I seldom bring up politics because it's off the subject and, even worse, it actually may work against the main subject by causing unnecessary friction. But in this case, I'm making an exception. I believe we are seeing the culmination of a leftward, anti-christian swing in the United States. Today, Americans are in jail in the US because they are biblical.
If you don't believe this is possible, let me remind you of several things that have been said by Democrats in presidential campaigns. First, when Bill Bradley was running several election cycles ago, he had a press conference. He said that religious ideas have no place in the public forum. I remember hearing him say that and I remember not hearing or seeing anything, even on conservative talk radio, about this horrible statement. No one seemed to realize the import of such a statement. This means that Bradley wouldn't allow consideration of anything with a religious basis. Imagine the uproar if any other group was muzzled. What if he said no civil rights ideas could be allowed? What if he outlawed Republican ideas? Democratic ideas? Gay ideas? Scientific ideas?
What other group could any politician openly admit that he/she wanted them to loose their speech rights?
The second event you may remember is another obscure quote, but from Joe Biden, the Democratic vp candidate this year. After being asked a question about Barak Obama's Marxist ideas, he said that reporters don't "have the right to ask just any question they want". Yes, that's right. Joe Biden believes that policy questions aren't covered by free speech. And again, no one picked up on Biden's dictatorial mindset.
Do you think that Biden will become MORE tolerant if he gets the actual power he wants?
Third, is Barak Obama and his treatment of "Joe the Plumber", Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. After asking a policy question and remarking that Obama's politics "sounds like socialism", Joe has been the target of all sorts of illegal harassment and investigations by Democrats in government positions.
The message is clear. Expose Obama and get revenge from the government.
I don't bring this stuff up to try to influence your vote or the vote of anyone else. If I could I would, but by now it's too late. We are almost certainly going to be under President Obamarx and a very socialistic Congress for the next four years, starting in January. I'm just asking you to face the truth about the coming persecution of Christians. Read this: http://www.keychristianissues.com/America.html.
AND I'M HAPPY THAT YOU AND I ARE GOING TO JAIL.
Well, let me clarify. First of all by "you" I mean only those among you who are really born again. Very few of you are, even among those of you who think you are. And I also wish to say that I know that suffering is ahead. Yet, there are specific reasons that I'm glad you're going to jail, going to find it harder to get a job, going to get fired, going to be kicked out of schools, and so forth.
Here are my reasons for being so happy:
1. If things go well, "Christian" broadcasting will be banned or curtailed severely. I pray for this because Joel Osteen, Beth Moore, and Benny Hinn will go away. And so will all sorts of other liars. The true gospel of repentance and the coming judgment of God isn't heard on the air, with few exceptions. Better to have no gospel on the air, than to have a lying gospel, locking folks on the path to hell before they have a chance to hear the truth.
2. Many of the effeminate little boys who fill pulpits with sticky sweet drivel about self-love and sending them dough from your welfare check so you can buy a Bentley will go away.
3. The churches will empty. This is good since so few there are saved. They might as well know it.
4. The true gospel won't be dissipated in the culture by being mixed with false messages like the Word of Faith, Emerging, Liberal Protestantism, or the Federal Vision messages. The false will go away because only the Spirit of God will make a man willing to suffer as Christ did, the apostles did, and the forefathers did. That means that unsaved folks will hear the gospel again. Unmixed.
5. Many folks will have Peter-and-the-crowing-cock experiences. One of the great lines of demarcation between saints and sinners is how one responds to persecution. If one refuses to accept persecution, he isn't a believer. 2 Timothy 3:12 says, "And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." Got that? "ALL". Not all in communist China. Not all in the Sudan. Just plain old "ALL". If you aren't persecuted, you aren't His. If you refuse persecution, you don't even love God. James 1:12 says, "Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him." If you have refused persecution, repent like Peter did.
Your soul depends upon it.
6. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status. This is good because it will be much harder to build a religious kingdom. Instead, the real church will live as she did in Acts. Independent of government. Live saints going door to door and in the streets gospelizing in the power of the Spirit, not with eloquence or prepackaged pablum from some parachurch money changers. We ought to evangelize now.
Instead, we sin.
7. If things go well, the "Christian" publishing industry will go away, leaving us with only our Bibles.
Imagine that--just like the apostles again.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--Ready to pay the price? He's worth it.
Posts
Their Fear Of The Truth-Telling Soul
1 month ago
8 comments:
One thing you share with Marx is an apocalyptic vision of the future. And People like Benny Hin and Joel Osteen will not be banned from the radio. If (granting a premise for the sake of argument) history is any indication, there false gospel will just be subsumed into the agenda of the state (think back to the third reich).
