A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us

[Thankful Jane]

I don't know where to put this thread so I am putting it here with the rest of my testimony, since this is, in some ways, a continuation of it ....

This is not something I can write about well at this time because it is underway and we (my husband and I and some others) are watching and participating as He leads us to do so. He has been appearing in a way that, to me, is close to signs and wonders with respect to several different matters--one of which is Him moving to clear up some things from our LC past.

All this actually started in October 2011. God began moving ahead very specifically and openly, and we followed, for a period of about six months. Then these things stopped and for the next 10 months as God uprooted us out of our old living situation and moved us to our new location. Then, after we were settled, last week, much to our surprise, like the cloud leading the children of Israel in the wilderness, God started moving again, picking up exactly where we left off last year in the previously mentioned matters, almost as if the 10 months in between had just been in a parentheses. Incredibly, some of the things that have happened in these different matters are woven together or maybe I should say have crisscrossed or intersected each other.

Okay, I am sorry that this all sounds kind of mysterious and maybe even like a heavenly 'teaser' but that's the best I can do for now.

I wish I had words that could convey what I am seeing of Him. He is faithful, oh so faithful, and oh so awesome. Observing what has been happening, and through it hearing His speaking from the heavens, I have begun to understand a little more of the fear of the Lord ... it makes me tremble in awe, almost fear, on one hand, while at the same time it causes me to feel secure, knowing how He--the holy, righteous and true One--deeply loves and cares for each and every one of us and always acts for our highest good.

I loved reading this week what Moses said when the cloud went up off of the tabernacle and the children of Israel began to move:

Numbers 10: [35] And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee. [36] And when it rested, he said, Return, O LORD, unto the many thousands of Israel.


After witnessing a few more of what I can only call God's actions this past week, I received a Youtube this morning from a friend. I watched it, and it moved me to the core, as it also did my husband when I showed it to him at breakfast. The end of it brought both of us to tears.

Parallels to what has been happening around us were sounding out to us through the Word that he (a Messianic Jew) spoke ... honestly I have no words.

So, I will just post the link, since my main reason for starting this thread is to share it. This Word was spoken at the Inaugural Day Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on the day of the Presidential Inauguration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)

Thankful Jane

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

IParallels to what has been happening around us were sounding out to us through the Word that he (a Messianic Jew) spoke ... honestly I have no words.

So, I will just post the link, since my main reason for starting this thread is to share it. This Word was spoken at the Inaugural Day Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on the day of the Presidential Inauguration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)


Thank you for sharing what you have Sister,

The message given here was something that had touched me as well - I've read his book and heard him a number of times in his speaking engagements. I believe what he is saying, about God's speaking to us in our days... and what he believes God is telling us.... but I think many, many Christians do not believe him.

For too long, Christians who affirm that there are 66 books in Bible somehow neglect the 39 of them that are in the Old Testament, and particularly the Prophets. While on the one hand, we say "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" we seek to know Him only in the New Testament... and through "good feelings". We preach that "God is love", and "He loves everyone", but God's Word is clear - He is also Holy and Righteous and Just, and He will not be mocked.

Unfortunately, LSM isn't alone in it's aberrant theology of God - making of Him little more than a teddy bear who just wants to snuggle, a "Jesus-is-so-sweet!" God, soft and syruppy. We seem to so easily forget that when He comes again, He will come spattered in the blood of His enemies (Isaiah 63:3 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/63-3.htm)), to Judge the nations for their treatment of His people Israel. Truly the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Lord, drive your people to Read Your Word!

PS: Really appreciated the ministry of Kay Arthur, whom I saw with my wife the weekend past in Edmonton, Alberta. Kay's burden is for us all to get into the Word - and NOT into another man's commentary. If you want to love God and truly know Him, you need to understand Him from His own first-hand account of Himself! She too has an Inductive Study Bible - and it's a REAL Study Bible - no footnotes or shortcuts or private translations. Just an NASB with wide margins for your own personal notes, and a list of questions to ask of the text as you dig into it: Who said this? When was this said? What was being said? Where was this said? Why was this said? How can I apply what is said? Sounds simple, doesn't it? Really opens your eyes though, when you apply it.. and don't think study is a light or quick matter. We spent two and a half hours on a single excerpt from a chapter in Romans. Incredibly eye-opening. I recommend hearing what this sister has to say, if you never have. She has an incredible testimony as well.

www.preceptministries.ca (http://www.preceptministries.ca/)

[OBW]

I couldn't listen beyond about 6:30. Likening America to Israel in terms of national blessing, prosperity, etc. from God and setting an agenda to "get it back" is an effort in futility. It is not a "biblical" line of reasoning.

I originally had a lot more to say. Suffice it that I am more inclined to follow the thinking in a book entitled The Myth of the American Nation (or something like that) that I read several years ago.

Now I do not say to skip praying for the nation. Praying for the president, the leaders and members of the government. Keep it up. Mostly, pray for the peace of the nation, both within and without.

But expect pain and suffering. We were told not to expect better than our Master. The gospel is about the forgiveness of sins, not the legislation of a better life for Christians. It is changed lives due to something inside, not changes in laws to force behaviors.

It is not a popular position among many of my Christian friends and even relatives. Probably not here either.

[Nell]

I couldn't listen beyond about 6:30. Likening America to Israel in terms of national blessing, prosperity, etc. from God and setting an agenda to "get it back" is an effort in futility. ...

That wasn't his point....you should hear him out.

[OBW]

That wasn't his point....you should hear him out.That could e right. But he was building up to it through this point. It makes the tolerance for continued listening difficult. If the first part was not necessary to get to his "point" then I might try to skip forward to some relevant part later. Can someone give me a reasonable time marker to skip forward to? I'm willing to give it a chance.

[alwayslearning]

Can someone give me a reasonable time marker to skip forward to? I'm willing to give it a chance.

I second the motion. Or a synopsis to see if I want to listen to the whole thing.

[Nell]

I second the motion. Or a synopsis to see if I want to listen to the whole thing.

Maybe you should change "alwayslearning" to "sometimeslearning". Good grief! Just listen to the whole thing. :)

[Ohio]

That wasn't his point....you should hear him out.

Thanks Nell.

There's not many times in life when one can hear someone speak for God with such passion and conviction. Could he sound much different than Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the other prophets of old?

Time to take a look at his book ...

[Nell]

Thanks Nell.

There's not many times in life one when can hear someone speak for God with such passion and conviction. Could he sound much different than Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the other prophets of old?

Time to take a look at his book ...

Hi Ohio (:-)
Nope. I don't see how. He sounds like a prophet to me. Based on his message and the message in his book, his demeanor, like you say, passion and conviction. If he's not a prophet, I don't know what/who is.

I downloaded his book and am on Ch4. I can't put it down. It's really connecting the dots for me.

[alwayslearning]

Maybe you should change "alwayslearning" to "sometimeslearning". Good grief! Just listen to the whole thing. :)

What?! No CliffNotes?

[Nell]

What?! No CliffNotes?

No Cliff Notes.

[Nell]

That could e right. But he was building up to it through this point. It makes the tolerance for continued listening difficult. If the first part was not necessary to get to his "point" then I might try to skip forward to some relevant part later. Can someone give me a reasonable time marker to skip forward to? I'm willing to give it a chance.

You could have been finished by now.

[Paul Cox]

If you get caught up on the particulars of whether or not America is a modern day Israel, you miss a very important point. Those things aside, we can't deny that the Lord causes certain kings to rise and others to fall. This in an indisputable fact. If a nation, such as England or the United States of America, has been so widely used to spread the gospel, because they opened their hearts to God in their founding principles, then certainly the Lord will deal with them in a disciplinary way when they wander from those principles.
A brother shared something with me the other night that was very enlightening. He said that we Christians need to move away from activism, and towards prayers. It was always through repentance and prayer that the Lord was able to turn the heart of a nation.
Christians have never been more politically active than they are right now, and yet it seems that one election cycle after another, and one Supreme Court session after another evil continues to prevail.
When listening to the Lord we need to be saved from being so intellectual and intelligent. That is one thing that I appreciate about being delivered from the Local Church. They shout "spirit, spirit," but in fact, their religion is ALL in the head. Sometimes when you are talking to them, and share some real light, they seem stunned that it wasn't in the body of Witness Lee head knowledge that was drilled into them. They don't know what to do with it.

[OBW]

You could have been finished by now.I've been out of town with poor internet reception and working long hours. Your presumption about my time is insulting.

[Nell]

I've been out of town with poor internet reception and working long hours. Your presumption about my time is insulting.

Sorry. Not my intention.

[Thankful Jane]

...It was always through repentance and prayer that the Lord was able to turn the heart of a nation.

Yes and yes. This is what the Lord has really put on my heart the last few years. Political and social change follows change in the hearts of men. I heard two men interviewed last year (names escape me at the moment, but one was an evangelical and the other a Catholic priest) who were collaborating to write a book that shows how government and society always tend downward until there is a spiritual revival. Their book documents that in history everytime government and society have improved it has been because a spiritual revival occurred first. Spiritual revival comes when people genuinely repent from sin and turn back to God. This is what I have been praying for mostly--that the Spirit will come like the latter rain to "convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment" and that men will repent and turn back to God. I've also been praying the Lord's prayer that His kingdom come, that it be on earth as it IS in heaven.

The end result for me of the message by Jonathan Cahn (and I heard him interviewed expressing his hope of this for hearers) was that I was freshly awakened to the need, even the absolute necessity, that God's people begin to pray day and night for such repentance.

Please, to any who have not taken time to listen to his message, do so as soon as you can. You will be surprised at what he shares. It is not a general "judgment is coming" type message. Cahn makes it plain that God is speaking through undeniable biblical signs (a few of which he points out in his message and they are stunning) in these last days... things that show how very real and involved God is in modern day times.

I am about half way through his book, The Harbinger, and would say it is a must read. Will people listen? I am afraid that most people will be much like God's people of old who shut their ears to the voices of the prophets that God sent to warn them and turn them so He could restore them.

I agree with Ohio that this is the closest I have ever come to hearing a prophet. I do not believe he had any agenda but to deliver a message that would shake us to the core and cause us to begin to bow our knees as if everything depended on it, for indeed I think it does.

Thankful Jane

[alwayslearning]

I was able to listen to his entire talk this morning. I don't think his passion can be disputed however I disagree with his underlying premise i.e. America was once a blessed nation because it was founded on eternal and heavenly principles and consecrated to God/Jesus and is losing (or has lost) that blessing under God's judgment for our sinful ways. And that the Twin Tower attack and more recent economic turn down are signs of this judgment. I think this is a very selective view of American history.

In actuality the nation was founded upon 3 strands of tradition: Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment. Many of the founders were Deists not Christians. They belonged to Masonic Lodges. Several had mistresses. Most owned slaves. But they were also quite smart and learned. Drawing on these traditions and adding in their own insights they were able to put together the documents and framework and begin building the institutions of a new nation. This was messy work at best as one finds out when they dig into the archives to see how the sausage was made - so to speak.

Whenever I hear that America has sinned and is under God's judgment and needs to turn back to Him (not an unusual theme) I always wonder 2 things:

1. At what time were we as a nation turned to God in the first place? What is the benchmark?

2. What would this look like in practical application today? How would American society actually function and operate once it "turned back to God"?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

In actuality the nation was founded upon 3 strands of tradition: Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment. Many of the founders were Deists not Christians.

A lot of people believe that. A lot of Christians believe that. This is what Americans have been told since the mid-sixties now... that must mean it's right, right?

How do you know that is the truth? Do you think "the world" (speaking Biblically) might have an agenda to make you believe this? To push Christianity (and more importantly, Christ) so far out of the picture that your president can address the Muslim world from Cairo and say "America is NOT a Christian nation."?

"History is written by the victors" - and "the world", with it's "god of this age", is apparently reigning victorious across the globe. The world does indeed have an agenda, and we need to be armed with knowledge of the Truth if we are to overcome it.

Have any of you heard of "The Truth Project"? My wife and I are going through it with another couple from our church on Monday nights. Amazing teaching - it's all about the "Biblical worldview: God's view on everything". It is published by Focus on the Family, and honestly, it will just open your eyes to so much of the deception and strategies of the devil today.... It's not available for general purchase unless you go through the training on it (but it's offered to churches, or to lay people, if you wish to take the training on-line). It's not cheap, not hokey - it's a real honest, deep look at the world around us and the lies that have been told to us. It equips people in a way I have never seen done before; it's for adults, but kids really need to see it too... I can't do it justice.

Anyway, I want to recommend it. Lesson Ten (where we were at last week) was on "The American Experiment". It was absolutely heart-breaking how far - how very far - America has fallen. I don't say this to condemn, I'm Canadian - but Canada is more corrupt than your nation yet is... the only difference is, we never had your foundation. We never rose to your heights.

Here are the trailers for these lessons - I can't say more strongly that this is something every Christian should see. Trailers for the lessons are HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OCOpL0IZbQ&list=PL266633C232C56C0D).

You can learn about the Truth Project HERE (http://www.thetruthproject.org/).

PS: I KNOW I recommend a lot of sites and readings - if you never look at ANYTHING I suggest, please - just this once, look at this. It is truly timely teaching.

[alwayslearning]

A lot of people believe that. A lot of Christians believe that. This is what Americans have been told since the mid-sixties now... that must mean it's right, right?

How do you know that is the truth? Do you think "the world" (speaking Biblically) might have an agenda to make you believe this? To push Christianity (and more importantly, Christ) so far out of the picture that your president can address the Muslim world from Cairo and say "America is NOT a Christian nation."?

I know it's the truth because I have studied it at length and in depth and I recommend you do the same.

And America is not a Christian nation and neither is it a theocracy. It is a secular nation that legally protects the freedom of religion and conscience. Not just the Christian religion - any religion.

[Thankful Jane]

I know it's the truth because I have studied it at length and in depth and I recommend you do the same.

And America is not a Christian nation and neither is it a theocracy. It is a secular nation that legally protects the freedom of religion and conscience. Not just the Christian religion - any religion.

it was mainly Christian men, (and there were many of them), not secular men, who were the source of the form of government we have today, one that "legally protects the freedom of religion and conscience. Not just the Christian religion - any religion."

