the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, was plotting with the chief priests and Pharisees, to murder Jesus Christ; and Caiaphas told them, "it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole ETHNOS perish not." Nothing could have pleased this evil Jew more than for all the Gentiles to perish - using the word "Gentile" as we do today. Therefore, the translators had to translate "ETHNOS" correctly, as "nation." Yet in many other places they mistranslate it "Gentile." The Greek word "ETHNOS" means simply "nation," nothing more or less. It has no pagan, or non-Israel, or even non-Greek connotation. The Greeks distinguished between Greeks and all non-Greek peoples, whom they called "Barbarians." All educated men of that day knew this, and the Apostle Paul was a very well-educated man, who was quite familiar with the Greek language and its idioms. He recognized this distinction in Romans 1:14, where he said, "I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians." Paul, therefore, never wrote the word "Gentile" in any of his Epistles. What does this word "Gentile" mean, and from what is it derived? It is derived from the Latin word "GENTILES," which means "ONE WHO IS NOT A ROMAN CITIZEN." If you use the word correctly, then you would have to say that Jesus Christ and His twelve disciples were all Gentiles, because none of them was a Roman Citizen. Only Paul could say that he was not a "Gentile," because in the 22nd chapter of Acts, Paul says that he was a Roman citizen by birth. How, then, is it used at present when the speaker means to say that someone is non-Jewish? About the fourth century A.D., its use was loosely extended to cover more than its original meaning. It was applied especially to those who were heathen, pagan; it became a term for those who were neither Christian nor Jewish, for Christians and Jews were generally called just that, (Christian; or Jew). But this was centuries after the last book in the New Testament had been written. The word "Gentile" was never used by the writer of any book of the Old Testament, because none of them had ever heard it, as they had never come in contact with Rome. It was not used by the writer of any book of the New Testament, for there is no such word in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek languages. They did not borrow the word from the Latin, for if you will look up every place it is used in your King James Version, you will see that it is never used in the correct sense, to say that someone is not a Roman citizen; and that is the only meaning it had, the only way anybody used it, in those days. It was put in by the translators in an effort to make the Bible say what the translators thought it should have said. Therefore, it has no authority at all. In short, wherever you see the word "Gentile" in the Bible, remember that the correct word is "nation," "race", or "people." Sometimes it is used when speaking of ISRAEL nations or the ISRAELITE race, as we have seen in the examples I have given you. In other instances, the context will show that it is being used of a nation which is non-Israelite. Only the context in which it is used will show you which meaning to give it. When used of non-Israelite peoples, perhaps "Gentile" is as good a word as any, for we seem to have no other in general use. But never be deceived by reading the word "Gentile" in your Bible, for its only correct meaning is "nation" or "race." I had somebody to propose a question to me" Why are we called Caucasian" I never thought of this much before so I done some research. The simple answer is , we came across the Caucasian mountains. When the Israelites of the 10 tribes vanished into history, people started wondering where they are now. There is a difference between Israel and Judah for the tribes of Judah were of the North and the other ten tribes were in the South. There has always been a discussion of the "Lost Sheep" mentioned in the bible in Matthew 10:5-6. To me the answer is to go and find the lost ten tribes and tell them the good news of the salvation message of Jesus Christ. Now this takes you back to creation,Was all the people up until Abraham Jewish? the answer is No there were just the races of people. Abraham was called out for his faith, not his nationality. I firmly believe that the lost tribes migrated over the Caucasian Mt's. and eventually migrated into what is now Great Britain and Scotland, Ireland and all the other nations who migrated to America and to other nations like Australia and other colonies that Britain settled. It is said that the word "Saxons is a derivative of Issac's sons and that Jeremiah the prophet ventured to Scotland and that Joseph of Arimathea and even Jesus himself came to the ancient isles and mined tin. This teaching has been shot down by several people, but I have come to believe it to be true. How else do you explain that England and most of all America has done more to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even the Cherokee Indians have a style of worship and life very similar to the Jews of the Old Testament. The world views anybody in the West as Christian whether they are or not. The word British in the Hebrew means "covenant man or covenant people" To say that America is not mentioned in the bible would be a gross mistake for God reveals all truths to those who seek it. So in closing if we are descended from the lost tribes of Israel then the prophecies that effect Israel would also be for us for we are Israel. Just remember no matter what you are you can be grafted in to the Root of the House of David and become a spiritual Jew by accepting Christ as your saviour. The only difference between a believer in Christ and a non- believer is a believer admits that he needs saving. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
A man getting to the roots of his faith.
Hot topics Daddy's Rules For Dating My Daughters!(25 ~ 8:26 PM, Aug 15)
Southern Traditions
The Implosion From Within
The Crumbling!
IN HONOR OF ALL VETERANS!
|
Email link
Read comments (125)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Awesome writing and content. There are just a couple things I do not see eye to eye with you on, but I can't even bring myself to point them out and detract. Thank you very much for the effort. Great post.
Your speculative meanderings are the product either of the complete lack of education typical of your average home-schooled ignoramus or of the type of ideological insanity spewed forth by hate groups such as Aryan Nation and British Israel. It may well be a combination of both. I trust that anybody reading this abject nonsense recognises its utterly fanciful and fictional nature.
I am not promoting racism of any kind , just stating a theory that has as much clout as any I have heard before.
If you can prove your theories or ideals then great, but you can prove everything to everybody, just those who believe the way you do.
Great post Michael on the meaning of the word "Gentile".
Also good work on the lost sheep. Old England and New England most difinitely are descentions of the lost tribes.
31Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Ignore the negative comment above by another. It is nothing more than one of the previous trollers with a new name.
I thought the Bible was without error, yet in your post you point out how words have been mistranslated.... LOL. Didn't some folks tell you that many months ago? But you pretended nothing of the sort existed.
Vindicated,
Don't go and get all excited just yet. The Bible is still The Word.
To start with a better word could probably be used instead of "mistranslated" to describe what Michael had mentioned. Perhaps it would be better to say that the word could have been better translated but that can not be asserted without knowing what the word meant in the society to the translators of that period. A good example would be if the translators had used the word gay to describe Paul after he had been flogged. To say he was happy and gay would have probably been an accurate translation for that time period but would not have the same meaning today. Words evolve from one generation to the next at a slow rate that is hard to detect movement in.
Also, what few words that could be better translated to fit our time period today would have no effect worth even thinking about on the Word of God.
So, calm down and tell the author of confusion you know better when he provokes you again to joy in the possibility of the Word of God being errant. He is a master of deception.
The King James English has been tranlated wrong, that is why I study the way I do.
The King James English has been tranlated wrong, that is why I study the way I do.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 12:06 PM
OK! Everyone else is wrong and Michael and his cult are correct. Correct yourself accordingly everyone.
Point to ponder, if Adam and Eve were created Jewish and thy where the first family, then we would all be Jewish right?