And I can't help thinking that your remarks about being just like the apostles are a little bit of a historical revisionism. You are right that the apostles were persecuted, and that persecution is really good for the church (it was granted to you not only to beleive but also to suffer for his name), but the apostles had more than there bibles. Perhaps it has been too long since you have read through the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or plutarch or plato, or Herodotus, or Dio Chrysotom. Make no mistake about it, the apostles lived in a particular time and in a particular culture. A culture ordained by God to reveal his son. If you don't understand that culture you can't began to understand more than a basic knowledge of scripture. A 20th century reading of Revelation and you end up the Tim Lehaye and Hal Lindsey. I don't think the apostles or the seven churches would have recognized either one of those readings.
Dear Anonymous,
Why do you pretend to know something about history? You've stated here that the apostles used the Dead Sea Scrolls in addition to Scripture.
Did you know they weren't discovered until 1947 through 1956?
So, if you're right, we have two possible scenarios.
First possible scenario: Paul the apostle gets in his handy-dandy Mitsubishi time machine, takes it down to the downtown Ephesus Jiffy-Lube for a quick oil change and wiper fluid, flies to 1948 and then returns to the first century with his notes tucked safely in the jockey box!
Sound good?
Second possible scenario: Peter goes to the synagogue to look up something in Isaiah, but the scribe in charge is on a vacation.
Well, that won't do because Zondervan has given a manuscript deadline of next Tuesday for "Two Peter--The Sequel". So Peter trundles off to Qumran and finds a little old Essene fellow and talks him into letting him take a sneak peak at one of the scrolls they,ve been hiding in jars in those caves out back.
How about that one?
Pretending to know stuff you don't is a way of lying. No wonder you don't reveal your name!
But, I'll answer you anyway:
1. You said, "One thing you share with Marx is an apocalyptic vision of the future." I share that with Paul the apostle, Jesus Christ, Isaiah, Daniel, Moses, David, Peter, and God the Father. Have you not read the Bible? The last book is called the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.
And Marx saw only bliss in the final state by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not exactly apocalyptic in any biblical sense. We share very little, if truth (You should try it some time.) be told.
But I didn't even mention my eschatological views here. My subject is what I see as a number of very good things that may happen if the country does indeed turn hard left. Why have you lied by implying that I spoke about the apocalypse or an apocalyptic vision?
2. You said, "And People like Benny Hin and Joel Osteen will not be banned from the radio." That could be true. I didn't say I knew otherwise. Why did you lie again by implying that I did? My quote was "If things go well..." And you know that. Be honest once. Surprise me.
And in point of fact, if you hear Bill Mahr, Al Frankin, and some of the politicians I quoted, some want all "Christians" silenced. A sign seen on college campuses these days says, "Euthanize Christians".
What do you think that means?
And another historical fact you should be aware of is that marxists disallow almost all "Christian" speech in countries they control. When you say categorically that they will be allowed, you make quite a speculation. And it's counter to marxist history. The only questions are if they will stay true to marxist pattern and how much power they actually get.
3. You said, "And I can't help thinking that your remarks about being just like the apostles are a little bit of a historical revisionism...but the apostles had more than there bibles...the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or plutarch or plato, or Herodotus, or Dio Chrysotom."
Wrong again. Several primary sources quote the apostles themselves avowing that their only authority for matters of faith and practice was Scripture.
Do you know what a primary source is since you know so much about history?
I'll give you a hint: primary sources aren't revisionism. Look it up, Whachurname.
And the Pseudepigrapha? Can you document Paul's use of the book of Enoch or any of the other forgeries Jewish authorities rejected? Didn't you know Paul was a Pharisee? Did Jesus quote them? Did Peter? John? Show us.
5. You said, "If you don't understand that culture (of first century Palestine) you can't began to understand more than a basic knowledge of scripture."
Oh really. So tell me all about the history, you who thought the apostles read documents first discovered in 1947!
Of course, to be truthful, I "can't BEGAN" anything. So, you're right on that. Perhaps I can BEGIN something.
6. You said, "A 20th century reading of Revelation and you end up the Tim Lehaye and Hal Lindsey."
Wrong again. This is the 21st century last time I checked. But maybe you have a Mitsubishi TimeRunner 5000, like the apostles. I can think right now of at least two friends both of which live now and they are both amillenialists. Do you know anyone contemporary with us who doesn't subscribe to Tim and Hal? If you do, you're lying again.
Big surprise, there, huh?
And there you go again, implying I wrote something I didn't. Both Tim and Hal are out to sell books, not the truth. Why did you lie by implying that I have anything to do with them?
