Zone1 Wow we really are one Nation under God

[NotfooledbyW]

Our representative system of government is actually based upon the structure of the Presbyterian Church.

How’s that?

 

[kjw47]

Our representative system of government is actually based upon the structure of the Presbyterian Church.

A house divided, will not stand.

 

[Cougarbear]

Small g god is not calling that one a God.

Oh stop it. There’s no small flag in Greek or Hebrew. Pathetic. If you actually read it, it means we are gods in embryo. He said we will inherit all that he has and is.

 

[BothWings]

How’s that?

In a nutshell, because of the Scots-Irish Presbyterian officers who served under George Washington in the Revolution. But it's much deeper than that. These people wanted to create a representative Republic and used the Presbyterian Church structure as a model and inspiration. It had little to do with religious belief. It was about leadership structure. There are many articles explaining it besides the one in this link:

Scotland and the Birth of the United States by Donald Fortson

Scottish Presbyterianism, with its robust theology, disciplined government by elders, and strict piety, would significantly influence America through the waves

www.ligonier.org

 

[kjw47]

Oh stop it. There’s no small flag in Greek or Hebrew. Pathetic. If you actually read it, it means we are gods in embryo. He said we will inherit all that he has and is.

Satan is called small g god at 2 Cor 4:4= Theos- the only word in Greek for God or god = Theos--So at John 1:1 the true God is called HoTheos while the word got plain Theos=god, just as satan did in 2 Cor 4:4--HoTheos to clearly show a difference from God to god for plain Theos in the same paragraph.

 

[Cougarbear]

Satan is called small g god at 2 Cor 4:4= Theos- the only word in Greek for God or god = Theos--So at John 1:1 the true God is called HoTheos while the word got plain Theos=god, just as satan did in 2 Cor 4:4--HoTheos to clearly show a difference from God to god for plain Theos in the same paragraph.

Satan isn't god. But, I guess to JWs, he is. Way to go Satanists. Funny, first you say Theos is the only word in Great for "god." Then you change it for Thebs. Funny! Your stupid scholars are really pulling the wool over your eyes.

 

[kjw47]

Satan isn't god. But, I guess to JWs, he is. Way to go Satanists. Funny, first you say Theos is the only word in Great for "god." Then you change it for Thebs. Funny! Your stupid scholars are really pulling the wool over your eyes.

2Cor 4:4 satan is called-the god of this system of things. Blinding the minds of the unbelievers.
Theos is the only word in Greek for either God or god, but when both of those are being used in a single paragraph, capitol G God got Ho Theos(The God) plain theos gets god small g when both are in the same paragraph. Better take the wool out of your eye, it can be itchy.

 

[Cougarbear]

2Cor 4:4 satan is called-the god of this system of things. Blinding the minds of the unbelievers.
Theos is the only word in Greek for either God or god, but when both of those are being used in a single paragraph, capitol G God got Ho Theos(The God) plain theos gets god small g when both are in the same paragraph. Better take the wool out of your eye, it can be itchy.

So, when that happens, God(large G) and Lord God (small g) means Fid the Father and son the Satan. I think not. Let me clarify this for you. You can’t have it your way when it’s convenient for you and not your way when it proves you wrong. That’s what you are attempting and why Christians don’t accept your false beliefs.
Let me clarify. When Jesus says something, he’s got full and complete approval of his Father and this means they are one in purpose. Both God’s with full knowledge and understanding of the universe but separate and distinct personages. So, whether Moses or any prophet or apostle uses or the transcriber misuses a letter or word, it doesn’t matter. Your church is the perfect example of attempting the “letter” of the law instead of the “spirit” of the law. Without a Prophet of God, you will always be beholden to “scholars” instead of prophetic apostles and prophets who are the messengers of the truth.

 

[kjw47]

So, when that happens, God(large G) and Lord God (small g) means Fid the Father and son the Satan. I think not. Let me clarify this for you. You can’t have it your way when it’s convenient for you and not your way when it proves you wrong. That’s what you are attempting and why Christians don’t accept your false beliefs.
Let me clarify. When Jesus says something, he’s got full and complete approval of his Father and this means they are one in purpose. Both God’s with full knowledge and understanding of the universe but separate and distinct personages. So, whether Moses or any prophet or apostle uses or the transcriber misuses a letter or word, it doesn’t matter. Your church is the perfect example of attempting the “letter” of the law instead of the “spirit” of the law. Without a Prophet of God, you will always be beholden to “scholars” instead of prophetic apostles and prophets who are the messengers of the truth.