In your studies, did you by any chance look at the work of David Barton (Wallbuilders.com)? He is a historian who has surfaced, studied, and made available to the public many historical documents by many of the founding fathers. In so doing, he has brought to light hidden truth about the founding of America which has been purposely obscured by the god of this age, as NeitherFirstNorLast mentioned.

Here is a link with some of the quotes from documents he has brought to light: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755.

Would to God that we had such men in high governmental positions today.

[alwayslearning]

it was mainly Christian men, (and there were many of them), not secular men, who were the source of the form of government we have today, one that "legally protects the freedom of religion and conscience. Not just the Christian religion - any religion."

Yes they were mostly "Christian" men (depending on how that is defined) who designed the form of government we have today. Christian men who were informed by the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment traditions. E.g. democracy was from the Greek tradition.

In your studies, did you by any chance look at the work of David Barton (Wallbuilders.com)? He is a historian who has surfaced, studied, and made available to the public many historical documents by many of the founding fathers. In so doing, he has brought to light hidden truth about the founding of America which has been purposely obscured by the god of this age, as NeitherFirstNorLast mentioned.

This is not hidden truth. It is documented and well known. But even if it was not well documented it would be common sense to surmise that many of the founding fathers would be Christians. What else would they be considering the history of the colonies?

Here is a link with some of the quotes from documents he has brought to light: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755.

Would to God that we had such men in high governmental positions today.

Wonderful quotes now let's discuss a sampling of these men with a few more details added in:

1. Benjamin Franklin had an illegitimate son. He wrote a letter: "Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of Mistresses". And if Barton had continued the quote it would have shown that he was agnostic about the divinity of Christ.

2. Thomas Jefferson had illegitimate children. He composed the Jefferson Bible which cut out miracles and supernatural acts in the Gospels. And he taught that blacks were not equal to whites and if ever freed should be segregated from the superior whites.

3. Alexander Hamilton had a long term affair with a woman who's husband pimped her out to him for an annual fee which they obtained by blackmail i.e. pay us and we'll keep it quiet.

4. Gouverneur Morris who wrote large sections of the Constitution including the Preamble was a womanizer extraordinaire and even shared a mistress with Tallyrand when he was in France as the U.S. Ambassador.

I won't get into the details of how much Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other. Suffice it to say it was an ugly mess. And I won't discuss at length the vitriolic vicious rantings of John Adams against Hamilton - that "bastard brat of a Scottish peddler."

[bookworm]

Wonderful quotes now let's discuss a sampling of these men with a few more details added in:

1. Benjamin Franklin had an illegitimate son. He wrote a letter: "Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of Mistresses". And if Barton had continued the quote it would have shown that he was agnostic about the divinity of Christ.

2. Thomas Jefferson had illegitimate children. He composed the Jefferson Bible which cut out miracles and supernatural acts in the Gospels. And he taught that blacks were not equal to whites and if ever freed should be segregated from the superior whites.

3. Alexander Hamilton had a long term affair with a woman who's husband pimped her out to him for an annual fee which they obtained by blackmail i.e. pay us and we'll keep it quiet.

4. Gouverneur Morris who wrote large sections of the Constitution including the Preamble was a womanizer extraordinaire and even shared a mistress with Tallyrand when he was in France as the U.S. Ambassador.

I won't get into the details of how much Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other. Suffice it to say it was an ugly mess. And I won't discuss at length the vitriolic vicious rantings of John Adams against Hamilton - that "bastard brat of a Scottish peddler."

The book Fresh Wind Fresh Fire written by Pastor Jim Cymbala is well written. I was amazed by his reference to verses in Revelation 5:1-5. “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to break its seals?” But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it. So I began weeping bitterly because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. Then one of the elders said to me, “Stop weeping! Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered; thus he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Then Cymbala goes on to point out how fallen Judah was (with Tamar) and King David (with Bathsheba) but out of this fallen humanity God brought forth a Savior for all mankind. We will never be worthy but Christ is our righteousness.
Pointing out human frailties does not diminish the work of God and the saving Power of Jesus Christ. The accuser of the brethren constantly points out the fallen nature of humanity but Jesus Christ came in the flesh to overcome sin and death. The fact that humans are fallen is not news to God and it does not diminish His power or His plans and our need to pray for His Kingdom to come, His will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[alwayslearning]

Then Cymbala goes on to point out how fallen Judah was (with Tamar) and King David (with Bathsheba) but out of this fallen humanity God brought forth a Savior for all mankind. We will never be worthy but Christ is our righteousness.
Pointing out human frailties does not diminish the work of God and the saving Power of Jesus Christ. The accuser of the brethren constantly points out the fallen nature of humanity but Jesus Christ came in the flesh to overcome sin and death. The fact that humans are fallen is not news to God and it does not diminish His power or His plans and our need to pray for His Kingdom to come, His will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with this thread unless you are suggesting in a democratic society that the moral character of leaders is irrelevant and should be covered up. Or in the case of Jefferson and Franklin that believing in the divinity of Christ is not a requirement for being a Christian.

I am addressing the position of Cahn that at one time America was a blessed nation and because of our sin is no longer (or is losing) this blessing. If I am understanding you correctly Cahn should not be pointing this sin out? Or it was OK for the founding fathers to sin but if we sin we will lose the blessing?

In any event in an earlier post I asked these question which adherents to Cahn's position (and others with the same theme) never seem to be able to answer:

1. At what time were we as a nation turned to God in the first place? What is the benchmark?

2. What would this look like in practical application today? How would American society actually function and operate once it "turned back to God"?

[Nell]

...

1. At what time were we as a nation turned to God in the first place? What is the benchmark?


April 30, 1789.

We as a nation turned to God in in the first place in 1789 when our newly inaugurated leader turned to God. In George Washington's First Inaugural Address given on April 30, 1789, we as a nation were turned to God from the first day the United States of America existed as a nation.

"... since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained; ..."

...
2. What would this look like in practical application today? How would American society actually function and operate once it "turned back to God"?

That's a nobrainer.
a. Prayer would not be banned in public schools.
b. It would not be legal to murder unborn children.
c. Nativity scenes would not be banned in the courthouse square.
d. Scriptural truth would not be condemned as "hate" or "intolerant".
e. Scripture ingraved in stone on public buildings would be legal.
f. Students would be free to include prayer in their own graduation speeches without being harrassed.
etc., etc., etc.

Did I say that in an America "turned back to God" it would not be legal to murder unborn children?

[alwayslearning]

April 30, 1789.

We as a nation turned to God when our leaders turned to God. In George Washington's First Inaugural Address given on April 30, 1789, we as a nation were turned to God from the first day the United States of America existed as a nation.

"... since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained; ..."

So your position is that even though many of the founders were involved in sinful activity since Washington - a Masonic lodge member who was slated to become a Grandmaster - said the above somehow the nation was turned to God?

That's a nobrainer.

a. Prayer would not be banned in public schools.
b. It would not be legal to murder unborn children.
c. Nativity scenes would not be banned in the courthouse square.
d. Scriptural truth would not be condemned as "hate" or "intolerant".
e. Scripture ingraved in stone on public buildings would be legal.
f. Students would be free to include prayer in their own graduation speeches without being harrassed.
etc., etc., etc.

So please tell us what the country was like when the above was not the case i.e. when the country was supposedly blessed by God. How did we treat the indigenous people groups? How did we treat black people? How about the Jazz Age? What was that like? How about the ruthlessness and corruption in which business was conducted? How about Christians persecuting each other e.g. Congregationalists hanging Quakers for their religious beliefs etc., etc, etc. If kids could pray in schools why was this happening? If nativity scenes were allowed on the courthouse square why was this happening?

[Thankful Jane]

So your position is that even though many of the founders were involved in sinful activity since Washington - a Masonic lodge member who was slated to become a Grandmaster - said the above somehow the nation was turned to God?



So please tell us what the country was like when the above was not the case i.e. when the country was supposedly blessed by God. How did we treat the indigenous people groups? How did we treat black people? How about the Jazz Age? What was that like? How about the ruthlessness and corruption in which business was conducted? How about Christians persecuting each other e.g. Congregationalists hanging Quakers for their religious beliefs etc., etc, etc. If kids could pray in schools why was this happening? If nativity scenes were allowed on the courthouse square why was this happening?

Okay ... so you don't think the U.S. was ever blessed by God because a lot of bad things have happened in it and some of the founders did bad things. Got it.

Some of us think this nation has been blessed by God and that is because of its godly roots. Not much point in arguing about this that I can see.

Bottom line for me is prayer for people to return to God. Cahn's message caused me to pray more that men might be convicted of sin and humble themselves and repent and return to God. I can't see that there is ever a bad time for that kind of prayer. Repentance and turning to God clearly needs to happen. I posted Cahn's message because I heard the Lord's voice in it calling God's people to humble themselves and pray. (We always need to do that, don't we?) I felt it might likewise inspire others as it had inspired me. It didn't inspire you. Got it.

[countmeworthy]

I read -The Harbinger- last year or the year before after hearing about it on different forums. And just as on this forum some people were very moved, others were not.

Jonathan Cahn's testimony of how he came to write the book was very captivating. I really believe he was led by the Holy Spirit to make the comparisons between Israel and the U.S.

I have seen him on -Prophesy in the news-, Sid Roth's It's Supernatural, I think he was also on Perry Stone's program. I also heard him on the radio..not just Christian radio but on George Noory's Coast to coast radio show!! He will be at a prophesy conference in Florida next month and I am certain it will be telecast in April or May on "God's news behind the news".

I also agree with alwayslearning that our country is Christian in name. I have done my share of reading on the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, the powers that be. I think our founding fathers were religious Christians who quoted the scriptures but did not walk with the Lord.

I think our country has been richly blessed for 2 reasons:

1) the preaching, converting, and disciplining new and young believers. There have been many great revivals in the USA. More importantly, it is us "unknown" believers who have prayed and brought people to Christ, ministering to them so they can also share the Gospel and lead people to Christ that is the real Revival.

2) Our support of Israel.

I believe God has also blessed our country because in spite of the moral or lack of moral conduct of our founding fathers, they publicly displayed God's Word in their writings and are even plastered on the walls of Washington DC's monuments.

Who knows how many people have gotten saved reading the words on Jefferson or Lincoln's monument.

Our motto has been "One Nation under GOD" (The One True God).. Not one nation under Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or a pagan god.

I do not know how many countries aside from the US and Israel have used the Holy Scriptures in their constitutions.

I also think our nation is losing God's blessing and protection because we have pushed Him out of our lives. The Blessing and protection however IS with the True believers because we are the Light of the world right now.

As we edge closer to a one world government, one world currency and one world religion, the world is becoming more chaotic, violent, evil, and deceptive.

I agree with Thankful Jane to pray for our country (as well as the people, nations) to repent of their/our sins.

I pray everyday for the Holy Spirit to convict the hearts of people, to point them to Christ Jesus our Savior, THEIR Savior. I pray for us to be sanctified, to be set apart, to shine the Love and Light of Jesus. I pray for people to be drawn to the Living Word of God, for God to create in us all (believers and non believers) a clean and pure heart and for HIM to renew a right spirit within us all.

For years I too have been praying the Words "Thy Kingdom come, THY WILL be done on earth AS IT IS in heaven.

May God's Spirit and Word move us all to pray for one another, to pray for people to repent and return to our Creator with a loving and obedient heart.

Peace & Blessings all.

Carol Garza

[Nell]

So your position is that even though many of the founders were involved in sinful activity since Washington - a Masonic lodge member who was slated to become a Grandmaster - said the above somehow the nation was turned to God??

Seriously. What was I thinking? God can't use imperfect, sinful men. He needs clean ones...like...uh...maybe....King David. Yeah...that's it. ... Wait.... Scratch King David. Uh....well....never mind. I'll have to do some research to find someone clean enough to be used by God...according to your standards.

So please tell us what the country was like when the above was not the case i.e. when the country was supposedly blessed by God. How did we treat the indigenous people groups? How did we treat black people? How about the Jazz Age? What was that like? How about the ruthlessness and corruption in which business was conducted? How about Christians persecuting each other e.g. Congregationalists hanging Quakers for their religious beliefs etc., etc, etc. If kids could pray in schools why was this happening? If nativity scenes were allowed on the courthouse square why was this happening?

God is merciful to warn us---to call on His people to repent and turn back to Him; a call to forsake the sinful ways you describe. Then comes the day He decides He's had enough and He makes good on His warning. This is a pattern in the Old Testament. The Harbinger is a warning. A call to prayer and repentance.

So Cahn is wrong and our prayers and repentance are based on, according to you, an invalid premise? Is that what you're saying? So don't pray? Don't repent? Really?

Be at peace, AL. The worst that could happen is that God's people begin to pray and repent. How bad can it be? God in His mercy, grants us repentance, and answer our prayers; this nation is brought to repentance and we, as a nation, turn back to God.

Get it?

PS: Nathan the prophet went to King David and exposed his sin. David repented. What if there was no prophet?

[PriestlyScribe]

Okay ... so you don't think the U.S. was ever blessed by God because a lot of bad things have happened in it and some of the founders did bad things. Got it.

Some of us think this nation has been blessed by God and that is because of its godly roots. Not much point in arguing about this that I can see.

I posted Cahn's message because I heard the Lord's voice in it calling God's people to humble themselves and pray. (We always need to do that, don't we?) I felt it might likewise inspire others as it had inspired me. It didn't inspire you. Got it.

I've been off the forum for quite sometime now. But somebody informed me by email yesterday that Thankful Jane was getting considerable push-back about something she posted here. And after checking out this whole page all I can say is THANK YOU THANKFUL JANE! I'm convinced that you are obeying the Holy Spirit to high-lite this issue of our great need for repentance!

One thing I would suggest to some of your "push-backers" - go get the DVD of Kirk Cameron's "Monumental - The Movie (http://www.monumentalmovie.com)" - watch the whole thing with an open mind. Then hurry back here and repent to everyone for having believed (and for re-publishing) lies about the formation of this great Nation.

P.S.

[alwayslearning]

Some of us think this nation has been blessed by God and that is because of its godly roots.