If I am wrong I admit it, but at least I do study and try to find the answers, what cult are you talking about?
The Christian faith as a cult or what?
I follow no man other than Jesus Christ if you want to call that a cult then fine, but that cult will get me to heaven, what do you follow?
No matter if we call a word in the King James mistranslated, translated wrong, over translated, under translated, in the wrong tense or whatever the case may be it has no significant bearing on the gracious Work of Christ. All cases will be deemed moot.
The devil would have us all split hairs if it would promote the inheritance of the pit.
A split hair is still a hair.
That is why I go to the original languages and study with men who know what they are talking about, not some yuppie motivational speaker.
http://www.eadshome.com/FoundingFathersf...
My proof the country was based on Christianity, but more than that, the founding fathers who migrated here knew of their ancestors and where they came from.
The fathers of the Christian faith and even before that had done migrated West to start spreading the Good News.
I have tons more info on this so feel free to debate or ask questions.
If you believe in evolution I am outclassed for I have no knowledge of primates in my family.
A link to a biased website is not proof of anything.
It is proof to me as I suppose a website that catered to your beliefs would be to you
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I do not know what your ultimate goal is Michael by mentioning your beliefs on how the United States in your opinion was based on Christianity. What I do know is that the world is large and full of diverse peoples and beliefs. If you can't see that your beliefs are what they are because of the environment you live in then you need to travel the world and experience more than what Middle Tennessee and the United States has to offer you. If you think for one second that the United States needs to amend the Constitution to promote Christianity and ban other religions then you are no true Christian. I already have a feeling that the term "religious fanatic" or "radical" would please you more than cause you to understand why your way of thinking is dangerous to freedom. Broaden your way of thinking. You don't have to change what you believe, just realize that no one really cares what your religious beliefs are unless you start insisting on what others choose to believe or sacrificing the neighbor's dog. It is religion Michael. It is personal and spiritual. If it gets you through your day then go with it. The Framers of the Constitution understood that religion was based on opinions and beliefs and not facts and concrete evidence and had the foresight to keep it out of government for fear of it ruining their master plan. We are all different and we all have our own thoughts on God and religion. There is no wrong answer and there is no right answer. You can't prove you are right using your book any more than a person that is a practicing Hindu can prove they are right using their book. Understand?
And Adam and Eve were not Jewish.
I have been pondering this most of the day, mostly the initial blog entry. We do need to remember that most web sites have a certain bias to them depending on the creators own beliefs and opinions. I have tried to do just a little web surfing on what Michael initial wrote and so far unable to find anything to convince me either way if what he wrote is true or not. I do not use the KJV in my study or my teaching, but am not oppposed to it's use. It was translated in the 1600 by the Bible scholars of the time under the authority of King James, hence its name KJV. It's not worth the arguement for most of us over which translation is "correct", unless each of us learned Hebrew, aramic, and greek, WE are all going to have to depends of folks smarter than us for that understanding.
What I have learned from this and what I have said for years is this. As a Christian that believes in heaven and hell, hence also the Devil, their is nothing more he likes to see is CHRISTIANS arguing, which is what is happening here. Michael has the right, so far, to voice his opinion, none of us have to agree or disagree with it. What would be more interesting to see on here is those that don't agree to voice their opinion in a positive light, even with their own links and research.
No other book offers salvation and a saviour that died for me.
If you believe in evolution I am outclassed for I have no knowledge of primates in my family.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:47 PM
Now that was a good one.
No other book offers salvation and a saviour that died for me.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 4:29 PM
Now that's even a better one.
Broaden your way of thinking. .....It is religion Michael.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 3:25 PM
13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it
That broad stuff don't sound good to me. Sounds a little safer thinking narrow and straight like the old gate and path. I think Michael has seen the gait. He only desires more souls the opportunity to gander the gait.
If I don't follow the bible and the offer of salvation that it offers I die turn to worm dirt and have not lost a thing.
People laugh, people cry, people remember me and people forget me, I haven't lost nothing.
I don't follow the bible and accept the offer of salvation it speaks of then I will have lost everything including my eternal soul.
That is not a risk or gamble I am willing to bet on , ARE YOU?
Neither am I Michael.
It never ceases to amaze me though at how the devil makes the broad way look so good to everyone. No one has ever completely escaped the deception. It is a constant struggle to see through the haze of deception that is forever spewing.
I have hope though. It is a day coming. A lot sooner than most are anticipating. As long as it was not yesterday I shall be content.
That broad stuff don't sound good to me. Sounds a little safer thinking narrow and straight like the old gate and path.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 4:43 PM
Good way to justify narrow mindedness.
you call it narrow mindedness, I call it Christ mindedness.
I'm not sure if everyone purposely ignored this or what, but if ya'll keep it up it make one entity very happy. So I will put it back on here, the full post is above.
What I have learned from this and what I have said for years is this. As a Christian that believes in heaven and hell, hence also the Devil, their is nothing more he likes to see is CHRISTIANS arguing, which is what is happening here. Michael has the right, so far, to voice his opinion, none of us have to agree or disagree with it. What would be more interesting to see on here is those that don't agree to voice their opinion in a positive light, even with their own links and research.
-- Posted by Sharon22 on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 3:42 PM
I do apologize Sharon , but remember even Christ got ticked off and lost his temper[in the temple]
If these people don't agree that is fine that is their GOD given right.
Some people do though and that is why I take the attitudes from some and keep coming back for more.
What would be more interesting to see on here is those that don't agree to voice their opinion in a positive light, even with their own links and research.
-- Posted by Sharon22 on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 3:42 PM
That has been done so many times, but it has been ignored, belittled and rejected...
No other book offers salvation and a saviour that died for me.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 4:29 PM
It is a question of faith and your intolerance is a negative from my point of view.
The bible says to be intolerant of any faith but faith in him so I'll be intolerant no matter what your point of view.
The Judeo- Christian faith is the only point of view[ the right one to I might add] that means anything to me.
I do apologize Sharon , but remember even Christ got ticked off and lost his temper[in the temple]
If these people don't agree that is fine that is their GOD given right.
Some people do though and that is why I take the attitudes from some and keep coming back for more.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 5:52 PM
The problem is Michael that your approach is all wrong. You think you are doing good, but I have to strongly disagree with you. Reading the things you say and the arguments you use turns me off and causes me to search elsewhere for answers. I realized that I don't see things the way you see things and that I never want to be this person that belittles the customs and tradition of others. The only fact in the entire argument is that no man knows for certain what is on the other side of death. Why would you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong, when you are not for certain that you are correct? Proclaiming that you are correct and others are wrong using your faith's book as the proof is not a valid argument. If I decide one day that 2+2=5 it doesn't change the truth no matter how true I think it is or want it to be. You do not know the truth about what awaits you when death is on your doorstep and neither does anyone else. Study the origins of heaven and hell in man's vocabulary and consciousness. Write a blog about how monotheism came about. If your beliefs are correct then you should have no trouble with it at all.