You are certainly more than welcome to comment here, but if you read my background info you will see that I won't continue to allow someone to come here and purposely lie.
If you object to something I wrote, say so and say why. Don't lie about what I've said and don't pretend to be an expert in things about which you know so little. That's lying.
Last warning on that, Whachurname.
Phil Perkins. PS--"There" is a place. The possessive of "they" is "their".
pFirst, when did Hal Lindsey and Tim Lehaye write there most significant books?
Second, you really don't get the dead sea scrolls. When were they written? And one of the most intriguing scrolls was first discovered at the Cairo Geneza. Although people like to say that the scrolls are essenes, no one really nows. If you were interested I could give you some bibliography reanalyzing the question of who wrote the scrolls.
Third, speaking of lying, I never said that the apostles thought that other writings were authoritative for them. Just as I read scholars today, and use them, and they shape my understanding, but I don't see that them as divine revelation.
Your 'apocalypticism' is far different than many Christians in history. Interpretation is difficult. It would help us both to read more carefully.
Dear Anon.,
You're lying again.
1. You said, "pFirst, when did Hal Lindsey and Tim Lehaye write there most significant books?"
"pFirst"? "...there most significant books..." Again, "there" is a place. "Their" is a possessive.
But anyway, now you're lying about what YOU said. You claimed that a
"20th century reading of Revelation and you end up the Tim Lehaye and Hal Lindsey."
Besides being a nonsense sentence, you made a claim you can't defend. Now you're claiming it hinges on just when Hal and Timmy wrote. That's not what you claimed. And even if it was, plenty of folks have written about end times in the recent decades who have nothing to do with Hal and Tim or their theories. So your conclusion is wrong.
2. You said, "Second, you really don't get the dead sea scrolls."
Yes. I did. You said that the apostles used them. Now you're lying about it, claiming they had them when in fact we know no such thing. And we do know they weren't known as "the Dead See Scrolls" until the 1940's.
Who wrote some of them and when is a whole ball of worms I'm not going to get into here. You're just changing the subject to hide the fact that you claimed the apostles used them. Being caught in a lie is uncomfortable, huh?
3. You said, "I never said that the apostles thought that other writings were authoritative for them."
Now you're lying again about what I wrote. I brought up the subject and the issue is the use of nonbiblical sources as authoritative. If you've read me (and I know you have) you know that.
3. You said, "Your 'apocalypticism' is far different than many Christians in history."
Oh? "Apocalypticism"? You're lying again, this time about my "apocalypticism". You pretend you know what I believe about the end times.
Tell me what I believe since you know. Otherwise you owe me an apology for lying in this way.
And you owe me an apology for accusing me of lying. You had no indication that I was.
4. I notice you didn't even try to defend the lie about the Pseudepigrapha.
5. You didn't answer about the Benny Himm and Joel Osteen objection I answered.
6. You didn't answer me about the primary sources. What are they? They quote the apostles.
Why haven't you answered?
7. How's your time machine?
8. You're still writing "there" for "their".
9. You still haven't given any documentation whatsoever that any of the apostles even read all the sources you claim they did. Paul was probably exposed to much of that junk when he was younger, but you have no evidence that he continued to expose himself to it after his conversion. And as I say I am prepared to present primary sources quoting him as against that sort of thing.
Do you even have a secondary source?
Do you even know what one is?
10. You have now admitted that we don't know when some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, who wrote them, and even who had them at the time of the apostles. (We aren't even sure the Essenes had them.)
That being so you lied when you claimed to know that the apostles used them. We don't even know for sure they were widely available, or where or to whom they were available if they were available.
But you claimed to know. You lied and the evidence is your own words.
Finally, I can prove you're lying or you can prove me wrong. Tell me what I believe about end times since you claimed to know.
Tell you what--Prove me wrong on that OR apologize for lying about it if you want to be on here again.
Proverbs 14:2 He who walks in his uprightness fears the LORD, But he who is crooked in his ways despises Him.
Phil Perkins.
Anonymous,
I read your last two comments. I rejected them because of the dishonesty.
If you'd like to continue, start again with some honesty. And an apology for being dishonest would be very appropriate.
Phil Perkins.
Anon.,
You said, "I am the author, I am trying to explain what I mean..."
No. You're trying to change it and assuming I'm dumb enough not to catch it.
Or, perhaps, too polite to say so.
Phil
Nice editing. You 'forgot' to include the second half of that sentence.
Anon.,
No, I didn't. I just cut you off because you were lying about what you said.
AND you've never even anwered my questions. You said the apostles read the Dead Sea Scrolls.
That's idiotic. Saying you didn't mean it seems...well...like a lie.
Phil Perkins.
Post a Comment