What godly roots and what did the country look like when it was so called "blessed"? The 5 founders I mentioned obviously were not godly. Democracy has it's roots in Greece, separation of powers and checks in balances in the Roman Republic, governance by consent of the people and the social contract in the political philosophers of the European Enlightenment e.g. John Locke, etc.

And I would suggest that a black man coming off a feces and diseased filled boat to be sold in the market place as chattel might not share your views on how "blessed" America was way back when!

Bottom line for me is prayer for people to return to God. I can't see that there is ever a bad time for that kind of prayer. Repentance and turning to God clearly needs to happen. (We always need to do that, don't we?)

I'm 100% for prayer and repentance! The more the better.

[alwayslearning]

Seriously. What was I thinking? God can't use imperfect, sinful men. He needs clean ones...like...uh...maybe....King David. Yeah...that's it. ... Wait.... Scratch King David. Uh....well....never mind. I'll have to do some research to find someone clean enough to be used by God...according to your standards.

I'm just trying to follow your reasoning. So far I gather that we need to repent for our sinful ways to keep or get God's blessing but the founders were exempt from this and could get the so called blessing in spite of their sinful ways.

So Cahn is wrong and our prayers and repentance are based on, according to you, an invalid premise? Is that what you're saying? So don't pray? Don't repent? Really?

No that isn't what I'm saying. Of course we always need to be praying and repenting for our sins. That's a given for every Christian. We should be doing it on a regular basis. And maybe some need Cahn to tell them that. Good so now they know. But to be praying and repenting so America doesn't lose "the blessing" it had way back when presupposes that it had the blessing way back when. When was that exactly?

[Nell]

... but the founders were exempt from this and could get the so called blessing in spite of their sinful ways.
Not my reasoning. I never said that. You did.

... But to be praying and repenting so America doesn't lose "the blessing" it had way back when presupposes that it had the blessing way back when. When was that exactly?

I believe America has been the most blessed country on the face of the earth. You don't. I don't need a date and time. You do. Do your own research if you care to. Read The Harbinger or not.

The End.

[alwayslearning]

I believe America has been the most blessed country on the face of the earth. You don't. I don't need a date and time. You do. Do your own research if you care to.

You believe it therefore it must be true? You don't need a date and time? Is that how history is being studied now?

I've done my research for many years and presented multiple facts in this forum. The facts don't support Cahn's premise i.e. if we repent from our sin we will not lose [or we'll get back] God's blessing that once was. Does he mean way back when the founders were habitually sinning and blacks were being sold in the marketplace? Or maybe he means when the Indian Removal Act was enacted that for the sake of gold mining allowed forcible removal of indigenous people off the lands they had been living on for generations. Is that the wonderful blessed era he is referring to? Is that what we really want to get back to?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

I've done my research for many years and presented multiple facts in this forum.

AlwaysLearning,

You have said this a number of times - that you've done "years of research". Perhaps you have - I won't doubt you, and perhaps you have a professors credentials and a doctorate in American History, I don't know - "years of research" means different things to different peoples. Nevertheless, while your opinion seems formed and rigid, and while it seems we are unable to persuade you otherwise, I must still point this one thing out:

Israel was blessed because they made a covenant with God, and He, with them. Despite that covenant, Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, was full of sin and corruption. Reading through the Old Testament, we see a continuous cycle of "a falling into sin, rebellion, a falling away, a judgement, a repentance (God raising up a Judge), a walking with God.... a falling into sin, rebellion, a falling away... etc. etc."

Israel, even today, is blessed by God. He promised them blessings forever - and replacement theologians cannot show anywhere in the Bible that God will ever permanently remove His blessings from them. "Though at times we are faithless, yet still is He faithful; He cannot deny Himself." 2 Timothy 2:13.

America was settled by Pilgrims - Pilgrims who paid a tremendous price to follow their God out of England, to escape a tyrant King who claimed to rule by Divine Right. The price they paid to settle your nation was absolutely horrendous, but they did it for Christ and His Church. They made a covenant with our God on your shores - and while many American men and women have been faithless, I do believe God proved to America that He was faithful. He HAS blessed America, tremendously. Look around the world, the name of America is known (and yes, largely reviled today) everywhere. If you have done all the research you seem to suggest that you have, then I still think you have not done enough... or you haven't grasped the significance of what the founders of your country did... something that the founders of no other nation on earth apart from Moses himself ever did... they committed their children, their lives, and their testimony to the name of Jesus Christ. They ensured that every person in America received a Bible, and was educated about it. They committed themselves to prayer and fasting to seek His will... and if He wasn't faithful, then what does that say about Him?

[Nell]

AlwaysLearning,

You have said this a number of times - that you've done "years of research". Perhaps you have - I won't doubt you, and perhaps you have a professors credentials and a doctorate in American History, I don't know - "years of research" means different things to different peoples. Nevertheless, while your opinion seems formed and rigid, and while it seems we are unable to persuade you otherwise, I must still point this one thing out:

Israel was blessed because they made a covenant with God, and He, with them. Despite that covenant, Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, was full of sin and corruption. Reading through the Old Testament, we see a continuous cycle of "a falling into sin, rebellion, a falling away, a judgement, a repentance (God raising up a Judge), a walking with God.... a falling into sin, rebellion, a falling away... etc. etc."

Israel, even today, is blessed by God. He promised them blessings forever - and replacement theologians cannot show anywhere in the Bible that God will ever permanently remove His blessings from them. "Though at times we are faithless, yet still is He faithful; He cannot deny Himself." 2 Timothy 2:13.

America was settled by Pilgrims - Pilgrims who paid a tremendous price to follow their God out of England, to escape a tyrant King who claimed to rule by Divine Right. The price they paid to settle your nation was absolutely horrendous, but they did it for Christ and His Church. They made a covenant with our God on your shores - and while many American men and women have been faithless, I do believe God proved to America that He was faithful. He HAS blessed America, tremendously. Look around the world, the name of America is known (and yes, largely reviled today) everywhere. If you have done all the research you seem to suggest that you have, then I still think you have not done enough... or you haven't grasped the significance of what the founders of your country did... something that the founders of no other nation on earth apart from Moses himself ever did... they committed their children, their lives, and their testimony to the name of Jesus Christ. They ensured that every person in America received a Bible, and was educated about it. They committed themselves to prayer and fasting to seek His will... and if He wasn't faithful, then what does that say about Him?

Well said.

[OBW]

Prepare for one of my entirely too long posts. And for me to step on some toes.

Here goes.


So America was blessed because:

They mentioned God in the first inaugural address.
There was prayer a few times recorded.


So America was blessed when:

Its capital was burned in 1812.
It destroyed more of its own lives over economic interests and slavery than have been lost in any war before or since. And if you think that war cured the problems surrounding slaves, then why MLKJr and Malcom X?
It declared that it had "manifest destiny" and killed everything and everyone to the west to claim the land.

The fact is that societies and governments have risen and fallen over the centuries. Many of them enjoyed times of prosperity and peace for varying reasons. America enjoyed peace for many years because it was hard to send an invading force across vast oceans. So we could declare other countries in the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European forces because it was closer to home for us but not for them.

As I and others have said, we all need to pray and repent. But there is no Christian Nation with blessings to restore. That does not mean we need to repent less. But it is people who need to repent. Christians need to repent for denying justice in the name of their God. For carrying on in ways so un-Christian.

Those who are not Christian need to repent. They need to be saved. But the fact that they exist does not change the nature of the nation. It is a kingdom of the world, not the Kingdom of God.

This will get me in hot water, but I am mostly embarrassed to lay claim to the Christian faith when so many of my brothers and sisters rail against the nation (which is comprised of people, most of whom are not Christian) for not being pure enough to gain God's blessing on the nation. The way that so many of the spokespersons for the cause of Christian morality, any kind of so-called Christian nation, or those who try to legislate the lives of the nation according to Christian principles carry on is a shame to the gospel and to the God that they claim to represent.

Now, to go to the premise concerning some kind of view that the creation of America can be compared to the creation and continuation of the nation of Israel from the return from Egypt through the destruction of Jerusalem in about 72 AD.

Before Israel came to be, God made a covenant with Abraham to make a nation out of him, and beyond that, to bless the world through that nation. Who did God woo to leave their people to move the promised land and be made into a nation according to God’s promise? I can’t see even a huge stretch of the available facts getting to that comparison.

Abram was probably a happy man, living in Ur when God came to him. The Pilgrims, or whichever group you want to speak of concerning the creation of America, were out to beat the prophecy that we would be treated worse than our Master, Jesus. And even if you think you want to start with the Pilgrims, by the time of the 1770s where were they? The population of the area near to where they originally settled was populated mostly by others. Heavily a world of commerce, not of religion.

Not suggesting that Israel did not have commerce. But before there was an exodus; before there was Moses, Joshua, or Caleb; before the first or last of the judges; before Samuel; and before the first of the kings, God had made a covenant.

Israel did not become blessed because they decided to consecrate to God. They were blessed because God chose them as a people. And while it is correct to say that God is still choosing people, he is not choosing entire nations of people. The people of God are part of a “shadow nation.” A people who should be in, but not of the political nation in which they reside.

We chose to do our covenant in reverse. We decide that we would single-out bits of history, specific individuals, and even recast a few more, to patch together a declaration concerning the country that was not even hinted at during the day.

And among the founding fathers is one that is popular to read about with recent biographies available (John and Abigail Adams) we find a declaration that the country is not a Christian nation. In speaking/writing in the context of the conflict with the Barbary Pirates, John was explicit to state that the nation was not simply Christian. When I last read that account (a couple of years ago) I recall that it represented, to me, one of the most Christian responses in that it was righteous without being specifically Christian or favoring the Christian over the Muslim or followers of another god.

I will grant that some of the leaders did honor God in their statements. But no matter how many of such statements were made, what causes them to constitute a covenant with God that was endowed with God’s blessing? Even if we could accurately assert that they all intended to make such a covenant, remember that the pattern is God coming to Abram with a covenant. God gave Abram/Abraham and his offspring the land that the nation ultimately inhabited.

It might be easy to compare the battles required to evict the existing inhabitants of the “good land,” but just because there was such a series of battles does not make our continuing land grab comparable. Just because you can see an aspect of similarity does not make it comparable.

Last, even though I agree that all Christians do need to be in repentance, the first question that comes to mind is “since when did we not need to repent?” What makes being in America require it more than in France, Greece, Indonesia or Serbia? Maybe the real problem is that within the evangelical community out of which most of the “Christian Nation” rhetoric comes, we are too enamored with “victory,” “joy,” “glory,” improved spirituality, and much less with the constant realization of our need for grace and repentance. Yes, we speak of it, but we join together in worship to focus on ourselves and what God is doing for us rather than focusing on God and what we are doing to follow Him.

And most importantly, it is a misguided focus. It distracts from the real gospel of Christ. We are busy extracting ourselves from subtle errors buried in seemingly good theology, but too often trading one set of errors for new ones. Turning from a craving for “the ground” and “Christ and the church,” and replacing it with “Christian Nation.” In other words, get rid of one emphasis not actually found in scripture and replace it with another no more fundamental to the meaning and thrust of scripture. If the thrust is off, no matter how sound some parts of the call may be — praying and repenting — it is subservient to a misdirection of allegiance.

Consecrated to His purposes? America was forever consecrated to its own purposes. They set about to be more tolerant and righteous with all of their inhabitants, unlike the places they left which required allegiance to one sect of religion over all others. But their purpose was to be freer to pursue their dreams without government interference.

When he says that we still invoke his name, but it becomes hollow, how is it that we think it was ever more solid? Just because we want it to be so?

I was right. We do need to repent. We Christians. It is irrelevant that we are Americans. Nothing has changed. Christians continue to need to repent. Pointing to some special status of the nation is just a distraction. It is most definitely not “scriptural.”

By the way. We didn’t ban God from the public square. From its schools. The collection of people who are the nation, and who are not, in majority, Christian, did it. The nation was never more than a relatively just kingdom of the world.

I let the thing run some in the background for a while. I got to about 14 minutes. That is enough. This stuff is completely un-Christian. It is appealing to trite, man-centric thinking.

And guess what. We all learned how to be man-centric in the LRC. We may have left that place. We may even curse its existence. But we still declare that we are the center of the universe. We have now exchanged the LRC as the core of that center for America. Both are false. Both are idols.

And as I recall, there was a huge blow-up here some years back due to calling virtually everything an idol. And if there is an idol on display in this “house,” it is the “Christian Nation.” Some God-blessed overlay on the status of a political enterprise run by a majority of unbelievers.

If there was ever an argument for taking Bibles out of the hands of the average Christian, this is one of the best. “Me and my Bible” is one of the worst things to happen to the spiritual condition of good Christians everywhere.

I am not saying that we should not read our Bibles. But we need to have a focus that is not based on whatever crazy teacher comes along selling something. Ground, a me-centric religion, a me-centric nation, or whatever. Read the gospels and the epistles again and tell me that you really think that the transition from the Israel-centered religion to one of inclusion of all people somehow turns into a “Christian Nation.” It just isn’t there. The only way to find that kind of theology is to join those guys from a few years ago that declared that if they wrote it, it was scripture.

[aron]

... if there is an idol on display in this “house,” it is the “Christian Nation.” Some God-blessed overlay on the status of a political enterprise run by a majority of unbelievers.

I agree with this assessment, in an absolutist sense (being compared to the perfection of God in Christ) but relatively speaking, the founding of this nation and its establishment for 200+ years being dominated by the "Protestant ethic" was arguably fortuitous. The founding of the American colonies and the establishment of the political United States, when compared with elsewhere, both then and hence, was indeed aligned with God's will manifested in Christ Jesus.

That doesn't make America a "Christian Nation." But it sure beats the Ottoman Empire, the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (look that one up), and the Thousand-Year Reich.

Regarding the founders. Yes, they had imperfections. But compared to rulers and founders of political enterprises elsewhere, both at those times and even after, they hold up pretty well. When George Washington stepped down from office after 8 years, it was unprecedented.

Lastly, on a balancing note, what I learned most from reading about the founders is that as soon as they stopped fighting the British they started fighting amongst themselves. The amount of vitriol these former Revolutionary allies poured upon each other as they established the first political parties is quite sobering. So I don't idolize them. Nonetheless, I am thankful, and do I pray for those currently in positions of authority. Surely they need our prayers, and God wants our prayers.