Paul preached Christ Crucified and resurrected if you can't believe that then you have no chance of believing the rest.
This is the generation that tries to make 2 plus 2, not me by saying that abortion is O.K. and that homosexuality is fine and normal and transvestites are normal and child molesters have a chemical imbalance or whatever excuse to accept them .
This generation has gotten so far away from God some has never even heard of him or his Son who died on the Cross for all those who accept him.
I am proud to say that my children are being taught the Bible and what is right and wrong and they think just like me.
At least when my time on earth is done the good news will be carried on.
When Crossroads Church does come into existence the Word will be preached the way God intended ,not the way that man has watered it down to what I call human secularism, or in layman's terms "cotton candy and fuzzy ducks"!
I am proud to say that my children are being taught the Bible and what is right and wrong and they think just like me.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 7:02 PM
Robots do not think. Also, it is very unfortunate that your children think just like you. One day, they will actually visit other parts of this state, country, and world and they will understand that daddy didn't know everything, and sometimes having different thoughts than the status quo is actually beneficial, rather than harmful.
Lord willing they will always follow the bible.
Michael, please site the source of your blog "sermon". I believe it to be "WHO ARE THE GENTILES?" by Dr. Bertrand Comparet (http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/whogentiles.html. ) Please correct me if I am wrong. Others may want to read the original piece in the author's own words.
This is the generation that tries to make 2 plus 2, not me by saying that abortion is O.K. and that homosexuality is fine and normal and transvestites are normal and child molesters have a chemical imbalance or whatever excuse to accept them .
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 7:02 PM
When all else fails spread fear of the slippery slope. Typical or should I say stereotypical. I don't know where you get off saying things like your above statement, but I am out of this debate since you have trouble making claims based on facts instead of ignorant nonsense.
You plagiarized this Michael, word for word.
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/wh...
It was by Bertrand I have several study guides from Herbert Armstrong who Bertrand follows.
I have the permission to post them according to the study guides and will post them.
The top of the post on the Gentiles are of his the rest is mine.
Sin used to be black and white now all the world sees is gray.
I will post the links for now on if I need to.
It was not all his own words either,those words and studies come from the bible and last time I checked , nobody has a copyright on the word of God.
I do not know what I missed since last night, but I went back and re-read the original comment and it was still good in my opinion. It was not derogatory to anyone, and was dead on correct in the problems with the KJV. Michael did not say that his beliefs were fact, and even admitted a lot of people rejected it. A lot of his suppositions I do not personally agree with, and some of them are just plain wrong in my opinion, but this topic indicates to me a degree of study and thought. That to me is what it is all about. Thoughts are building blocks that grow on top of one another, and you never know what Michael will build. I still appreciate the effort and hope for more.
Oh my.... Big changes in a couple of minutes. I still see the effort, maybe not as much, but it is still there. We all have to learn from somewhere or something.
I do not know what I missed since last night, but I went back and re-read the original comment and it was still good in my opinion. It was not derogatory to anyone, and was dead on correct in the problems with the KJV. Michael did not say that his beliefs were fact, and even admitted a lot of people rejected it. A lot of his suppositions I do not personally agree with, and some of them are just plain wrong in my opinion, but this topic indicates to me a degree of study and thought. That to me is what it is all about. Thoughts are building blocks that grow on top of one another, and you never know what Michael will build. I still appreciate the effort and hope for more.
-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 8:26 PM
Unfortunately they are the thoughts of Dr. Bertrand Comparet and not Michael's own. He plagiarized the majority of this blog word for word.
It was not all his own words either,those words and studies come from the bible and last time I checked , nobody has a copyright on the word of God.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 8:26 PM
LOL!!!
the word for word is in the bible, me and Dr. Comparet share the same thoughts.
Am I plagerizing Jesus or the apostles or Moses or Abraham or any other bible figure.
Lord I hope not for if I am I will be in trouble for that is all that I do.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
http://www.plagiarism.org/learning_cente...
You know that you are supposed to give credit to the original author even if you have permission to use it.
My fault and thank you for explaining that to me and I will act accordingly in the future.
Otherwise known as a FRAUD! This is pathetic, and the Times Gazette, of ALL entities, should NOT condone plagiarism...
How can you continue to allow such blatant plagiarism, whom the author was FULLY aware of, and did not cite a source until he was called out for it.
Times Gazette,
This is ILLEGAL and it should NOT go unpunished.
"The only difference between a believer in Christ and a non- believer is a believer admits that he needs saving."
He is a master of deception.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 11:14 AM
No one has ever completely escaped the deception. It is a constant struggle to see through the haze of deception that is forever spewing.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 5:06 PM
Hmm, seems like all of this talk about deception is well and good until the person you have defended is the most guilty of all. Absolutely hilarious.
It was part of a booklet that I had which did not credit the author , not until it was posted did I see that it was from a website.
I have boxes of partial booklets and newsletters from over the years which I have kept and still refer to every now and then, my apologies ans it won't happen again.
Lol... I wonder what Jesus thinks about your pathetic excuses for acting illegally? No amount of apology or ignorance forgives a knowingly illegal activity.
So, next time a drug user, murderer, etc says they weren't aware of the proper laws we are supposed to just accept that. I realize those are different circumstances but the underlying intent is still the same. You knowingly and maybe even purposely posted something as though it was your original conviction without once giving credit where it was due.
I am not going to harp on this, but as a Senior in college, I would receive and F on the assignment, or possibly and F in the course, and on second offense, removal from the University. And we are expected to accept your excuse and dismiss it as accidental. Even IF it were part of some imaginary "booklet" you have, you STILL failed to cite the source... I knew by reading it, that you have never and would never type words of such eloquence.
Besides, the teaching goes back before He wrote it, it goes way back to the early 1500's .
It has just been built on through the centuries and the theory has gotten bigger, it would be impossible to cite all the ones who added to it.
For future blogs I will either post the link or cite the author if there is one.
It seems that people do break the law and cite that they did not understand it so don't use that one.I did not know the credit I stated it was a "partial booklet".
It will not happen again!
Besides, the teaching goes back before He wrote it, it goes way back to the early 1500's.
---Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 9:56 PM
Ah you mean during the birth of The Inquisition? Where others were persecuted for not believing like you (the so-called Church)?
parkerbrothers,
You're a fool. Whom is deceptive? LOL. BLah blah post post post, manic mode typer, must get in last word... to win...
Isn't it a shame Michael that people keep picking on you for your sins and faults... Doesn't feel real good does it? Might remember that when you keep harping on everyone elses lifestyles and sins. Or mistakes as you call them. No matter how you or anyone else strives for perfection "INCLUDING MYSELF" we are all still sinners. No matter what the sin is! And isn't it wonderful that God's saving grace pertains to us ALL that asks for it!
AMEN! ;)
For all those concerned I can send you the approval of the owner of the ensign site to repost his archives for he feels like I do.