The last prophecy made by God through a prophet was the book of Revelation.
You twist reality-- Satan is called Theos( god) at 2 Cor 4:4-God is called Ho Theos( God)--God is called HoTheos( God) at John 1:1, the word is called plain Theos.= god--translating works the same at both spots, no matter what men say. So its either Jesus and satan are bot God, or they are =both god--All translations have god at 2 Cor 4:4, it belongs to the word at John 1:1 as well-0 doubt.

 

[Cougarbear]

The last prophecy made by God through a prophet was the book of Revelation.
You twist reality-- Satan is called Theos( god) at 2 Cor 4:4-God is called Ho Theos( God)--God is called HoTheos( God) at John 1:1, the word is called plain Theos.= god--translating works the same at both spots, no matter what men say. So its either Jesus and satan are bot God, or they are =both god--All translations have god at 2 Cor 4:4, it belongs to the word at John 1:1 as well-0 doubt.

Not true. Explain Isaiah chapter 29 when he's speaking about the last days of a prophet who will receive a marvelous work and a wonder from the ground (dug up). And, it was translated or interpreted by someone for the benefit of mankind. Ezekiel saw the same things speaking of latter days about a book of Joseph being one in our hands with the book of Judah which is the entire Bible.

 

[kjw47]

Not true. Explain Isaiah chapter 29 when he's speaking about the last days of a prophet who will receive a marvelous work and a wonder from the ground (dug up). And, it was translated or interpreted by someone for the benefit of mankind. Ezekiel saw the same things speaking of latter days about a book of Joseph being one in our hands with the book of Judah which is the entire Bible.

Isaiah 29:11 is referring to Daniel-Daniel 12:4-- The truths revealing revelation found in Daniel were sealed up( hidden) until these last days. Those truths are now abundant.( like this prophecy--A year for a day=2520 years from the removal of the last king in Jerusalem Gods kingdom would be established-607 bce that occurred-607 bce + 2520= 1914-Rev 6:1-2(he receives his crown= the establishment of Gods kingdom in heaven) Rev 6:4--peace will be taken from the earth=ww1 1914
I am not reading all of Ezekial to find one passage, you should have shared it.

 

[Cougarbear]

Isaiah 29:11 is referring to Daniel-Daniel 12:4-- The truths revealing revelation found in Daniel were sealed up( hidden) until these last days. Those truths are now abundant.( like this prophecy--A year for a day=2520 years from the removal of the last king in Jerusalem Gods kingdom would be established-607 bce that occurred-607 bce + 2520= 1914-Rev 6:1-2(he receives his crown= the establishment of Gods kingdom in heaven) Rev 6:4--peace will be taken from the earth=ww1 1914
I am not reading all of Ezekial to find one passage, you should have shared it.

You completely missed the book that would come forth out of the ground in the last days. Selective reading for sure.

 

[presonorek]

Yes. It had nothing to do with eliminating a prison system, or anything along those lines.

Are Christians obligated to participate in government? The New Testament paints power as a bad thing. Only the Old Testament teaches us to subdue the earth. Amish and Jehovah Witnesses do not participate in the worldly government and do not believe we have the authority to punish criminals. "Vengence is mine thus saith the Lord." "Do not be overcome by evil. Overcome evil with good." FYI: It is evil to lock someone in a cage for decades just in case you were wondering. Killing people by lethal injection is evil. Going to other countries and murdering people with guns is evil. There is no such thing as a Christian government. The idea doesn't even compute. How can you punish criminals or pursue combatant enemies with Christian principles? The answer is that you can't. A Christian nation could not have a military nor a prison system. Neither of those practices are righteous. I'd like to see a Christian government attempted but I think it would be exploited pretty quickly. Fighting wars with prayer only might not be a good method for defeating the enemy unless the God you were praying to really existed. Well, since he don't exist let's just stick with a secular government. They do better with wars and administering justice. However, if God does exist just pray. If it God exists then it will work and there is no need for a government. So there lies an additional fault with a Christian nation. It isn't even necessary. I probably need to stay out of this discussion. Apparently you guys know all the loopholes in the Bible that I don't know.