[alwayslearning]

America was settled by Pilgrims - Pilgrims who paid a tremendous price to follow their God out of England, to escape a tyrant King who claimed to rule by Divine Right. The price they paid to settle your nation was absolutely horrendous, but they did it for Christ and His Church.

I think we need to fill in a few large gaps. The Pilgrims did not come to settle the nation and neither were they trying to escape a tyrant king. The first settlement of the British colonies was in Jamestown, VA in 1607 by a group of entrepreneurs who were given a charter from King James 1 and they named the settlement after the king. And this was the same King James that had commissioned the King James version of the Bible to be translated.

The second settlement was in 1620 in Plymouth, MA these settlers were part of a Protestant reformation movement in England called the Separatists They felt that the Church of England was not reforming fast enough and wanted to separate from it. But since it was the Church which received favored status by the state/country of England it had power to persecute Dissenters.

Later in 1630 a group of Puritans came over to Boston.

Once these Dissenters had power in MA they became the persecutors of those who dissented from them e.g. the Quakers several of whom they hung for their religious beliefs.

So let's be clear: Christians were persecuting Christians in England so those being persecuted left and when given the opportunity in the new colony in turn persecuted Christians. The persecutees became the persecutors once they had the power to do so.

But none of this had anything to do with starting a nation. They considered themselves as loyal subjects to Britain and the Crown. It wasn't until 169 years later (from Jamestown being established) that independence was declared. During the 169 years England had over 10 kings. The king at the time of the Revolution was George III and their initial complaint was that as British subjects they should have representation in the British Parliament - no taxation without representation. It was about economics. Nothing to do with religion.

About the divine right of kings: an argument could be made that this idea is soundly based in the NT where we are taught to obey kings. Even Jesus said "pay unto Caesar". (An argument made in Europe for 1500+ years.) And that the rebellion of the colonies was against the NT teaching and furthermore the founders replaced it with democracy which has its roots in pagan Greece.

...they committed their children, their lives, and their testimony to the name of Jesus Christ. They ensured that every person in America received a Bible, and was educated about it. They committed themselves to prayer and fasting to seek His will...

When did they do this? Here are the words from the Treaty of Tripoli written in 1796 and signed by John Adams when he was President: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Certainly the founders were informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition along with Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment. But the idea that they set up a Christian nation founded on the Christian religion is simply not true. If anything England at the time was a so called Christian nation.

[OBW]

I will be among the first to agree that America is among the greatest nations ever to exist. And the fact that there is a Judeo-Christian philosophy underpinning it and driving its basic ethos is part of the reason for that.

But no matter how far we try to take the Christian underpinnings, it is a secular nation. Everything in the little speech that guy gave was premised upon there being some contract between God and man concerning America that granted it blessing.

There is no such contract. This nation is what it is based upon the strength and will of rational people to choose good over evil.

The ongoing attempts by so many to recast it as some "walk through the carcass with God" experience just tugs at people's heart strings. It sounds so nice. Especially nice to have such a favored place before God. (Sound familiar? Just like we thought we had in the LRC.) And they are so sincere about it. So it must be right. It just feels right. That is how we get these crazy ideas. Someone feels it must be so and they play our emotions. And we dance. They may have good intentions, but the road to . . . .

It is an equivalent of discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It is a complete distraction from the very purposes of scripture and the righteousness of God. And even, as Paul might have said, if it gets people to repent, the question will become "from what are they repenting?" Will it be from their own failures, errors, misdeeds, etc.? Or will it be for the nation's acceptance of abortion, gay marriage, etc.? Will it be for the nation pushing prayer out of schools, the ten commandments out of government buildings, or nativity scenes out of public parks?

No matter how you phrase it, for me to repent that America has "gone astray" is a joke. It has not gone astray. It is composed of people who were born astray. Everyone one is responsible only for themselves. They can't repent for others just like you can't buy people out of purgatory. And if we are not the ones aborting babies and performing marriage ceremonies for gays, then how do we repent for it?

It is a misguided distraction. It is similar to a malaise that has taken hold of the country in which no one is responsible for themselves and instead we all carry on with the sense of angst for the fact that someone else chose poorly and now faces jail or some other consequence. Blame their environment. Blame the schools. But never allow them to face the consequences. Don't mark their school papers with red because it is distressing.

So now we should add on to repent on behalf of others. Don't we have enough repentance to do for ourselves? If we think otherwise, then we are seriously mistaken.

I listened to the nonsense that the guy spoke. You can listen to me. I don't claim that my stance is "biblical" or that there are 9 harbingers out giving a warning. But that guy did.

[Thankful Jane]

One of the reasons I stopped posting on this forum was because of straw man arguments. These are fruitless and exhausting and I have no interest in participating in them. As one who always has to revisit the meaning of such terms as "straw man" that are used in argumentation, I'm offering here what Wikipedia says (for others like me who forget or don't know):


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

I (speaking as the person who started this thread) never said (or thought) that I believed we were a “Christian nation” that was blessed and had lost its way and needed to get back to where it was. I also never said (nor thought) many other things that have been argued against (by Alwayslearning and OBW). I did not hear a “Christian nation’ message from Cahn. Clearly, Alwayslearning and OBW did, from what they heard (or partially heard). In my opinion, they do him a disservice by not properly representing his actual message in its entirety and instead presenting a distortion of it.


In the opening post, I didn’t try to repeat or analyze what Cahn said. I simply said it greatly affected me. I didn’t explain why it did. I thought I should just let his message speak for itself, as I still do, so I posted a link. Because of all the subsequent posts stating what Cahn was saying (as if it was fact), I will now say, in summary, what I heard. I heard a voice of warning, of God calling people (His people, mainly) to repent. I heard a voice of one crying in the wilderness--make straight the way of the Lord. I also heard the name of Jesus lifted high by a Jewish brother. I also realized there is a very real possibility that God is speaking through signs, such as some Cahn described. Some heard similarly. Others didn't hear this at all. Some couldn't even finish listening to him. So, I say let each man be persuaded in his own mind.

As for civil governments and God, I take my view of them from Paul:

I Tim. [2:1] I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; [2] for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. [3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.


Paul said it is “good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” that those in authority in civil governments should provide/maintain an environment where people can live tranquilly in all godliness and gravity because God would have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (which implies people could be free to speak the truth of the gospel.)

Our founding fathers set up a government that afforded people the opportunity to lead such godly lives. The government they formed also provided an environment which allowed people the freedom to speak and hear and come to the knowledge of the truth. (I would consider that fact to be a blessing.) A large majority of the founders valued the teachings of the Bible and of Christ and were influenced by them in shaping the civil government they established, with its Constitution. They spoke openly about God and His relationship to man. They prayed openly concerning their hope and intent for the new government. (Isn’t it possible that such a government came into being as God’s answer to the many prayers of foregone believers that were in line with Paul’s admonition in I Tim 2:1-3?)

Today, these founding values and principles, those who espouse them, and even God Himself are under open verbal and legislative attack. We are in danger of losing in a big way (from many different fronts) what Paul told us to pray for regarding civil government, and what I personally believe God gave us in answer to such prayers. So, we best be praying fervently, not that we can have some kind of perfect, blessed, government or “Christian nation,” but that we can have a government that allows us to live tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and gravity; that we can continue to have an environment where we can preach the gospel freely and men can be saved by the One who wants all men to be saved.

Time is short.

Thankful Jane

[aron]

I think we need to fill in a few large gaps.

Once these Dissenters had power in MA they became the persecutors of those who dissented from them e.g. the Quakers several of whom they hung for their religious beliefs.

So let's be clear: Christians were persecuting Christians in England so those being persecuted left and when given the opportunity in the new colony in turn persecuted Christians. The persecutees became the persecutors once they had the power to do so.

alwayslearning,

We have all read a few books and/or seen a few YouTube videos. Thus we all have opinions. Our opinions are partly informed, but partly enclose gaps, as you mention. My opinion usually tends along your lines presented here, noting the unchristian behavior clearly exhibited by those (such as the Pilgrims/Puritans) who tried to present the world with "a city on a hill" of model Christian society.

But, speaking of gaps: look at the alternative. Elsewhere, at the same time, ecclesiastical/political powers in other societies were randomly choosing people for human sacrifice to make the gods happy so that it would rain. And so forth. The society established by the Pilgrims, while quite imperfect, was arguably more Christ-oriented and Christ-like than many, if not most, of their peers. There was more peace, more justice, more mercy, more longsuffering. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they were more Christian (fair, just, respectful, honest, tolerant) than many societies today!

So if you compare them to Christ; yes, you'll be bitterly disappointed. But if you compare them to the many alternatives, both in their day, and even up to 500 years later, they don't look quite so bad. Something to keep in mind. Remember that God judges each according to what they have been given.

[alwayslearning]

One of the reasons I stopped posting on this forum was because of straw man arguments...I (speaking as the person who started this thread) never said (or thought) that I believed we were a “Christian nation” that was blessed and had lost its way and needed to get back to where it was. I also never said (nor thought) many other things that have been argued against (by Alwayslearning and OBW). I did not hear a “Christian nation’ message from Cahn. Clearly, Alwayslearning and OBW did, from what they heard (or partially heard). In my opinion, they do him a disservice by not properly representing his actual message in its entirety and instead presenting a distortion of it.

I think your argument about straw man arguments is a straw man argument! :)

Here is what my response was to Cahn's talk:

"I was able to listen to his entire talk this morning. I don't think his passion can be disputed however I disagree with his underlying premise i.e. America was once a blessed nation because it was founded on eternal and heavenly principles and consecrated to God/Jesus and is losing (or has lost) that blessing under God's judgment for our sinful ways. And that the Twin Tower attack and more recent economic turn down are signs of this judgment. I think this is a very selective view of American history..."

In the post (#18) after mine NeitherFirstnorLast introduced the idea that America was a Christian nation and along the way in this thread others have expressed support for this view. I have expressed disagreement with this view as has OBW - which I think we're allowed to do. That's all - people in an open forum chit chatting back and forth.


As for civil governments and God, I take my view of them from Paul: I Tim. [2:1] I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; [2] for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. [3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

This was written when the pagan Roman Caesers ruled and actively persecuted Christians unto death and yet Paul said to pray for this government not start a Revolution. It could be argued that the Founding Fathers should have followed Paul's admonishment and pray for King George III since he was not interfering in their practice of religion in the colonies. (The colonists were interfering with each other in their practice of religion.) But the Founders were interested in economics and that was the impetus for the Revolution.

A large majority of the founders valued the teachings of the Bible and of Christ and were influenced by them in shaping the civil government they established, with its Constitution.

Yes the Judeo-Christian tradition did influence the Founding Fathers. Has anybody on this forum denied this? They were also influenced by the Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment traditions and I have already listed some of the items that came from these traditions.

Today, these founding values and principles, those who espouse them, and even God Himself are under open verbal and legislative attack. We are in danger of losing in a big way (from many different fronts) what Paul told us to pray for regarding civil government, and what I personally believe God gave us in answer to such prayers.

Personally I think of most people on earth Christian's in America are free to live tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and gravity and I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future. More or less us Christians here are like spoiled brats whining about how "Caesar" slighted us. We should go to China to see what it is like to really live under an oppressive government. (And yet somehow the church is thriving there!)

[alwayslearning]

But, speaking of gaps: look at the alternative. Elsewhere, at the same time, ecclesiastical/political powers in other societies were randomly choosing people for human sacrifice to make the gods happy so that it would rain. And so forth. The society established by the Pilgrims, while quite imperfect, was arguably more Christ-oriented and Christ-like than many, if not most, of their peers.

If we are talking about degrees and the whole world then of course there is always somewhere better or worse. But in the context of the Pilgrims their knowledge base at the time was what was going on in England and to a lesser degree the Continent and especially the Netherlands. So we are really talking about a "Christian" context. They left a "Christianized" country. England was a country completely engrossed in Christianity. They were not offering human sacrifices to make the gods happy, etc. Even the coronation of their kings and queens was done (and still is) in a church. The King James version of the Bible was being translated. The name of Christ was completely interwoven into their political process and national narrative.

So what was the problem? The state/country favored a certain church i.e. the Church of England and it gave the clergy of this church a lot of power and they used this power to persecute dissenters i.e. other Christians who disagreed with them. Once the Pilgrims got to MA they did the very same thing. Was MA more "Christian" than England. Not really they were just a different brand. Was MA more Christian than tribes offering children as sacrifices to their gods in central Africa? Of course!

[OBW]

Jane,

I will agree that we, the people of God, need to repent. We always do. And we mostly don't want to. There was probably a lot you could say that would have been clearer, but you tied your thoughts to Cahn which probably did not truly express your thoughts.

In a different context (both secular and religious) I have this problem. I hold to a number of positions that a lot of others do as well. Positions such as on abortion, homosexuality, immigration reform, racial issues, and on and on. What I find most unsettling is that people who would stand up as spokespersons for many of those positions do not hold them in the same way. They are smug, nasty, belligerent, and even downright hateful. And I'm not just talking about the politicians trying to win favor with the "right" but also the leaders of so-called Christian organizations. And that means that if I open my mouth to talk about one of those positions, I get branded as "on of those kooks" rather than considered in a rational way.

Whether it is Rush Limbaugh, or the latest leader of some Christian coalition, they are too prone to demeaning and demanding rather than arguing positions.

And, unfortunately, you had something you wanted to say (that is probably very important). But you let someone who is pushing a ridiculous position say it for you. And as a result, you didn't say what you thought you were. You said what he said. You said all those things about "Christian Nation." You may not have intended it. But you did. And the only part of what he said that you really seem to have been aligned with is a need to repent.

And I will agree with that more than many would think. In fact, we need it so much because our typical worship has only a slight dusting of repentance. While I still would not want to be a regular participant in a church that is excessively liturgical, there is something about a liturgy that reserves time to stop thinking about what God as done for me, and how glorious everything is and think about how I do not deserve any of it. Even after doing this day after day, week after week, year after year, I still need to repent regularly. And so I do. A "worship service" could bookend the time with singing or reading, but the song will not be "I'm trading my sorrows," but "Lord have mercy on me." The reading will not be from the Psalms of praise, but of contrition. "Have mercy on me, Oh God, according to your steadfast love."