There is no copyright on the Word ofn God when it comes to spreading the truth.
We are all sinners and do require grace but when that grace is recieved we are supposd to Repent and turn away from the sin not wallow in it like some old hog.
For all those concerned I can send you the approval of the owner of the ensign site to repost his archives for he feels like I do.
There is no copyright on the Word ofn God when it comes to spreading the truth.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 4:25 AM
Michael you keep mentioning that there is no copyright on the bible, but the words you copy and pasted into this blog were not the words of God. They were the words of Dr. Comparet. Even if you have permission to post or reprint his writings, you still must cite him as the author because HE WROTE IT, NOT YOU. Luckily for you, you did not come out directly and claim that these were your words. However, one of the comments you posted in particular left me with the feeling that this article was your own work. The excuse that you have repeated many times about God's word not being copyrighted does not apply here. You did not share the same thoughts as Dr. Comparet until you read his work. I am sorry to continue to beat a dead horse, but you continue to attempt to validate what you have done here using false logic and it just WRONG!
Michael,
I appreciate you posting the link at the top of this blog. It is one of the best I have seen thus far in determining where our forefathers minds were when this country was founded. Although each any every bit of information was good, I have posted a few of the quotes below that I thought were especially informative. My favorite has to be the last one of Jefferson on the purpose of the First Amendment. It clearly says where the mind of the President was on Christianity being the religion of America. It appears the First Amendments purpose had more to do with denominations than religions since the issue of Christianity was not even up for debate at the founding. It was a settled issue that this country "was" a Christian nation.
__________________________________
It can not be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Patrick Henry
________________________________
In 1787 when Franklin help founded Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone.
____________________________________
"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible"
By George Washington
________________________________
SUPREME COURT RULINGS
1799 Runkel vs Winemillier
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Justice Samuel Chase
____________________________________
In 1800 congress approved the use of the Capitol building to be used for Christian church services and by 1867 the Capitol building was the largest protestant church in the country.
_____________________________________
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalist or any other denomination.
Jeffersons' letter to Benjamin Rush in September 1800.
_______________________________
Whom is deceptive?
Posted by Evil Monkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 10:15 PM
Satan, the author of confusion and any of his many cohorts.
This has been argued many times parkerbrothers and it is easily debunked.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
There were religions other than Christianity present during this period in American history. Some of those that signed the Constitution were Diests and some had no religious affiliation at all. We have all had this argument on this blog many times now and even Carl McClanahan has himself debunked your Christian denomination argument. If the founding fathers wanted religion in our government we would have a Department of Religion wouldn't we?
No Nathan, I sincerely believe that the problem was that the issue of Chistianity and the United States together were so implanted that it was taken for granted. I do not think our fore- fathers were addressing the issue of other religions.
I think what has happened crept in slowly almost unaware. I think the workings of Satan himself is responsible for deceptively distorting the core meaning and value of the First Amendment. Time is one of his greatest tools. It can and did happen before our very eyes over a relatively slow period of time.
As far as your comment that said... "If the founding fathers wanted religion in our government we would have a Department of Religion wouldn't we?" .... I can only say that to me it appears they did not want any religion other than Christianity in government. They understood and believed Christianity was the basis. Why would they want or need a department for one figurehead. So it appears your argument is actually great supporting evidence that our country was a Christian founded nation and the first amendments purpose was a denominational issue instead of a religous one.
Read the above post on quotes from the early fathers. Better yet, go the actual source that Michael quoted at the first of this blog and see the evidence that can only be disputed with the prodding and enabling of Satan, the author of confusion himself. Perhaps he was working in some of the early fathers and you can find rebuttals but it is no doubt in my mind who the co-author of any such rebuttal would be and what his underlying goal is.
I have no reason to argue with you, because this debate is over a matter of fact. What you think is true does not change what is really true. You can argue that the sky is red all day long, but because the color of the sky is a matter of fact; there is no need to debate it. Care to argue that Diests are Christians or that Diests did not exist during this time or that Diests did not sign the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? These sir are matter of fact and cannot be contended. Your statements that Christianity was the only established religion of the time is false and any attempt to make these statements valid is futile. They are matters of fact and what you THINK matters not.
Nathan,
Below is a quote from a letter from Jefferson in 1800. Perhaps reading it will help clarify what he was saying in the qote from the letter of his 11 years earlier in 1789 that you quoted which is also below.
___________________________
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalist or any other denomination.
Jeffersons' letter to Benjamin Rush in September 1800.
____________________________________
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
_____________________--
As you notice in your quote he is mentioning "religion" whereas in mine which is 11 years later he is referring to "Christianity" and "denominations". Any deceptive thought that could be generated by the first quote of yours is clarified by his latter letter on the purpose of the First Amendment. Do not be deceived.
I have no reason to argue with you, because this debate is over a matter of fact. What you think is true does not change what is really true. You can argue that the sky is red all day long, but because the color of the sky is a matter of fact; there is no need to debate it. Care to argue that Diests are Christians or that Diests did not exist during this time or that Diests did not sign the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? These sir are matter of fact and cannot be contended. Your statements that Christianity was the only established religion of the time is false and any attempt to make these statements valid is futile. They are matters of fact and what you THINK matters not.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 10:07 AM
Here are some "matters of fact" for you since you seem to like them:
(1) Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalist or any other denomination.
Jeffersons' letter to Benjamin Rush in September 1800.
(2) SUPREME COURT RULINGS
1799 Runkel vs Winemillier
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Justice Samuel Chase
(3) It can not be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Patrick Henry
(4) "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible"
By George Washington
And Nathan, the sky is blue today.
The quote you posted is not a complete statement. The only words your quote contains are "establishment of a particular form of Christianity". This is not a complete statement or thought. The deception is on your end, not mine.
Furthermore, the leadership on Iran deny that the Holocaust existed. They do this because it is convenient for them, but regardless of what they THINK, history proves that the opposite is true. Your argument is no different in that it is convenient for you, but history proves otherwise.
Pastor Mike
Good info keep it coming. Not worried about where you may have got it from. People forget we all learn from some one or we're taught by hard knocks.
We have to decide if we want to be politically correct, or correct with God.
It will be interesting to watch history or prophey come about.
The bottom line in this country is the will of the people, not necessarily the will of God. Whether people understand it or not, or don't like it, God will prevail. The created is NOT bigger than the Creator, even though we sometimes tend to forget that.
Jesus DEFEATED satan, the battle is over, and it's up to Christians to step up to the plate and act like we're the winners.
What our forefathers intended for this country can always be debated by both sides strongly.
It's today's "it's got to be my way" mentality that will lead us into Armagedon, which God has warned us about all along. Following his will we will escape Armagedon, but it's our will that takes us down that last road.
Which road will the world choose? (I guess we already know which road will be chosen if we believe in the Bible don't we)?
The most important thing to us is which road you will choose to travel.
