Posted on 04/30/2011 10:00:22 AM PDT by pinochet
Neither matters if neither can be used to convict (legally or of-the-conscious) those who are our leaders.
God will take care of those who reject their duties as leaders, which is to do Justice, whether or not they reject or embrace Him. (See Eli, the high priest before Samuel; and Saul, first King of Israel)
Excellent point!
>but none comes close to America when it comes to protecting our freedoms.
Are we free? Truly?
Because everywhere I look I can find “State Statutes” that violate their State Constitution; Federal Laws which are VERY selectively applied; Federal agencies [with attendant rules/regulations] which are wholly unsupported by the Constitution; and a group of blacked-robed god-kings & bureaucrats telling me that “The System Is Working.”
So Jesus’ declaration in Matthew — upon this rock I will build my church — means nothing to you. Well it does to me. Different strokes for different folks. That’s why the Constitution protects religious liberty.
I have no problem with the nit you’re picking at since there seems to be a lot of debate on these two patriots. From what I have read and been able to put together they were appointed as ambassadors primarily because they held similar status during the war. I have also read indications that some of the factions that constructed and gave us the Constitution moved to keep them there while the Constitutional Convention was being held. There were many who considered both Adams and Jefferson far too absolute and divisive in their views of government and freedom and feared that their inclusion would result in something other than the document we now hold dear. The heated divisions between the two in their personal dealings did not seem conducive to bringing together all of the states and factions under one, concise codacyl of law. For all of their passion and dedication to the new nation they would probably have been hard-pressed not to stand fast on each of their own entrenched opinions.
Thanks for posting Madison’s very crucial statement, Ken. :)
I couldn’t agree with you more. We are nowhere near as free as earlier Americans. The income tax, for one example, has become so burdensome and confiscatory that a whole industry has sprung up to help people deal with IRS and state tax agency intrusions into their lives.
>>Let’s not open ourselves to admitting Sharia as acceptable replacement for the Constitution we have today, which is ultimately where this discussion could take us.
>
>Actually, that is exactly my problem with those who want to mix up religion and state.
In the End, that’s exactly where things will be: God will be God of His People here, on Earth, and the King of Kings will Rule, breaking the nations with a Rod of Iron.
That is a Theocracy that I can stand.
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (which is the title from which pope evolved, as the pope is known as the Bishop of Rome). Thus, Peter was the first pope (the actual word “pope” came later, but the Catholic Church recognizes Peter as the first pope). Jesus referred to Peter as the shepherd of His (Christ’s) Church. The pope is known as the Shepherd of the Church.
>I was raised a Roman Catholic — you know, the first, original version of Christianity.
Just a nit to pick, but wouldn’t Messianic Judaism be the original version of Christianity? If not that, then the Church in Antioch where the believers were first named Christians?
Where in the Bible are examples of republican governments? Where does it suggest that governments should be republican? Unless I'm mistaken, they were all monarchies, or an empire in the case of Rome. Maybe we should give a nod to the Roman Republic, even though they were pagans.
Any mention of "Separation of Church and State" as reflecting a lack of Christianity in the Founding is historically illiterate. The 1947 Everson decision's use of that phrase is entirely ahistorical and without basis in the Constitution.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
James Madison, Detached Memoranda ca. 1817
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
But that Rock, could it have been the FACT that Jesus is the Christ? That statement in Matt was right after the question “But who do you say that I am?”
And to Peter’s reply, just prior to this verse, Jesus says “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but by my Father in heaven.”
Let's look at that verse in context.
Mat 16:15
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Looking at this in context, Jesus will build his church on Peter's confession that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is the confession that the church has been built on. The church martyrs have died for this confession. The church was not built on Peter or the Popes.
Also, if you believe that Peter is the "rock" in 16:18, then is Peter also Satan? From the same chapter:
Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
True. They were both what we, in our time, would term alpha males. Both stubborn, sometimes to a fault. Both dear friends to each other, and dear enemies. So strangely intertwined were their lives that they died within hours of each other on the same day, July 4, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The odds against that must have been astronomical. :)
Buddha wasn’t a Christian, but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist...
>Also, if you believe that Peter is the “rock” in 16:18, then >is Peter also Satan? From the same chapter:
>
>Mat 16:23
>But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:
>thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
*gasp* Then Peter is the first Pope of the Church of Satan!?!
[Just having a little fun at the words/concepts.]
On a serious note, Peter means jack-shit in Eternity: and why? Because in Eternity Jesus Himself will be My God and King, I will be His person... I will have absolutely no need for a priest’s or pope’s intermediation because I will be WITH my God.
Exactly...and thank you for posting that fact. I love to say my Christian heritage rests in the Jewish/Christian history...thankfully the early church is the solid ground and not some denomination...follow Christ...not a denomination.
Unfortunately the catholic church went astray time and time again...as it still does today...and took within itself that which Christ opposed...and it remains so today.
Thank God our slavation rests on Christ’s finished work and not a denomination.
God destroyed man from the face of the earth when they followed the inclinations of their own hearts and did what THEY thought as “right in their own eyes”....which was “evil all the time”...............we’re pushing that now.
Yes,, that is the Roman Catholic interpretation. But you might want to talk to the Orthodox church. Christ never set up any earthly structure. In truth, i think he would be horrified to find that the Roman church was what was built in his name. And i guess i missed the verse about setting up a replica of a feudal kingdom in Rome.
The truth of it was that Peter’s confession that Christ was referring to.
“Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.”
“I was raised a Roman Catholic”
What is that? I dunno.....
Ooh, let’s poke it with a stick!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.