Sometime we just don't have the way to express what we want to say. Find a better stand-in than Cahn. It's like letting Rush Limbaugh give the altar call. "You sorry sinners better repent because you don't even deserve to stay in the country and vote if you don't." (That was hyperbolic but kind of typical of things he has said in pushing his agenda. And Cahn, Jewish or not, has become deluded with a false god — the United States of America.)

Despite my seeming harshness in posting, I am moved to repent. Repent that I too often say and do things that are not charitable to my "neighbor." And in this day and age, virtually everyone is your neighbor. That I want desperately to be righteous, just, and loving even with those that I would call sinners. And since I don't like people loving me in harsh ways, I try not to substitute so-called "tough love" for love since I would not love myself in that way. And since I generally fail at that, I get to repent a lot. We shouldn't need a revival to do it. It should be part of daily, or at least weekly life. Like those mooing cows that follow a liturgy. Those people that we learned to despise so strongly. Maybe they are more likely to be the "neighbor" in the story about the good Samaritan than any of the rest of us are.

That sets me to considering my need for repentance much more than someone laying the blame for 9/11 and so many more "ills" in our society at our feet for lack of repentance. Rain falls on the just and the unjust. Job did not "deserve" what he got. But he got it anyway.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

What godly roots and what did the country look like when it was so called "blessed"?

Blessings unrelated to “Faith”
1. Gen 39:5 The Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake
a. The Egyptians in this house were not “sinless” nor is there even a hint that they were less sinful, pagan or fleshly as any other Egyptians. They were blessed not for their sake but for Joseph’s.
2. Ps 41:1 Blessed is he that considereth the poor
a. Taking care of the poor is a basis for receiving God’s blessing. It has nothing to do with being “a Christian country”.
3. Ps 106:3 Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.
a. Many feel that the U.S. constitution is one of the best examples worldwide of laws that are righteous. As a result this constitution is the basis for God’s blessing.
4. Matt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit.
a. One thing that has been striking about the US since it’s inception is that it is a place for immigrants to flee to. This is a country that up to this point has opened its arms to the “poor in spirit” those that lacked. This also is a basis for receiving God’s blessing.
5. Gen 12:3 I will bless them that bless thee
a. The US has blessed Israel and it is only reasonable to think that God has blessed the US in return according to His word.
6. Matt 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn
a. You mentioned our experience with slavery. You failed to mention that many mourned that experience, this has led to the Gettysburg address, civil rights movement, Brown vs. Board of Education, and a Black president. Now you could argue that those who were descended from the slaves have not been blessed, but I disagree.
7. Gen 26:4 In thy seed shall all the nations of the Earth be blessed
a. The Jews have been a blessing to this nation. Our leadership in science since WWII is due to Jews fleeing Europe.
8. Matt 5:5 Blessed are the meek
a. Many of those who immigrated to this country were “meek”. The history is very clear that many that came through Randall’s Island were “meek” only to later inherit the Earth.
9. Matt 11:6 Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me.
a. The question is not whether or not this country is “Christian” but rather are they “offended” in Christ. Freedom of religion is a strong statement that we, as a nation, are not offended in Christ, and this is the basis for God’s blessing.
10. Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness
a. For example, the Civil rights movement in this country. The rights we give every citizen are a basis for everyone to stand for righteousness and this also is a basis for God’s blessing.
11. Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful
a. Our treatment of the vanquished powers after WWII was merciful and was the basis for God’s blessing.
12. Matt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
a. Teddy Roosevelt is one excellent example that comes to mind. This country has had its fair share of peacemakers and this also is the basis for God’s blessing.
13. Pro 22:9 He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed
a. Our being the “bread basket” for the world is an example of this country having an bountiful eye and the basis for God’s blessing. Likewise, the Gates foundation is another example.
14. Matt 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake
a. I think it is fair to say that this country acts as a haven for those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, and this also becomes a basis for God’s blessing.
15. Luke 14:14 and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee
a. The movie “the pursuit of Happyness” is an example of how this country blesses those who are unable to repay and this in turn becomes the basis for God’s blessing.

[alwayslearning]

Blessings unrelated to “Faith”...

I'm not sure how your post relates to this thread. I have been addressing the underlying premise of Cahn's position that at one time we were blessed but we will lose that blessing (or have lost it) and come under judgment if we do not turn back to God as a nation. (An act of faith I would suggest.)

I never said that America is a Christian nation. It's a secular nation purposely designed as such by the Founders. And their influences were the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment traditions. BTW I'm very comfortable with this. I'm glad they set the nation up this way under these influences. There are only 5 countries I would ever want to live in and America is on the top of the list!

The history of America, like all history, has good and bad interwoven together simultaneously running along the time line. We don't have to hide the bad parts and try to rationalize away with some Christian theory why the bad doesn't matter. It is what it is. The history of America is not "God's blessing poured out card blanche upon her from the beginning and we better watch it or we'll lose it." It's about a bunch of quite smart but seriously flawed guys trying to figure out a way to start a country and each generation taking it from there, making adjustments, making improvements, making mistakes, etc. along the way.

[Escapedthecurse]

I'm not sure how your post relates to this thread. I have been addressing the underlying premise of Cahn's position that at one time we were blessed but we will lose that blessing (or have lost it) and come under judgment if we do not turn back to God as a nation. (An act of faith I would suggest.)


Sorry if the connection wasn't clear, I thought it would be self evident.

The underlying premise is that at one time this country was blessed. I have provided 15 verse references that provide a basis for that. Unless you wish to dispute any one of them then it appears we are in agreement that these 15 verse references do apply to the history of this country and since God is faithful to His word they provide a basis for God's blessing.

I did not listen to Cahn's message and didn't see that it was necessary to do so for this discussion, even though it was referenced.

The point I am making is that on any one of these points we may have previously received a blessing, yet due to our current stance we could lose that blessing. For example, a number of points refer to the blessing we have received from immigrants, yet the discussion of fencing our borders and other discussions do suggest that what was once characteristic of this country may not be so much longer.

Also I mentioned how God blesses "he that has a bountiful eye" yet I used the Gates foundation rather than the US govt because our largess has been cut back drastically in the last few years.

Like all repentance, examine yourself. Perhaps we were blessed for "Joseph's sake" but since throwing him in jail that may no longer apply. Perhaps we should repent of throwing innocent men in jail? This country used to be known for our generosity to the poor. This is not so much the case anymore. Perhaps we should repent for that.

Does that help you understand the connection?

[alwayslearning]

I did not listen to Cahn's message and didn't see that it was necessary to do so for this discussion, even though it was referenced.

Cahn's message was not merely referenced it is the highlight and point of this thread. So I recommend you listen to his talk (as was recommended to me on this thread) and decide whether you agree with it or not. Or which parts you agree with and which parts you don't. Then we can have an informed discussion about it.

[Indiana]

I'm not sure how your post relates to this thread. I have been addressing the underlying premise of Cahn's position that at one time we were blessed but we will lose that blessing (or have lost it) and come under judgment if we do not turn back to God as a nation. (An act of faith I would suggest.)

I never said that America is a Christian nation. It's a secular nation purposely designed as such by the Founders. And their influences were the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment traditions. BTW I'm very comfortable with this. I'm glad they set the nation up this way under these influences. There are only 5 countries I would ever want to live in and America is on the top of the list!

The history of America, like all history, has good and bad interwoven together simultaneously running along the time line. We don't have to hide the bad parts and try to rationalize away with some Christian theory why the bad doesn't matter. It is what it is. The history of America is not "God's blessing poured out card blanche upon her from the beginning and we better watch it or we'll lose it." It's about a bunch of quite smart but seriously flawed guys trying to figure out a way to start a country and each generation taking it from there, making adjustments, making improvements, making mistakes, etc. along the way.

This is from an email yesterday from Angelica Fazio. This is what I meant about what God may be looking at while you are not. I wonder what your thoughts are on her points about a blessed nation.

I agree with Tom (no forum member) and Jane about the relevance of Cahn's message. As far as the book, "The Harbinger," I purchased it and read it when it first came out. I definitely agree that Cahn is on to something regarding God's judgment of America. Before the book was in print, there was an email going around----apparently initiated by Cahn or someone close to him. To me, that email was even more impressive than the book. It wasn't couched in fictional context, and it actually showed photos of them laying the huge "quarried rock" and planting the fir tree where the sycamore had fallen, etc. It was a bit breathtaking! I have recently searched for that link and been unable to find it. I suppose Cahn had it removed to boost sales of the book. I don't know.

I'm not certain what Tom said about Obama's re-election; however, I suspect his sentiments resemble mine---that short of divine, miraculous intervention, Obama's reelection spells the end of America as we have known it. America as we had known it is already history by now. And this is just the beginning.

I would have posted, but I couldn't find a way to register. I don't have a lot of time to invest in this. However, I agree a whole lot with Carol Garza's comments on the blog. Obviously, Abraham Lincoln thought we (America) had "forgotten God" and turned away from our underpinnings in Him---even at the time Lincoln served. If we want to see the heart of the early patriots, we should look at their songs and what it was that inspired them. "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was just that: it stated what the heart was of those who were willing to risk their lives to establish this nation. There are fewer more inspirational Christian hymns---as far as fighting for Christ's cause is concerned. (Their doctrine didn't coincide with what the three of us believe. The author was obviously amillenial---and thought they were going to usher in Christ's return and reign through their military victory on earth. "As He (Christ) died to make men holy, let us live to make men free, while God is marching on." etc.

The war cry in the revolutionary was "No king but Jesus!" The second stanza of "My Country 'Tis of Thee" actually is a declaration of them reversing Israel's move of rejecting God for an earthly king. It goes, "Our father's God, to Thee---Author of Liberty--to Thee we sing. Long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light. Protect us by Thy might, great God, OUR KING!" The colonists honestly thought they were reversing the error of Israel of old. That was their position. In addition, the inscription on the "Liberty Bell": "Proclaim liberty throughout the land" was taken from Leviticus 25 and 27 regarding the jubilee of the children of Israel in their 70th year. The footprints of the Christian faith in our governmental documents and historic sites are too numerous to mention. Here's a brief listing of them: http://www.allabouthistory.org/spiritual-heritage-and-government-monuments-faq.htm

Sinners, deceived (possessing slaves but declaring equality of all men), and with doctrinal error----just like the rest of us. However, the concept of God, Christ, and the Bible ranked high in their thoughts. Even those deists could quote Scripture and believed it more than most of our clergy today. The authority of the Word of God was unquestioned. "The Old Deluder Satan Act" was the bases for establishing public education. It stated that, since our laws were based upon the Bible, it was essential for men to be able to read so that they could read their Bibles and keep the magistrates in line. Compare that to our attitude today. I believe it was Robert Charles Winthrop, an 1850 politician, who said we would be ruled "either by the Bible or the bayonet."

As far as contributing to the debate, I'm not sure what I could add. Like Tom, I don't have a lot of time to invest in this sort of thing. I continue to be 125% employed (hence, the amount of time it's taken me to get back to you regarding your email). I'd like to support Cahn's speaking/book in any way possible.

[aron]

I'm not certain what Tom said about Obama's re-election; however, I suspect his sentiments resemble mine---that short of divine, miraculous intervention, Obama's reelection spells the end of America as we have known it.

And what, pray tell, would the election of a Mormon President spell? A return to traditional Christian values?

[Escapedthecurse]

Cahn's message was not merely referenced it is the highlight and point of this thread. So I recommend you listen to his talk (as was recommended to me on this thread) and decide whether you agree with it or not. Or which parts you agree with and which parts you don't. Then we can have an informed discussion about it.

Yes, it was the purpose for the thread. However, this discussion is based on Paul Cox's post#13 "Those things aside, we can't deny that the Lord causes certain kings to rise and others to fall. This in an indisputable fact. If a nation, such as England or the United States of America, has been so widely used to spread the gospel, because they opened their hearts to God in their founding principles, then certainly the Lord will deal with them in a disciplinary way when they wander from those principles."

And for this discussion I see no reason to reference Cahn. I think it was OBW that said that having someone else speak for you is problematic.

The discussion as I see it is if the US is "blessed by God" and if the US is now experiencing "God's discipline". This was then led into the ditch by the distortion of that discussion into whether the US is a "Christian" nation, which was then characterized as a "straw man" argument which I would only partly agree with. Many confuse the two, saying the US is blessed by God can be confused with thinking the US is a "Christian" nation. Hence my post.

[aron]

It is an interesting process to evaluate the moral character, or turpitude, of the founding fathers, or the original Pilgrims, either individually or en masse. Certainly one could make a case for either extreme, or somewhere in between.

Let me turn the question: what would some reader think, if this forum's record were preserved, upon reading these posts 500 years hence? Would they be impressed with the "godly character" evinced by the writers here? How much "bearing one another with love" do we display, versus "scoring debating points"? How much "thinking one another more excellent than oneself" versus "I am right and you are not"?

For that matter, what do people think, today? Obviously we don't know because readers read and writers write. We only know what the forum writers think. But if we measure Alexander Hamilton's moral failings, or Cotton Mather's religious dogmatism, perhaps by the same measuring stick we look like a nest of rattlesnakes who only take time off from hurling virtual rocks at Lee and the Blendeds to throw them at one another.

And I speak for myself here. I may be the most self-righteous, closed-minded, self-important, judgmental person of all. When Jesus said to take the last seat at the banquet table, He really exposed my own character. Every time I open my mouth, or write, just where am I trying to place myself, at the banquet table? I would really feel ashamed if I made a big deal about someone else's failures, only to eventually find them sitting higher up than I.

[alwayslearning]

This is from an email yesterday from Angelica Fazio.


Indiana have YOU listened to Cahn's talk and if so what are YOUR thoughts on it?

[OBW]

This particular thread has two lines running side-by-side. One is what Jane intended, and that is a call to repentance. As I implied in my last post, I think it would have been better for her to give her own call for repentance. Make her own statements concerning what it is that we need to repent of.

The other is the Christian Nation rhetoric introduced by the linked video.

And since that was the only solid thing at the beginning, it is what I responded to. And I did so with a bit (??) of heat. To the extent that I seemed to be attacking Jane or anyone else, I repent of it. To the extent that I actually did attack, I repent. My tone was quite harsh at times. For that, I repent.