From the quotes of Patrick Henry to the early Supreme Court Rulings it is clear what has happened. The choice is up to each of us individually to make on whether we adhere to the deceptions.
As far as your comment..."Care to argue that Diests are Christians or that Diests did not exist during this time or that Diests did not sign the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?" .... I will mention that I have previosly stated that the workings of Satan were quite well possible on some of the early fathers just as he works on here today.
Your original argument was that Christianity was the only religion present during the creation and signing of the Constitution. Whether or not Deism is the work of Satan is beside the point, the fact of the matter and the problem with your original argument, is that religions other than Christianity existed in the United States when it was formed and some of the people directly involved in its creation were members of a religion that did not think Christ was their savior. The first amendment had nothing to do with Christianity or denominations.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You also must take note of key word in the first amendment, the word "an". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is very clear in its purpose of highlighting that no religion is to be recognized as higher than ANother. Don't you think that James Madison and the other framers would have changed the word "Religion" to "Christian Denomination" if that is what they truly intended? Your argument is ignorant and defies logic.
If no one minds me jumping in, I think we need to look at the religious beliefs and quotes of the forefathers in their original context. To approach them in any other way detracts from the true meaning. Jefferson was in fact promoting the freedom to practice any denomination of Christianity because he himself had a few ideas on the subject that he was defending. If it were up to him, your Bible would look a lot different today. Also much of the rhetoric was the same then as it is now. To get the support of the people, sometimes the talking points had to "hit close to home". Christianity was the dominant religion among the people, but the framers could not have cared less.
The "forefathers" we are talking about here, were not your average farmer or laborer as a rule. They were either made rich and powerful by the former government, or were in fact representing those rich and powerful. There were many different religious beliefs represented including atheism, but arguably, most of them worshiped worldly wealth and power more than any God.
Mr. Evans
We have allowed the government to prohibit the the right of judges to display a plaque with the ten commandments in their courtrooms.
That should be between the state and local government to decide that issue.
It breaks the freedom of state rights and the personal rights of the judge who was duly elected by the people. If the people didn't want him to display them, vote him out. But no, the will of the local people wasn't taken into consideration, just the will of the minority or people in power.
Of course that was never meant to be.
I guess that is why we are not a democracy just a constitutional republic that also goes astray and breaks it's own laws against the people rights.
Your argument is ignorant and defies logic.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 11:15 AM
But it however embraces those things you call facts.
Christianity was the dominant religion among the people, but the framers could not have cared less.
-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 11:43 AM
I think they cared a lot more than you are willing to give them credit for. I think the only problem was they never conceived that this country would slide so far away from the God they believed in.
Only the passage of time has enabled it to slowly slip away.
It does not take a lot of common sense to come to the conclusion that if they allowed the 10 commandments to be posted in the places they did then they meant for it to be right to post them in the places that are even questioned today.
The "forefathers" we are talking about here, were not your average farmer or laborer as a rule. They were either made rich and powerful by the former government, or were in fact representing those rich and powerful. There were many different religious beliefs represented including atheism, but arguably, most of them worshiped worldly wealth and power more than any God.
-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 11:43 AM
memyselfi,
I suppose you arrived at such conclusions by a detailed study of their balance sheets over an extended period of time and used mitigating variances between different geographic territories at a minimum along with a pattern of sustained tithing????
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/...
Mr. Evans
We have allowed the government to prohibit the the right of judges to display a plaque with the ten commandments in their courtrooms.
That should be between the state and local government to decide that issue.
It breaks the freedom of state rights and the personal rights of the judge who was duly elected by the people. If the people didn't want him to display them, vote him out. But no, the will of the local people wasn't taken into consideration, just the will of the minority or people in power.
Of course that was never meant to be.
I guess that is why we are not a democracy just a constitutional republic that also goes astray and breaks it's own laws against the people rights.
-- Posted by jesse sellers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 12:06 PM
Your understanding of the Constitution is not quite there yet. The Bill of Rights, because it is directly addressed in the Constitution can not be changed or taken away by any law passed by a state or local government. States laws cannot transcend national laws without it eventually being challenged in the courts. The case you speak of was challenged in the highest court in our land and the state lost and rightfully so for reasons that are obviously beyond you comprehension.
But it however embraces those things you call facts.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 1:29 PM
Prove it parkerbrothers. I have made a very fine case for my side of this debate. It isn't hard to understand so long as you are not a religious radical that thinks Jesus would have preferred to have his message forced on the people. I have debunked everything that you have said so far with the exception of your quotes from Patrick Henry, who believed that the American people should have been required to pay taxes directly to the church, and Justice Chase, who was actually an activist judge that legislated from the bench, something I am sure you despise. Unless they are fighting for your cause of course. Posting cherry-picked self-serving quotes from two individuals and a sentence fragment that are the words of Thomas Jefferson with someone else completing the statement is hardly proof of anything. If you ask me the proof is in the pudding and here we are, the separation of church and state is still going strong over 200 years later. Don't Tread On Me!
It does not take a lot of common sense to come to the conclusion that if they allowed the 10 commandments to be posted in the places they did then they meant for it to be right to post them in the places that are even questioned today.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 1:39 PM
Do tell, where are the ten commandments posted again?
parkerbrothers, No, nothing so complicated as all of that. I just deduced it from their own writings. Some of these patristic figures are very prolific authors. Some even wrote their very own Bibles. Vanity is nothing new.
What do the 10 commandments have to do with anything? How many Christians observe the Sabbath? What did Christ fulfill anyway?
nathan.evans, you are exactly right! It saids it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/const...
Founding Fathers religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fa...
Mr. Evans
I agree with you, one of us is out in left field over the bill of rights and constitution issue, and of course I think it is you.
Did I understand you correctly, that the bill of rights can't be changed.
memyselfi,
I found this in one of the links that Momof3&3step&1gran posted above. It differs a little from your earlier assessment of the founding fathers.
Family and finances
A few of the 1787 delegates were wealthy, but many of the country's top wealth-holders were Loyalists who went to Britain. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists.[8]
Mr. Evans
I agree with you, one of us is out in left field over the bill of rights and constitution issue, and of course I think it is you.
Did I understand you correctly, that the bill of rights can't be changed.
-- Posted by jesse sellers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 7:02 PM
I said:
"The Bill of Rights, because it is directly addressed in the Constitution can not be changed or taken away by any law passed by a state or local government. States laws cannot transcend national laws without it eventually being challenged in the courts."
What I am saying is that a state or local law cannot take away the basic rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States. If a state or local government does try to pass a law that takes away one's individual guaranteed rights, the state or local government will at some point find its law being tested in court and perhaps overturned. The US Constitution can of course be changed through the use of amendments as outlined within the Constitution itself.
Founding Fathers religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fa...