 

[Woodznutz]

think again ...



who actually wrote the constitution knew front and center in particular to keep the desert out of the american government ... and the free citizenry it represents.

So, why didn't the government abolish religion in this country, for the good of all?

 

[Woodznutz]

think again ...



who actually wrote the constitution knew front and center in particular to keep the desert out of the american government ... and the free citizenry it represents.

That's not what is says.

 

[Woodznutz]

Are Christians obligated to participate in government? The New Testament paints power as a bad thing. Only the Old Testament teaches us to subdue the earth. Amish and Jehovah Witnesses do not participate in the worldly government and do not believe we have the authority to punish criminals. "Vengence is mine thus saith the Lord." "Do not be overcome by evil. Overcome evil with good." FYI: It is evil to lock someone in a cage for decades just in case you were wondering. Killing people by lethal injection is evil. Going to other countries and murdering people with guns is evil. There is no such thing as a Christian government. The idea doesn't even compute. How can you punish criminals or pursue combatant enemies with Christian principles? The answer is that you can't. A Christian nation could not have a military nor a prison system. Neither of those practices are righteous. I'd like to see a Christian government attempted but I think it would be exploited pretty quickly. Fighting wars with prayer only might not be a good method for defeating the enemy unless the God you were praying to really existed. Well, since he don't exist let's just stick with a secular government. They do better with wars and administering justice. However, if God does exist just pray. If it God exists then it will work and there is no need for a government. So there lies an additional fault with a Christian nation. It isn't even necessary. I probably need to stay out of this discussion. Apparently you guys know all the loopholes in the Bible that I don't know.

America is the 'promised' land, messy as it is.

1 Chronicles 5:2
For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's.

 

[presonorek]

America is the 'promised' land, messy as it is.

Yes. I read it Revelaclestiastes that it was the promised land. Wait. No I didn't. The promised land is in Israel or as anti semites call it, Palestine. I am not sure if you were being sarcastic or stupid. It sounded stupid but if you were being sarcastic then that is fine.

 

[presonorek]

Have you left the country yet?

I will leave if someone will give me a list of countries that accepts immigrants. I'd much rather live in a bad country than a country that pretends to be something it is not.

I don't leave becuase I don't know how. It isn't because I don't want to. I think Canada might be the only country within reason. I have wanted to live in Israel or Vietnam in the past. I just don't know if they will take me.

Why do you assume someone wants to stay in the United States? Lots of us would leave it was practical. "Love it or leave it." is neither clever or original. There are lots of people that hate this country and don't want to live here anymore. The reason they don't is because they feel trapped. You have to convince them they aren't trapped. That way you can help them leave. Just make a childish immature response only makes you look ignorant. Lots of people want to leave the United States. Lots of us.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes. I read it Revelaclestiastes that it was the promised land. Wait. No I didn't. The promised land is in Israel or as anti semites call it, Palestine. I am not sure if you were being sarcastic or stupid. It sounded stupid but if you were being sarcastic then that is fine.

The State of Israel is the remnant of the 'house of Judah'. The birthright promises, i.e. 'the promised land' belongs to the descendants of Joseph.

Also, the land now occupied by the Jews is small compared to the original promise of, 'as far as the eye can see'. That promise was fulfilled by ancient Israel but lost because of sin and rebellion.

The land promised to Joseph was never fulfilled in ancient Israel. It was to be fulfilled in the latter days.

 

[Woodznutz]

I will leave if someone will give me a list of countries that accepts immigrants. I'd much rather live in a bad country than a country that pretends to be something it is not.

I don't leave becuase I don't know how. It isn't because I don't want to. I think Canada might be the only country within reason. I have wanted to live in Israel or Vietnam in the past. I just don't know if they will take me.

Why do you assume someone wants to stay in the United States? Lots of us would leave it was practical. "Love it or leave it." is neither clever or original. There are lots of people that hate this country and don't want to live here anymore. The reason they don't is because they feel trapped. You have to convince them they aren't trapped. That way you can help them leave. Just make a childish immature response only makes you look ignorant. Lots of people want to leave the United States. Lots of us.

So leave, you're not trapped.