Now, I think it is worthwhile to consider how we view ourselves as Christians in this country. The nation did begin with honest men who claimed to believe in God in some form or fashion. Some were clearly Christian and others not so clear.

But no matter who they were, we are living in 2013 in the country they founded. It was never something to which God gave special blessing. Rather, it was always, and still is, a country of people of moral conviction that stand ready to do the "right thing" as far as they see it. We argue about what the "right thing" is all the time. Should it have included going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq or not. Should it as a secular government allow homosexuals to live in peace like everyone else — and even join in civil unions (contracts) that society calls marriage? I have an opinion that I am not going to express. It is irrelevant. It is a civil matter, not a religious matter.

And at this particular time, so many now "march" under the banner of the cross to demand their say on how the secular government should rule. We would quickly disavow those among us who bomb abortion clinics in the name of God. But we all but scream near obscenities at the people who work at them.

Then we wonder why the rest of society is not happy with us. That we find ourselves being shunned in the marketplace of opinion.

Someone comes along and tells us we need to repent. For what? For our behavior toward our fellow man when we shout those obscenities? No. For being a nation that allows abortions.

And once again, we set ourselves up as better and more holy, even demanding that everyone else measure up right now, with or without believing in God.

And we wonder why the world hates us. Why they think we are bigoted. Maybe we really are. We may not (hopefully not) be bigoted based on race. But we are bigoted based on so many things. Many even are certain the God votes Republican.

I do not want there to be another abortion. I would that everyone who engages in the homosexual lifestyle would see it through God's eyes and change. But it is not mine to repent for.

But there is much for each of us to repent for daily. Better to change our pattern of repentance to daily than some revival. Revivals generally push people way to one extreme where they cannot sustain things and then, rather than falling back to a "normal" condition, they revert to the other extreme. We wear out.

But it is right that we mostly have not been repenting. We are far from worn out on it. We like glory and blessing and joy. We want to be spiritual.
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
We want to make an impact.
Blessed are the meek.
We want everyone else around us to straighten up.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. (Not for others — for ourselves.)
Repent today. Repent that you were slothful at work. Repent that you get so aggravated at those jerks on the road. Repent that you think the other people on the road are jerks. Repent that you spoke harshly to a coworker or family member (and repent to them as well). Repent that you try to avoid any contact with that gay coworker. And that your constant thoughts are how to get the chance to get him straight about homosexuality and get him to God. (God's kindness leads us to repentance. Maybe God's kindness to them is through us.) Say in English what the Catholics and others do in Latin: "kyrie eleison" Lord have mercy. We need mercy constantly.

(I know we were told that mercy was strictly Old Testament. That it is too low for the best Christians. But mercy is not so rare in the New Testament, being found 55 times in a currently popular translation. 11 times in Romans. Only 21 in the gospels, so not just before the crucifixion.)

Then pray. Pray for guidance in all you do. Pray for peace on the road. Pray for harmony in the workplace. Pray for diligence to do what you should do at any particular time. Pray for the peace of the nation, for its leaders and even for its enemies. Pray for your daily needs. Pray for forgiveness and pray to be able to forgive others. Pray to hold up under temptation.

To rename a movie: Repent. Pray. Love.

Then live a life that is Jesus. That dines with sinners rather than shouting at them. That helps even the unclean Roman centurion. That is honest in the marketplace. That is hospitable with the drivers around you.

And I confess that much of the need for repentance in all of these areas is mine. If it is also yours, that is your decision. But I'm pretty sure that "you" are like me. Great intentions. Talk a good talk. Not so good at the walk.

Lord have mercy on us. May our walk match our talk. May we walk worthy of your Name. May we walk as the Spirit would walk in/with us.

[alwayslearning]

And for this discussion I see no reason to reference Cahn. I think it was OBW that said that having someone else speak for you is problematic.

This thread is a discussion about Cahn's talk and it is what I am addressing. Nobody and especially me are asking you to have Cahn speak for you. On the contrary the reasonable request is being made that you listen to what he has to say and let us know what you think about it like the rest of us are doing. After that we can have an informed discussion about it.

[countmeworthy]

And what, pray tell, would the election of a Mormon President spell? A return to traditional Christian values?

My comment will be totally irrevelent (or not?) to the thread but I can't resist addressing this question.

Joseph Smith predicted the U.S. Constitution would one day "hang like a thread" and would be saved by the efforts of the white horse.

To many, Mitt Romney fit the bill. The LDS would have had a hey day had Romney been elected!! But it is contrary to the prophesy of the Word telling us (in a nutshell) the false prophet will head the one one world religion.

[ IMHO, I am persuaded the false prophet will rise from the RCC, the last pope, "Petreus Romano" (Peter the Roman --MAYBE????--) uniting the world religions: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhists, New Agers, secular Christians ranging from Catholocism to Protestantism.]

On the basis of the Mormon "white horse prophesy", some have speculated Mormons expect the U.S. To eventually become a theocracy dominated by the LDS church.

I love that the thread of Gold on the topic at hand is:
God is speaking to us! Repent!! He may have used Jonathan Cahn's book -the Harbinger- which means "warning" through Jane but nonetheless, our Lord IS speaking to us because Time is short!!

Many here have been reflecting on Christ's message: repent and Love (God and your neighbor).

Just food for thought. :-)
Blessings everyone,

Carol Garza

[OBW]

Interesting assortment of thoughts.

Of course, Joseph Smith's predictions are meaningless.

As for the LDS having a heyday if Romney were elected, I'm not so sure that the religious persuasions of presidents have ever had the effects that people have expected. Many were sure we would be answering to Rome when Kennedy was elected. Many would like to declare Obama to be a Muslim rather than a Christian (social or otherwise), but it really hasn't seemed to cause us to simply pull-out of the wars with those pesky Islamic radicals. If anyone points to the recent announcements, don't forget that he has supported the existing war for 4 years now and this won't be the first time that a withdrawal has been declared. It could once again be followed by some kind of surge.

While the end-times false prophet may arise from the RCC, it won't likely be because the RCC has become so soft on other religions. They may be willing to be nice to other people without regard to their religion, but they really are pretty strong in their Christo-centric positions, no matter how many grievous errors we think they have.

I must agree with the call to repent. But I fear that relying on such a misguided book as Cahn's for the inspiration is an invitation to repent in a misguided way. To repent for some irrelevancies and remain committed to some things that we should repent for.

That still means we need to repent.

And time is always short. Even if the end-times are another 2,000 years away, our time is short. We never know if we will see tomorrow's sunrise, or even our own pillow for tonight's sleep. We may be sleeping with the worms before then. It may be that having the thought that there are clear markers for the end-times as being imminent will help some keep the course. For others, the realization that tomorrow may go on without them is quite enough. Either way, in the grand scheme of things no one reading this forum has more than roughly 70 to 80 years. Most quite a lot less. Some possibly only today.

And maybe none of us have more than 2 or 3 years.

Or even a day.

The reason that I look at it this way is that I should live both as someone expecting to grow old and as someone expecting to meet my maker now. Neither is sufficient alone. Those who only expect to grow old will ignore the present. Those who too strongly expect the eminent end too often abandon sober living in the present in favor of pining for "glory."

And unlike a sort of slogan that I have been hearing lately, I do not believe that we were made for heaven, or "glory" or whatever. I believe we were made for righteous living, bearing the image of God in all that we do. To look away to heaven/glory/the NewJ too much is to abandon your purpose for being created and seek something else. Any other view seems to suggest that God goofed and had to redefine our purpose. "Those pesky humans. They wouldn't bear my image properly on earth, so I will simply invite them to abandon earth and live here." I know that is not exactly what is being said by some. But how do we suppose to be sanctified in this life if we don't actually find our way back to the God-directed righteousness and image bearing that we were created for. I believe that anything else is to try to end-run around God's purpose for us.

[countmeworthy]

Interesting assortment of thoughts.

Of course, Joseph Smith's predictions are meaningless.

As for the LDS having a heyday if Romney were elected, I'm not so sure that the religious persuasions of presidents have ever had the effects that people have expected.

That was mostly tongue in cheek. It could be some Mormons might have thought the white horse prophesy was coming to pass, most probably wouldn't otherwise people like Harry Reid and Romney both Mormons would be on the same page. I did not even know they believed in the return of Jesus until last summer.

While the end-times false prophet may arise from the RCC, it won't likely be because the RCC has become so soft

I think that is exactly why the RCC pope is a viable candidate. Islam and Catholocism have a closer relationship than many people realize. Before Pope John Paul II died, he was photographed kissing the Qu'ron. Mohammed named his daughter Fatima and Mohammed said of his daughter "she has the highest place in heaven after the Virgin Mary." In the Koran the -Blessed Virgin Mary- is mentioned at least 30 times.

And I am not even bringing up the Jesuit branch of the RCC. If anyone is interested, read Father Malachi Martin's works. He worked very closely with several popes in the Vatican. He mysteriously died in 1999.

I must agree with the call to repent. But I fear that relying on such a misguided book as Cahn's for the inspiration is an invitation to repent in a misguided way. To repent for some irrelevancies and remain committed to some things that we should repent for.

That is where I too had some trouble understanding Cahn's line of thinking on repentance. I pray alot for the Holy Spirit to convict me/the church/the world of our sins that we may repent and be a shining Light in this dark world. Sometimes I catch myself calling someone (usually a reckless driver) a stupid idiot. No sooner I say this, I repent and ask the Lord to forgive me for calling them that. They may have acted stupid and idiotic, but no person is stupid or an idiot in God's eyes. Btw, I remember years ago 15-20 years ago, I got cocky with some Mormon missionaries. That evening the Holy Spirit convicted me for the way I spoke to them. A couple of days later, I ran into them and apologized to them. Since then on several occasions that I have conversed with Missionary Mormons, I have prayed with them. I enjoy talking to them. They need the Love of Jesus as does everyone else. I have done my homework. I know what scriptures they use even though they mostly talk about Joseph Smith. (It is a tad worst than hearing an LCr go on & on about brother Lee) Just remember the bible they use is KJ. If you use a different translation they will argue about the unauthorized version. Just a heads up.:-)


I look at it this way is that I should live both as someone expecting to grow old and as someone expecting to meet my maker now.
And that is how we all should live.

Neither is sufficient alone. Those who only expect to grow old will ignore the present. Those who too strongly expect the eminent end too often abandon sober living in the present in favor of pining for "glory."

True. I have been around people who don't want the Lord Jesus to return just yet because they want their bling-blings. Others "just want to get out of here". They are miserable and "want to go home". Others still believe they must "help" God fix this world.

I strive through prayer to walk the talk. I want to be an excellent representative and ambassador of Christ without compromising and without being "holier than thou".

And unlike a sort of slogan that I have been hearing lately, I do not believe that we were made for heaven, or "glory" or whatever. I believe we were made for righteous living, bearing the image of God in all that we do. To look away to heaven/glory/the NewJ too much is to abandon your purpose... I know that is not exactly what is being said by some. But how do we suppose to be sanctified in this life if we don't actually find our way back to the God-directed righteousness and image bearing that we were created for. I believe that anything else is to try to end-run around God's purpose for us.

And that is why we pray, read, study, fellowship, Love, Laugh, sometimes weep, Rejoice, encourage, shine and walk the talk.

Shalom and El-Shaddai's good will towards all men.

Carol Garza

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

All this talk on the other threads about posters being "evasive" has left me feeling convicted. :( I hate conflict, it really bothers me. I don't like being in disagreement, though I sometimes feel called to make a stand for what I believe is the truth. Let me go further, and confess that when I fail to "convince", I feel like I have personally failed. I feel like I cannot communicate well enough, and because of that I've not only alienated brothers and sisters in Christ, I've also failed the Lord.

Well, that's childish thinking. We all should treat eachother gently and with respect, but we shouldn't be afraid to speak what we believe is the truth in love, ever. With that in mind, I feel I owe you some responses, AlwaysLearning.

First: About King James, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...

The Pilgrims did not come to settle the nation and neither were they trying to escape a tyrant king. The first settlement of the British colonies was in Jamestown, VA in 1607 by a group of entrepreneurs who were given a charter from King James 1 and they named the settlement after the king. And this was the same King James that had commissioned the King James version of the Bible to be translated.

To this I would offer:

"King James ascended the throne upon the death of his brother, Charles II. Members of Britain's political and religious elite increasingly opposed him for being pro-French and pro-Catholic, and for his designs on becoming an absolute monarch. James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy). James's time in France had exposed him to the beliefs and ceremonies of Catholicism; he and his wife, Anne, became drawn to that faith. James took Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church in 1668 or 1669, although his conversion was kept secret for some time and he continued to attend Anglican services until 1676." (courtesy of Wikipedia).

Of King James Bible Translation:

"King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched.

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.
Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:"

1.Roman Catholicism
2.Silence
3.The Inquisition

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous. An Englishman had three choices:
1.The Anglican Church
2.Silence
3.The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion. " (courtesy of www.gospelassemblyfree.com (http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/))



Of the Pilgrims, I would offer you this (courtesy of http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/pilgrims.htm)

1596: "The term 'Pilgrims', was first used... in the 'Confession of Faith' they adopted and, in later references, to their own idea of life on earth as a pilgrimage towards heavenly bliss."

1590s: Committed Christians with access to Bibles began to question the old Catholic traditions which still influenced the new Protestant churches in England. These "Puritans" longed to see a more "pure" church, freed from the bureaucratic forms that clouded the truth of the gospel. They wanted to continue the "reformation" of the church, bringing it into line with Biblical guidelines.
Some of these Puritans, called "Pilgrims" or "Separatist" had little hope that the government controlled church could be reformed. They wanted to separate themselves completely from the official (Anglican) Church of England. But that was against the law. So when they decided to start new congregations and live by God's Word, they were persecuted.

Early 1600s:
One of the Separatist congregation was led by William Brewster in the village of Scrooby (or Scruby) in Nottinghamshire. But these Puritans had little freedom to worship God and follow His Word and their conscience. Non-conformity was punishable by imprisonment and torture.(Sounds like the illegal home churches in China, doesn't it?)
Young, fatherless William Bradford (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/04/daily-04-21-2002.shtml), born in 1590, joined the Scrooby congregation and would be among the 125 uncompromising separatists who fled to Holland in search of religious freedom. Loving God's Word, he read through the Bible at age 12.