-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM
Momof3&3step&1gran,
Great article. Allergies have my eyes itching and blurred and I may not have counted right but it appears that 52 of the 55 delegates were Christians. That is more of an overwhelming majority than I would have thought. You might as well say they basically were all Christians. It also revealed the various denominations that were represented by the Christian delegates and helps support the reasoning behind why Jefferson viewed the purpose of the First Amendment to be to prevent the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalist or any other denomination.
Again, thanks for the supporting documentation.
Where is Michael?
He is much like George Bush.. he makes a case then lets his Press Secretary (parkerbrothers) do all the typing. Absolutely hilarious.
I have been taking care of some urgent buisness thank you.
I have no doubt this country was founde on the Christian faith and that is that.
That is an accurate comparison to the loyalists, who were more than just your average loyalists, but as a rule, the step directly below the crown. Please look for a comparison to the norm of society which was more destitute than it is even today. Most (not all) came from wealthy families, but all were successful, without exception. Even if their success was derived from representing the wealthy families. Please do look farther into it. I do not often comment on things I know absolutely nothing about. I do make many mistakes, but as a rule, not rookie ones. I stand by my assertion.
I have no doubt this country was founde on the Christian faith and that is that.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 8:57 PM
If this country was founded on the Christian faith and they wanted to impose that faith on the electorate, then there would have been ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to flee England, which was because of RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION!
I have no doubt this country was founde on the Christian faith and that is that.
-- Posted by michaelbell on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 8:57 PM
Michael,
Yes indeed it was.
It was the core of the establishing of it and one of the reasons for the great rise of it.
Likewise, we know the root of the falling.
I have made a very fine case for my side of this debate.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 2:18 PM
Real leather or imported? I missed seeing you with it.
Just joking Nathan. I saw your fine case. I actually commented to George W. how it matched your heels.
Mr. Evan
Then you are saying the law doesn't change just the interpretation by some judge that is appointed for life by a political bureaucrat.
It still doesn't change the wording if I remember right.
If I remember right the Wording says--Congress shall make (NO LAWS) respecting an establishment of religion or (Prohibiting the Free Exercise) there of ect.
I contend they have taken away the man's right to exercise his first amendment rights to display the ten commandments in his court room.
What's next are they going to swear people in on their word only.
Sounds good to me.
Excuse me your right they already are.
Real leather or imported? I missed seeing you with it.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:28 PM
Your wit has value, but it neglects your cause.
******Then you are saying the law doesn't change just the interpretation by some judge that is appointed for life by a political bureaucrat. -- Posted by jesse sellers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:49 PM
------------- I already stated a way the law can change other than this. Think of Prohibition (the 18th Amendment). It was later repealed by the 21st Amendment). Laws change. What you are referring to is judicial review. Judges are entrusted with great power, but the system has worked so far in my opinion and to tamper with it would be dangerous.
**********It still doesn't change the wording if I remember right. -- Posted by jesse sellers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:49 PM
--------------- I think it makes it null and void once a judge makes a decision against a law, with opportunities to appeal the decision.
**************If I remember right the Wording says--Congress shall make (NO LAWS) respecting an establishment of religion or (Prohibiting the Free Exercise) there of ect. I contend they have taken away the man's right to exercise his first amendment rights to display the ten commandments in his court room. -- Posted by jesse sellers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:49 PM
--------------- Which man's rights are you referring to?
***********What's next are they going to swear people in on their word only.
---------------- A man's word is a powerful thing indeed. Your question does raise many interesting questions about whether the thought of what awaits one in the afterlife is greater than the disappointment and pain caused by making poor decisions in the here and now.
What I find interesting reading all the comments is they all have their own bias and certain "points" of truth. I would be very curious to talk with our founding fathers to see what they thought of life in America today. I personally think parts of it is very exciting, after all how many countries can you actually practice your chosen religion or not more likely practice one at all. I choose to practice Christianity, so far without the state or federal government telling me I can't. I would have to agree that certain people left England and other European countries because of religious persecution, but only to a certain extent. When each particular group came to America, they each established their own little community, our original colonies, some very strict on religious beliefs others not. The Puritans were very strict on who lived in their towns and how they lived, which was up in Massachusetts. If anyone is interested here's a link to the Library of Congress with a history of how religion played a part in the colonies: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/.
I've done a little internet searching about the
Supreme court building and the Ten Commandments. Moses is displayed on the building once, holding the commandments, along with Confucius and Solon. A representation of the commandments is portrayed in 2 other spots, and depending on the bias of the writer, it is either the 10 commandments or the Bill of Rights.
What's neat about most of these comments are they are well thought out, but this is most likely one area we will have to agree to disagree.
Nathan,
You or Tom might be able to answer this question/comment, but it is my understanding that witnesses do not have to swear in under the Bible, but have that as an option.
The Amish and Mennonite communities also prove to be an interesting study when talking about religious persecution. Their are no persons of the Amish persuation in Europe today due to the persecution that occured in Germany and surrounding countries. The Amish communities in America are now experiencing a population explosion, and expanding to areas not populated by the Amish. The Amish are "non-conformist" and live a lifestyle that us "Englishers" might take a few examples from.
I would be very curious to talk with our founding fathers to see what they thought of life in America today.
-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 11:55 PM
I imagine they would be most appalled by the fact that we have been in essence, enslaved by the Federal Reserve and powerful bankers.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography (1821), the authors of the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom refrained from mentioning the exact name of the "holy author of our religion." Here is Jefferson's explanation for the omission:
"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion"; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
So it's clear that freedom of religious expression was always meant to include practitioners and believers of other religions.
Mr. Evans
I may not agree with the judge that ruled against the man rights. I agree our judical system works fairly well, and are commanded by many honorable men and women.
My point is when one side suffers a loss of freedom in this nation, also the other side has the same loss. This nation isn't perfect because it was created by man, but I think it is the greatest nation ever created to this date.
When it comes to human rights. It takes two strong sides like you and Parker to keep us ballanced and headed foward to a more perfect nation.
I know God will take care of the rest in his time.
Nathan,
You or Tom might be able to answer this question/comment, but it is my understanding that witnesses do not have to swear in under the Bible, but have that as an option.
-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 11:55 PM
That is correct... Neither do U.S. Senators, Representatives, Presidents, or any other elected official...
Real leather or imported? I missed seeing you with it.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:28 PM
Your wit has value, but it neglects your cause.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 10:36 PM
nathan.evans,
Glad to see you do understand a little wit and fun have value in life. It makes a better day.
Understand I also agree that it neglects my cause but I was hoping you seen that I relied on facts that clearly show our founding fathers were Christians (of different denominations) rather than wit though.
I would like to see the progression of every Supreme Court Case involving the issue of religion starting from the earliest and moving forward in order to the latest and see if it indeed does shows a slow moving pattern away from Christianity as a taken for granted into what it is today as I think it would.
I do not think we reached where we are at overnight. I believe our founding fathers would not agree with current rulings as aligning with their intent. I believe a lot more could be understood if we viewed the History of Christianity through the American Legal System. I still think our original founding fathers ideas were a lot closer to the following Supreme Court Case than they are with todays Supreme Court Rulings.
1799 Runkel vs Winemillier
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
If anyone has the time and available sources to draw from I would be interested in paying someone to build an accurate timeline of the progression. It may be available somewhere on line if someone is interested in helping. I have thought of doing it for years and I imagine I am not the first to want to look at it from the perspective of a slow slipping through the system.
Although it is not what I am looking for I googled the words "History of Christianity through the American Legal System" and found an interesting link that is very insightful to exploring the founding fathers mind.
http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/features...
Unfortunately parkerbros., your link is not the same as I posted. And your numbers of 53 are questionable. This is what it saids under "RELIGION":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fa...
Religion
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.[11]
Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.
Notwithstanding the spectrum of beliefs held by the Founding Fathers, their speeches indeed contain statements in which they describe religion's role in molding "national morality" and securing the rule of law (George Washington)[citation needed], its check on human "wickedness" (Benjamin Franklin)[citation needed], and its preservation of a free government such as America (John Adams)[citation needed].
Jefferson in particular was hostile toward many aspects of contemporary Christianity, writing in a March 13, 1789 letter to Francis Hopkinson "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
In correspondence with John Adams, Jefferson wrote that "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills[citation needed] ." In yet another letter, to José Correia da Serra, dated April 11, 1820, Jefferson wrote that: "Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."[12]
Founding Fathers religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fa...
-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM
Momof3&3step&1gran,
Great article. Allergies have my eyes itching and blurred and I may not have counted right but it appears that 52 of the 55 delegates were Christians. That is more of an overwhelming majority than I would have thought. You might as well say they basically were all Christians. It also revealed the various denominations that were represented by the Christian delegates and helps support the reasoning behind why Jefferson viewed the purpose of the First Amendment to be to prevent the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalist or any other denomination.
Again, thanks for the supporting documentation.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 8:48 PM
Momof3&3step&1gran,
Looks like the same link to me. I again counted the delegates and the number of listed delegates professed to be Christian and came to the same result as I posted earlier. Please look at it however and see where I may have made the mistake.
Your link goes to "Founding Fa" which is nothing (Not Founded).
The founding fathers did have alot of christian faith, but according to the wikipedia on Founding Fathers some of the 1787 delegates had no religious affiliation. The others were protestants except for (49) it saids. I understand you getting 52 if you add up the numbers it gave you of each denomination. But like I said above that number is questionable because some "Congregationalist back in 1750's began unitaranism. Which made their Christianity beliefs questionable.
Here are some of the links I got that from, I don't have all day to keep posting on this, for I do have other things to do. But from what I can see, is that some believe in Christianity and some may not have. Either way it was not allowed to be the only religion accepted as the American way, and placed in the constitution simply because their are other religions. I believe "In God we Trust" was allowed because other religions have other gods. And "One nation under God" for the same reason, to each his own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio...
Without higher courts to ensure doctrinal uniformity among the congregations, Congregationalists have been more diverse than other Reformed churches. Despite the efforts of Calvinists to maintain the dominance of their system, some Congregational churches, especially in the older settlements of New England, gradually developed sentiments toward Arminianism, Unitarianism, Deism, and transcendentalism. By the 1750s, several Congregational preachers were teaching the possibility of universal salvation, an issue that caused considerable conflict among its adherents on the one side and hard-line Calvinists and sympathizers of the First Great Awakening on the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianis...
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summe...
http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.h...
http://altreligion.about.com/library/wee...
but according to the wikipedia on Founding Fathers some of the 1787 delegates had no religious affiliation. The others were protestants except for (49) it saids.
Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Wed, Sep 24, 2008, at 2:57 PM
Momof3&3step&1gran,
Maybe I am still reading it wrong but I do not believe it says "The others were protestants except for (49)" as you quote above.
Below are the sentences copied directly from the article. As I believe you will see it says 49 "were" Protestants. Counting the 3 Roman Catholics I think you will come up with 52. There were only 55 delegates that signed?? Correct me if I am wrong though. I still can barely see to read today.
_________
Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49.
__________
My bad, it should have read:
The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Claiming the total as 49 protestants.
No problem. I just wanted the actual truth to show that nearly all of the delegates were Christian.
Well, I guess it depends on your definitions of exactly what a Christian is. If you are so open-minded to accept the majority of these as Christians, you are much more liberal than I would have ever given you credit for. Here is a part of the Virginia Statute written by Jefferson and the "father" of the constitution Madison. It should make clear the objectives of the framers.
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
memyselfi,
In general all the "denominations" listed in the article are considered Christian. It seems that the word religion was used then in places where we would use the word denominations today.
One of the more clarifying writings on Jefferson came later when he said the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the establishment of a particular form of Christianity by the Episcopalians, Congregationalist or any other denomination.
Even today I run into people who will call the Amish or Mennonites a different "religion" when in eccense they are no more than another denomination of Christians. I believe our fore fathers were insuring that they could indeed become or remain Amish or Mennonite but in no form or fashion were they thinking that Jesus Christ should be kept out of schools or public buildings when they were molding the model of our country.
It reminds me of a couple of the quotes from Michaels link:
_____________________
"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible"
By George Washington
______________________
In 1800 congress approved the use of the Capitol building to be used for Christian church services and by 1867 the Capitol building was the largest protestant church in the country.
________________________
Noticed they "approved" it for "Christian" services.
Nothing but the keen work of the deceiving one himself could have used our court system so well to slowly erode what our founding fathers fought for into what it is today.
The devil may slowly erode our country out from under us but he can not erode the kingdom out of in us.
Well, I guess it depends on your definitions of exactly what a Christian is. If you are so open-minded to accept the majority of these as Christians, you are much more liberal than I would have ever given you credit for.
Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 12:41 PM
memyselfi,
If three building were standing on the south side of the square and each had the chief cornerstone of Jesus Christ supporting it they would all be Christian buildings although the facade of one is of brick, one of glass and one one of metal.
The author of confusion would gently persuade that one is a brick building, one is a glass building and the other is a metal building.
What I don't understand is why there is a need to look down upon people of other than Christian faith. Did Jesus represent a "not in my neighborhood" mentality? The Jesus that I know would not have wanted the citizens of a nation to be forced or coerced into submitting to his ideals. A law of that nature would cheapen the day someone truly felt the call to submit on their own.
We as a planet all have such a diverse and long history as people separated by distances that no man could imagine until they were conquered. I don't understand why they are the enemy simply because we bumped into each other.
What I don't understand is why there is a need to look down upon people of other than Christian faith. Did Jesus represent a "not in my neighborhood" mentality?
Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 9:19 PM
nathan.evans,
Good questions.
Although we hear a lot about the miracles and healings and togetherness in the bible there are other parts that give hint to a "not in my neighborhood" mentality that you question.