1603: Queen Elizabeth died. (By now, the Bible was the most read book in the land) Her successor, King James I, persecuted Catholics as well as the Protestant Puritans and Separatists. He believed he had the divine right to rule as he pleased, and he opposed all who refused to submit to the official church bureaucracy."In a fit of rage at these people, the Puritans, King James vowed, 'I shall make them conform or I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse.'"Glimpses Issue #20: Pilgrims in a Strange Land (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps020.shtml)

1606: The Separatists (uncompromising Puritans) would not violate their conscience by participating in the (Anglican) Church of England with its remnants of Catholicism. Believing the true Church must submit to the headship of Christ, not to the spiritual edicts of their hostile king or the compromising church establishment, they had asked permission to start their own church, but King James had denied their request. Ridiculed by their neighbors, harassed by the courts, and forbidden to share the truths of salvation, they saw only one option: to flee to Holland. "With the situation growing more intense the Scrooby congregation realized they could not stay, yet they were not allowed to go." Prisoners in their own land, they could not leave without passports and permission from the King's Privy Council.

1607: After secretly boarding a ship and paying "the large expenditure," the Separatists discovered that they had been betrayed. "King James' local sheriff with his bailiffs appeared on the scene to arrest them." They "stripped them of their money, books and other goods before they were presented to the magistrates." Many of the men were jailed -- including William Brewster and the 17- year-old William Bradford.The Pilgrims (http://www.rootsweb.com/~mosmd/1statt.htm)
Meanwhile, the Jamestown Colony is founded in Virginia.

Spring 1608: The second attempt to leave began even more disastrously. While loading his ship and waiting for the women and children to arrive, "the ship master saw a large company Kings' officers, both horse and foot, marching in with weapons to take those on shore. The Dutchman weighed anchor, hoisted his sails and sped away. The poor men who were aboard were in great distress for their destitute wives and children which they saw being taken into custody.... "While at sea the men had to endure a terrifying storm at sea, 'being fourteen days or more before they arrived at their port, in seven whereof they neither saw the sun, moon or stars.'" The ship was north toward the coast of Norway, began to sink and "even the mariners themselves feared for their lives."
Desperate, the Pilgrims turned to God. As Bradford recorded, "when man's hope and help wholly failed, the Lord's Power and mercy appeared in their recovery; for the ship rose again and gave the mariners courage again to manage her. And if modesty would suffer me, I might declare with what fervent prayers they cried unto the Lord in this great distress.... Upon which the ship did not only recover, but shortly after the violence of the storm began to abate, and the Lord filled their afflicted minds with such comforts as everyone cannot understand, and in the end brought them to their desired haven, where the people came flocking, admiring their deliverance, the storm having been so long and sore...."
"Those on shore who were arrested were shuffled from one place to another and from one justice to another. The authorities did not know what to do with them. If they jailed so many women and innocent children for no other reason but having to go with their husbands, there would be a public outcry against them. The remaining women had no place to go because their homes and goods had already sold or otherwise disposed of and they had no way of making a living. In the end the authorities were so weary of the problematic situation they were happy to be rid of them on any terms....
"Bradford continues, 'They endured many other passages and troubles and underwent these wanderings and travels both at land and at sea. Yet, by those so public troubles in so many places their cause became famous and occasioned many to look into the same, and their godly carriage and Christian behavior was such as left a deep impression in the minds of many.... And in the end, notwithstanding all these storms of opposition, they all got over at length, some at one time and some at another, and some in one place and some in another, and met together again according to their desires, with no small rejoicing.'"
Finally, 125 members of the Scrooby congregation reached Holland, including William Brewster and William Bradford, who had stayed behind to help the women and children."

1608-1620: "The twelve years these Christians spent in Holland were difficult ones, but they accepted the difficulties as part of their lot as pilgrims --wanderers and sojourners in a strange land.... Most of the pilgrims had been farmers in England, but in Holland they had to learn new jobs, and even the children were worn down by hard work."

1611: "Despite his treatment of the non-conformists, King James authorized the translation of the Bible we know as the King James Version. The work had begun in 1604, urged by John Rainolds, a Puritan, and accomplished by 54 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster.

1617: While Holland offered a sanctuary from persecution, the pilgrims were still within reach of King James, who continued to harass the dissident pilgrims.
"Many of the Separatists began to wonder if there was any improvement in their lives since they were still overshadowed by persecution and religious strife. William Brewster had to go into hiding. Edward Winslow said: 'How hard the country was . . . How grievous to live from under the protection of the State of England. How like we were to lose our language, and our name, of English. How little good we did, or are likely to do, to the Dutch in reforming the Sabbath. How unable to give such education to our children as we ourselves have received.' ...
"William Bradford wanted to spread the Christian gospel in some distant part of the world - in truth to be a pilgrim. Having noted that the twelve year truce between Spain and Holland would expire in 1621, William also realised a new war would turn Leyden into a bloody battleground.
The congregation voted to emigrate to America, and young William Bradford began to plan the journey. Later he would write in his journal that the main reason for leaving was concern for the children who were "drawn away [from Christ] by evil examples into extravagant and dangerous courses."
A second reason was "a great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world--yea, though they should be but even stepping stones unto others for the performing of so great a work."

July 22 1620: The Scrooby Pilgrims left Holland for Southampton, England. Here they joined another group of English separatists.

5 August 1620: The Mayflower (with 80 passengers) and the Speedwell (with about 40 passengers) set sail and headed for Virginia. But when the Speedwell began to leak, the ships turned back for repairs. After a second attempt, the Speedwell was declared unseaworthy.

Sept. 6 1620: Once again, the Mayflower, an old cargo vessel used for hauling wine between England and France, set sail for Virginia carrying 102 passengers and 30 crew. Crowded together on the 90 foot long ship, the pilgrims endured cramped conditions, rough weather, sickness and shortage of food. "Not all of the 102 passengers on the two-month voyage were Christians, however. Some had other than religious reasons for going to America, but the pilgrims provided the leadership for this group composed of what they called 'strangers and saints.'"

Nov. 11 1620: After 66 days at sea, they sighted land and anchored at the tip of Cape Cod (now Provincetown) -- far north of the territory officially granted to them in northern Virginia. On the cold, rocky shores of what would become "New England," the pilgrims "fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven who had brought them over this vast and furious ocean."

Nov. 11-Dec 20 1620: For 36 days they remained at Cape Cod. Here the 41 men -- pilgrims and "strangers" together -- wrote the Mayflower Compact. To avoid rebellion and anarchy in the new land, the men signed this legal covenant (their constitution) thus establishing a self-government that promised equal rights and elections:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these present, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Dec. 11 1620: After signing the Mayflower Compact, an exploratory team of 16 men left in a "shallow" (small sailboat that could navigate shallow coastal areas more safely than the ship) to search for a place to settle. On the 11th, they landed at Plymouth Harbor, on the western side of Cape Cod Bay. They found a good harbor, rivers of fresh water, and fields cleared for planting -- and saw no sign of the dreaded natives.

Dec. 21 1620: The Mayflower sailed into the Plymouth Harbor. They Pilgrims had reached their new home.WinterBut all was not well. While all had survived the journey across the Atlantic, disease now ravaged the small Plymouth colony. Weakened by cold weather and the hardships of the stormy journey, half of the travelers -- 51 of the 103 -- died soon after arrival. Day after day, new graves were dug. Heartbroken families mourned the loss of fathers, mothers and precious children.

Jan.- March 1621: At first, the surviving pilgrims continued to live in the stuffy, windowless hull of the Mayflower. They enduring gnawing hunger and continuing hardships. During the day, the men would face cold, wet winds to build simple houses for their own families as well as a "Common House" to store tools and shelter homeless women and children. Each Sunday, the Pilgrims would sing their beloved Psalms and hear sermons by William Brewster.

March 1621: Spring brought sunlight, warmth and other blessings. To help introduce them to the land, God first sent Samoset, a friendly native who spoke English. Samoset, in turn, brought Squanto, a local native who -- by God's providence -- had escaped the epidemic that killed his tribe. Some years earlier, slave traders had captured and brought Squanto to Europe where he had learned their language. He now stayed with his new friends and taught them how to catch fish, plant corn, hunt game, and separate safe edible plants from the poisonous plants.

Spring 1621: By the end of March, all the Pilgrims had moved into their new homes. Children were taught to read by their parents or someone else in the colony. The Bible provided the guidelines for living together as well as the certain hope that -- no matter the difficulties they might face -- God would bring ultimate triumph.



...To be continued....

[Ohio]

First: About King James II, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...



You are a Canadian and you don't know your English history of the Monarchy ... :lol:

It was not James II who had the Bible translated, but King James I.

.................................................. ... selah

I noticed you edited your post, but you still got the two King James' confused.James I 1603-1625

James II 1685-1688

[aron]

...To be continued....

If alwayslearning were to continue your story he might point out that once the Pilgrims became established they became oppressive towards others (Quaker, Indians, Baptists, 'witches', etc), just as they had been oppressed in Merrie Olde England.

But the problem with "just as" is that it involves a simplification, in order to identify a trend, which simplification results in a loss of detail which ruins the ability to make a fair assessment.

I think God is detailed. Every hair on your head is numbered. The Puritans indeed became oppressors, as they and their fathers/mothers had been oppressed, but were they trending in a positive direction, or were they actually just as bad? Were they more "christian" than what they had fled from, or just as unchristian?

Jews were oppressed in Nazi Germany; eventually Israelite Jews oppressed Palestinians. Is Benjamin Netanyahu therefore just as bad as Adolf Hitler? Probably not. Details matter. I think this is important as you & alwayslearning and others fill in the blanks. I think the best we can do is have a discussion and hope that sloooowwwly a consensus emerges.

People who staunchly hold that "America is (or was) the new Covenanted Israel" or "America was founded by brigands and misanthropists" are barely more helpful to the conversation than the person who saw the face of Jesus in his french toast this morning. Their "vision" pretty much precludes conversation.

[alwayslearning]

Thank you for taking the time to post at length NFNL. I appreciate your effort. I made some direct comments on some of your post and then some more general comments at the end.

First: About King James, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...To this I would offer:
"King James ascended the throne upon the death of his brother, Charles II. Members of Britain's political and religious elite increasingly opposed him for being pro-French and pro-Catholic, and for his designs on becoming an absolute monarch. James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy). James's time in France had exposed him to the beliefs and ceremonies of Catholicism; he and his wife, Anne, became drawn to that faith. James took Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church in 1668 or 1669, although his conversion was kept secret for some time and he continued to attend Anglican services until 1676." (courtesy of Wikipedia).

As Ohio has already pointed out this quote is referring to King James II not King James I.

Of King James Bible Translation:

"King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

But further down you write/quote this:

1611: "Despite his treatment of the non-conformists, King James authorized the translation of the Bible we know as the King James Version. The work had begun in 1604, urged by John Rainolds, a Puritan, and accomplished by 54 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster."

1607: After secretly boarding a ship and paying "the large expenditure," the Separatists discovered that they had been betrayed. "King James' local sheriff with his bailiffs appeared on the scene to arrest them." They "stripped them of their money, books and other goods before they were presented to the magistrates." Many of the men were jailed -- including William Brewster and the 17- year-old William Bradford.The Pilgrims (http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Emosmd/1statt.htm)
Meanwhile, the Jamestown Colony is founded in Virginia.

Yes meanwhile the Jamestown Colony was founded in VA by a group of businessmen in search of gold and other assets under a charter from King James 1. William Brewster eventually came over to MA on the Mayflower 13 years later.

I think we should perhaps go back a little further to grasp the situation in England more clearly:

What you have described regarding the religious and political turmoil in England in the 1600s actually started under the reign of King Henry VIII in the mid 1500s when he took over the Church of England (Anglican) because the Pope wouldn't give him a divorce from his wife. With this move he and future kings and queens became the head of the Church of England and this Church was the established church/religion. And this word "established" is quite important as it turns up again in early American history. So the Church was Catholic and became Protestant as King Henry was influenced by the Protestant Reformation that had come to England from the Continent. But some Catholic influences remained in terms of practices i.e. level of formality, litgury, etc. BTW the functioning head i.e. in charge of day-to-day operations, theological issues etc. was/is the Archbishop of Canterbury. As is evident the religious and political were tightly intertwined in England (and on the Continent).

I mentioned in a previous post the Church of England/King or Queen/ Archbishop of Canterbury persecuted Dissenters and had the political power to do so. The Church under King James 1 was no exception. And this included Catholics (who's property was confiscated) not just Separatists, Puritans, etc. when the King or Queen was Protestant. Now when an actual Puritan gained power in England i.e Oliver Cromwell he not only killed the King he also committed what some consider to be at the level of genocide against Catholics - especially in Ireland. And when the Separatists and Puritans had the political power in the colonies they in turn persecuted "Dissenters" e.g the Quakers, Baptists, etc. You will believe what we believe and do church how we do church or you'll be persecuted. (BTW I think understanding power will help you understand this history.)

This whole dynamic is what I previously described as Christians persecuting Christians. It was infighting. In other words the Hindus in India weren't arguing about Bible translations, church practices, etc. Neither were the Buddhists in China or the animist Cherokees in the "New World". (And putting things in perspective I like how Winston Churchill describes the American Revolution in his work A History of English-Speaking Peoples as "The Quarrel with America".)

Now since you seem to be perturbed by the concept of the divine rights of kings please let me reiterate: this idea and practice was common in Europe and Britain for centuries. This was not some random idea that popped into a king's head in the 1600s. And the Bible was used as a justification for their position on this issue:

Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

2 Peter 2:1: "Submit yourself for the Lord's sake to every human institution whether to a king..."

Mark 12:17: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars."

So the reasonable argument could be made that the Founding Fathers instead of starting an armed Revolution should have submitted to King George III. I'm not making that argument because I know the Judeo-Christian tradition was not their only influence. The idea of democracy came from Greece and separation of powers from Rome, etc.

[Thankful Jane]

I would like to post further on this thread and respond more specifically to some things, but it seems I have no time this week. (Next week may be better.) For now, I just want to say a few things.