________
15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
________
11And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
12And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
_________
23He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
_________
52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
__________
Sounds to me like he definitely said their is a free will choice to make. However, he does not force it on anyone. In much the same way I do not think we should force someone to come to the United States and likewise if they do want to conform to "our" standards they should not be held here against their will. Let them return to a place that has things the way they want.
Sounds to me like he definitely said their is a free will choice to make. However, he does not force it on anyone. In much the same way I do not think we should force someone to come to the United States and likewise if they do want to conform to "our" standards they should not be held here against their will. Let them return to a place that has things the way they want.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 6:32 AM
So you think that a law requiring that every American citizen accept Jesus Christ as their savior is a good thing?
I really dislike posting all of this but, their are clearly more Founding Fathers than the 55 that done the signing. I am still not convinced on theory of Founding Fathers only religion of Christianity. I believe as memyselfi stated christianity was the more dominant religion. Some of the Congregationlist were unitarian - believe in God, but not neccessarily trinity. As well as it stated some had NO religious affiliation and all the other Founding Fathers religious prefference was not listed other than 3 roman catholics and 49 protestants. And even so the Christians did NOT want religion combined with state. Jefferson even spoke of men changing scriptures in the bible to appease them. This is why he came up with the Jeffersonbible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fa...
[edit] Signatories of the Declaration of Independence
John Adams
Samuel Adams
Josiah Bartlett
Carter Braxton
Charles Carroll
Samuel Chase
Abraham Clark
George Clymer
William Ellery
William Floyd
Benjamin Franklin
Elbridge Gerry
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
John Hancock
Benjamin Harrison
John Hart
Joseph Hewes
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
William Hooper
Stephen Hopkins
Francis Hopkinson
Samuel Huntington
Thomas Jefferson
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Richard Henry Lee
Francis Lewis
Philip Livingston
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Thomas McKean
Arthur Middleton
Lewis Morris
Robert Morris
John Morton
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
William Paca
Robert Treat Paine
John Penn
George Read
Caesar Rodney
George Ross
Benjamin Rush
Edward Rutledge
Roger Sherman
James Smith
Richard Stockton
Thomas Stone
George Taylor
Matthew Thornton
George Walton
William Whipple
William Williams
James Wilson
John Witherspoon
Oliver Wolcott
George Wythe
Charles Thomson - Secretary of Continental Congress (only John Hancock signed and Thomson attested on July 4)
[edit] Constitutional Convention delegates
[edit] Delegates who signed
John Hancock
Abraham Baldwin
Richard Bassett
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
John Blair
William Blount
David Brearly
Jacob Broom
Pierce Butler
Daniel Carroll
George Clymer
Jonathan Dayton
John Dickinson
William Few
Thomas Fitzsimons
Benjamin Franklin
Nicholas Gilman
Nathaniel Gorham
Alexander Hamilton
Jared Ingersoll
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
William Samuel Johnson
Rufus King
John Langdon
William Livingston
James Madison
James McHenry
Thomas Mifflin
Gouverneur Morris
Robert Morris
William Paterson
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
George Read
John Rutledge
Roger Sherman
Richard Dobbs Spaight
George Washington (president of the Convention)
Hugh Williamson
James Wilson
William Jackson (Secretary)
[edit] Delegates who had left the Convention earlier and did not sign
William Richardson Davie
Oliver Ellsworth
William Houstoun
John Lansing, Jr.
Alexander Martin
Luther Martin
James McClurg
John Francis Mercer
William Pierce
Caleb Strong
George Wythe
Robert Yates
[edit] Delegates who refused to sign
George Mason
Edmund Randolph
Elbridge Gerry
[edit] Other Founders
Ethan Allen
Richard Bland
George Clinton
Patrick Henry
John Jay
Henry Knox
Henry Lee III
Thomas Sim Lee
Robert R. Livingston
John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States.
Philip Mazzei
James Monroe, Continental Congressman and fifth President of the United States, the last of the "Republican Generation"
Thomas Paine, who went on to champion the French Revolution in his Rights of Man. He was elected to the National Convention and helped to write the constitution of France.
Peyton Randolph, President of the First Continental Congress
Dr.William Rickman, first Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army.
Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette French Major General, originally a volunteer, who was vital for the correspondence to and persuasion of France to support the Revolution.
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the German-Prussian General who reorganized the Continental Army and guided it to victory.
Charles Thomson, Secretary of Continental Congress 1774-1789 (partially responsible for designing the Great Seal of the United States of America)
Even today the Bible is being changed. What I learned in Sunday school of the 10 commandments of "Thou shall not Kill. and Thou shall not steal." has been changed to "Thou shall not murder." That is insane to me. Murder brings about a different meaning as far as motive goes. To me that is changing Gods commandments. You are not suppose to add or take away from the bible. And it clearly is being done, even before my eyes today. Shame!!!!!
Jesus saw the people gambling in the temple, he overturned the table because he was angry at all the sin he seen going on in Gods Temple. It would be better if the Book, chapter, and versus was given so people can read the whole thing themselves. "OUR STANDARDS" There is the question of who he is taliking about here, and whether he is still talking about religion or something else?
"Sounds to me like he definitely said their is a free will choice to make. However, he does not force it on anyone. In much the same way I do not think we should force someone to come to the United States and likewise if they do want to conform to "our" standards they should not be held here against their will. Let them return to a place that has things the way they want". -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 6:32 AM
So you think that a law requiring that every American citizen accept Jesus Christ as their savior is a good thing?
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 8:08 AM
Never said nothing like that.
Jesus saw the people gambling in the temple, he overturned the table because he was angry at all the sin he seen going on in Gods Temple. It would be better if the Book, chapter, and versus was given so people can read the whole thing themselves.
Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 1:45 PM
Momof3&3step&1gran,
I was only responding to Nathans question that said...
Did Jesus represent a "not in my neighborhood" mentality?
By saying that.....
Although we hear a lot about the miracles and healings and togetherness in the bible there are other parts that give hint to a "not in my neighborhood" mentality that you question.
I think there were times that He did draw a line and in essence say "not in my neighborhood".
As far as the "Thou shall not kill " in the original manuscripts , it was thou shall not murder.
Neither Moses or Jesus spoke tyhe pretty language of King James.
People have taken the Jewishness out of the Bible.
Even in the greek it was murder.
What makes murder? to lie in wait and plan to kill.
Would you be held accountable for killing a attacker of your kids or grandkids? I think not.
This is what makes abortion murder to me, because you pre- planned to do it.
Thanks michaelbell.
http://www.christianhomesite.com/cherryv...
Very informative link Momof3&3step&1gran. It contains a lot of good basic common sense that explains a lot.
Your post above Michael shows why your study is so valuable. The translation of the original writings into English leaves a lot of valuable meaning out thus preventing a lack of true understanding sometimes.
Just be thankful that the English translation does not impair the message of the Gospel to the point where the Good News can not be understood and grasped by all seekers.