Thank you, Mike, for your last few posts. I really appreciate your kinder tone and your more thoughtful approach to this thread (and your repentance … fully accepted). If I came across badly at any point, I too repent. Thank you for hearing what I wrote about my main reason for posting Cahn’s message being a call to repentance. There was also another reason, as yet unmentioned, which I alluded to in my first post and indicated I might write more about later. Lord willing, I will.

Someone once told me that real communication takes place when a speaking person (or a writer) is able to convey to listeners (or readers) the actual meaning he/she intends to convey. When that happens, there is genuine communication. Another wise person told me that whenever respect, in attitude, tone, and language, is missing from dialogue, there is no possibility of real communication taking place. I believe that good and useful communication can take place on this forum if writers will work hard to write as clearly and respectfully as they can and if readers will take the time to really try to hear and understand what a writer is saying (or trying to say). It is easy to be reactive (…speaking from experience), but not so easy to take a deep breath, read a post slowly a second or even third time, ask God’s help to understand what is being said, and take time to think about it (all of it) carefully before responding.

I personally think communication is one of the most difficult things we do in life. (My husband and I are 100% in agreement about this statement. We have four plus decades of trying to learn to communicate well and some days it seems we’re still in first grade.)

My openness to Cahn’s message was due, in part, to recent happenings in my life that I referred to in the “cloud” part of my first post. I didn't explain this. My openness was also due, in part, to my current view of American history.

Although I had no intention of discussing views of American history when I posted, this became a topic (in retrospect, understandably so). So, for now, in hope of being a better communicator, I am providing a link to a document about historical revisionism with respect to this country. I know it might be better if I wrote what I think about this, but I don’t have time to do so. So, I submit this article, not to argue a position, or insist that others believe this, but just to show a little more of what has influenced my views about American history. Maybe some will find this helpful. The perspective I held about the founding of America, one that I was taught in school, has changed significantly over the last few years.

(The fact is that none of us human beings can say with certainty that we have the correct perspective on historical matters. We weren’t there in the early years of America's history and no one from that era remains that can answer our questions. Our only source of information is written materials. And, as is true with knowing the Bible, we should do our own research, homework, etc. to see if the things we have heard are so.)
--------------

Lord, help us learn to communicate (fellowship) well. Help us walk in the light one with another as You are in the light. Thank you for your blood that cleanses us from all sin as we do so.


Here is the link: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100

Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

In actuality the nation was founded upon 3 strands of tradition: Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment.

I once read a more compelling historical argument that our three branches of government were modeled after the prevailing church structures of the time. The best features of the Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and Anglican churches steered the formation of congress, the judiciary, and the executive branches.

I tend to believe that church ecclesiology had a little more impact on our founding fathers than Greek and Roman cultures.

[aron]

Lord, help us learn to communicate (fellowship) well. Help us walk in the light one with another as You are in the light. Thank you for your blood that cleanses us from all sin as we do so.


Here is the link: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100

Thankful Jane

TJ,

I also repent to all & sundry if my tone is smug and/or off-putting. I tend to write quickly, with whatever inspires or amuses me, and then hit "submit". Naturally a lot of it isn't as inspiring, informative or enlightening to others.

I do a lot of history, science, theology reading on the internet. So I run into the equivalent of the "Wallbuilders" site fairly often (I actually have read this site before). Usually the authors' views are so narrowly focused that I don't have much patience and skim the bulk of the material.

As far as the U.S. or any group as specially blessed or different in God's eyes I don't really buy it. In a previous post the writer escapedfromthecurse listed 15 blessings applicable to the U.S. But aren't they also applicable to Sweden, Canada, and Bermuda? It's like they are trying to force the facts to fit their theory. Germany has well-known history of brutal intolerance to the Jews, and now they are one of the most economically viable ('blessed') countries in Europe. So eftc's list, while interesting, just doesn't "show" me anything, really.

But my commentaries are perhaps not advancing the collective wisdom much either. I will acknowledge that. So I try to remember: God loves the other person as much as He loves me. Try to respect the other person, and their ideas, as much as I wish others to pay attention to mine.

[alwayslearning]

I once read a more compelling historical argument that our three branches of government were modeled after the prevailing church structures of the time. The best features of the Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and Anglican churches steered the formation of congress, the judiciary, and the executive branches.

I tend to believe that church ecclesiology had a little more impact on our founding fathers than Greek and Roman cultures.

Sorry due to time restraints I didn't mention a few steps. On the separation of powers the Founders were most influenced by the French political philosopher of the Enlightenment era Montesquieu and especially his work The Spirit of Laws who in turn was influenced by the Greek Polybius who did a history on the Roman Republic. Most of the Founders were well acquainted with Montesquieu's work and Madison in the Federalist Papers said this: "The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject, is the celebrated Montesquieu."

[OBW]

. . . Let me go further, and confess that when I fail to "convince", I feel like I have personally failed. I feel like I cannot communicate well enough, and because of that I've not only alienated brothers and sisters in Christ, I've also failed the Lord. . .I try to only feel I've failed when they don't understand what I said. I have found that convincing reasonably goes two ways. It may be me that rethinks.

I know there are some who doubt that. But if it weren't true, I'd still be i the LRC.

[OBW]

Jane,

The problem with the position is not that there were not more people who both religiously and/or philosophically were of a Judeo-Christian mindset.

It is that just because they were that the nation is imbued with some special blessing that we can try to get back.

The nation is its people. When we were closer to being on the same page (philosophically, if not religiously), the relative harmony could be seen as blessing. Further, since it was harder for enemies to launch attacks on the country, there was little opposition from outside. But both of those have changed. We are not all on the same page. And Joe Terrorist (or Sven or Jose, or Achmed, or whoever) can much more easily do serious damage even if he/she cannot start a war.

The problem still is that the nature of the nation as blessed by God because of special status is a historical falsity. It is its own recast.

Yes, God and the Bible have been slowly excised from secular history. But even when they were there, the premise that we now presume about it was not true.

[aron]

Yes, God and the Bible have been slowly excised from secular history. But even when they were there, the premise that we now presume about it was not true.

Secular history usually admits a broader spectrum of opinion, and data. It admits religious opinion, as one of many. So if a religious opinion says "X causes Y" (i.e. God's covenant with Israel was transposed to the North American colonies/nation and caused subsequent blessings/prosperity) then secular history should treat that hypothesis as all others.

I see two related reasons why such a religious/spiritually-oriented hypothesis of history's events is ignored(excised) by the secular writers. First, as I said, the religious opinion is now seen as but one of many. It needs to compete with other religions and other viewpoints. It is no longer monopolistic in social discourse, but is merely one idea in a welter of ideas. There is a marketplace, if you will.

Secondly, compounding this challenge, is the problem that the religious idea usually doesn't know how to compete. In social science (e.g. history) one holds forth a hypothesis (X caused Y), discusses the idea's lineage, shows how it explains observable phenomenon, shows alternatives, acknowledges flaws & weaknesses, shows where this idea could be improved upon with more study, etc. One is literally humbling oneself and acknowledging the marketplace. Religious hypotheses, from what I observe, usually denigrate everyone else or simply pretend alternatives don't exist. They usually end up in some weird place of circular reasoning, cutting off any evidence from "outside" which could restrain the madness of the prophet.

For example, "There can only be one apostle in each age" is based upon the speaking of God's oracle, who is naturally God's man of the current hour, i.e. the apostle of the age. See how easy that is? As long as you don't allow any competing voices, you can go on and on. And, as I said, you can get stranger and stranger.

"In a multitude of voices there is safety" So said the wise writer of Proberbs. He repeated this formula 3 times in that book. Instead we now see "One Publication" and "BrotherLeesaid".

Believe me, I come up with some strange (or "novel") ideas myself. Some of them I become fascinated with. They hold a marvelous explanatory power... suddenly everything becomes so clear to me! I run around, and hold forth my revelation to my friends. But my revelation is, at best, "my truth" to (quietly) live and to hold, within what the collective church lives and holds. If I marginalize (dismiss or ignore) church teachings I will be marginalized instead. I believe that likewise religious histories have become marginalized because they don't respect the marketplace of ideas, and how it operates. If you show more respect for others' ideas you will get more traction & reception for your own.

[alwayslearning]

Secular history usually admits a broader spectrum of opinion, and data. It admits religious opinion, as one of many. So if a religious opinion says "X causes Y" (i.e. God's covenant with Israel was transposed to the North American colonies/nation and caused subsequent blessings/prosperity) then secular history should treat that hypothesis as all others.

I see two related reasons why such a religious/spiritually-oriented hypothesis of history's events is ignored(excised) by the secular writers.

I think it is generally accepted by both secular and Christian historians that the Judeo-Christian tradition had an influence on the Founders. This is no secret - it is an obvious fact. How could it be otherwise? But apparently some Christians are not satisfied with that and I think this thread is a case in point.

In one of my initial posts I stated what I consider to be common knowledge: "In actuality the nation was founded upon 3 strands of tradition: Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment." To my surprise I received quite a bit of flack for making this statement. In fact it was implied that I was being blinded by the god of this age who was tricking people into believing this sort of thing. Please note I did not say:

"In actuality the nation was founded upon 2 strands of tradition: Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment."

Neither did I say: "In actuality the nation was not founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition."

So what's the problem? Do some Christians seriously think that ignoring the other influences on the Founders is a credible position to take? Franklin was friends with Voltaire while he was in Paris as our ambassador lobbying the French to finance the Revolution. They were buddies and palled around town together. He even asked Voltaire to bless his grandson. Jefferson was very sad that Voltaire had died by the time he got to Paris but made sure he had a bust done of him to put in his study back in VA. He had many of his books in his library and was well read in Voltaire. Their views on religious and political liberty were informed by Voltaire. Should Christians cover this up and pretend it didn't happen? We can't handle the fact that the Founders were influenced by three strands of tradition? Are we that insecure?

[alwayslearning]

If alwayslearning were to continue your story he might point out that once the Pilgrims became established they became oppressive towards others (Quaker, Indians, Baptists, 'witches', etc), just as they had been oppressed in Merrie Olde England.

But the problem with "just as" is that it involves a simplification, in order to identify a trend, which simplification results in a loss of detail which ruins the ability to make a fair assessment.

I think God is detailed. Every hair on your head is numbered. The Puritans indeed became oppressors, as they and their fathers/mothers had been oppressed, but were they trending in a positive direction, or were they actually just as bad? Were they more "christian" than what they had fled from, or just as unchristian?

"Just as" is a qualitative assessment. "Degrees" is quantitative. The religious intolerance of the Puritans in MA was just as it was in England when they left and no they were not trending in a positive direction. They banned Quakers from the colony. They executed Quakers. They whipped Quakers out of towns throughout the colony. Finally King Charles II stepped in and expressly legally forbade them from persecuting those who professed Quakerism - that's how bad it was.

I think some Christians today yearning for the "good old days" of the Puritans are comfortably doing so while living in the luxury of a pluralistic democracy. They wouldn't survive a day in a monolithic theocracy! IMHO they should stop complaining and start appreciating what the Founders actually did - yes Puritans, etc you can believe whatever you want and practice religion how you want but you have no right and more importantly no power to impose it on anybody else.

[aron]

The religious intolerance of the Puritans in MA was just as it was in England when they left and no they were not trending in a positive direction.

I am not convinced of this, but I have not read enough, nor studied anyone who has read enough, to give you any argument countering yours. Probably it was not the "shining city on the hill" that some wished it were, but I felt at least it was a move in the right direction.

:truce:

[EscapedtheCurse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)

Thankful Jane


Well, I have only completed 7 minutes of the speech but felt I had to respond. I agree with your assertion that they (Alwayslearning, etal) have distorted the message, created a straw man, and then attacked the straw man.

1. He said “America was founded on God’s word to give God glory” – This statement seems to be referring to the Mayflower compact, not to the constitution because he then says “America was to be a city on a hill, a nation to which others would look, it was to be a holy commonwealth.” For someone with the supposed extensive background in history that Alwayslearning purports this seems to be an intentional mistake.

2. He says “they brought forth its first governments in the name of Jesus”, this also does not appear to be a reference to the constitution but rather to earlier city and state governments that preceded the constitution. This appears to be a direct reference to Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina and the recent Supreme court case. I listened to this quote several times and it was very clear that he said "governments" plural and not "government" singular. Since this was a recent Supreme Court ruling that these states could no longer use the name of Jesus in their oaths it seems to be a glaring mistake by those who have interpreted this as referring to our constitution, again it seems to be an intentional mistake.

3. “They established its first school system for the purpose of teaching the word of God”. The Bible and Hymnals were used by a number of the first school systems. It has been well documented and as far as I can see not even a matter of debate that Bibles and Hymnals were used as textbooks in the first school systems.

4. “America would become the most blessed nation on Earth, a refuge for the exiles, a light for the oppressed. A beacon against the dark forces of tyranny.”

This is a direct quote from the speaker and is a direct reference to several verses in the Bible that refer to the basis for God's blessing. AlwaysLearning dismissed my references because I hadn't heard this talk, apparently AlwaysLearning hadn't heard it either.

Again, I have only listened to 7 minutes but it is very clear to me that this entire discussion about the US constitution has nothing to do with what the speaker actually said.

[Escapedthecurse]

He asked “Can a nation forget her God?” But the context was very clear. He said a pastor was banned from praying during a public ceremony because years ago he had preached a sermon in which he said that those things the Bible calls sins are sin. The context was clearly that schools have eliminated the references to God in their books and songs. The context was that TV used to end their day of programming with sermons and now they are filled with violence and lust that were once unimaginable. There was no reference at all to the US constitution. Instead the reference was to a Bible verse in which God asks Israel the same question.

Once again, it is becoming very clear that the discussion about the US constitution has nothing to do with this man’s speech and is a straw man.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)

Thankful Jane
[/COLOR][/FONT]

And the context was that tomorrow marked the 40th anniversary of America legalizing abortion. During these 40 years he states that 50 million babies have been killed and likened this to the children that Israel killed.

What did God say about that?

Deuteronomy
18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire…
18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

According to Deuteronomy the reason God gave the Good land to Israel and drove out the inhabitants is because they aborted their children and burned the foetus in the fire. This reference is clearly a good analogy with America and our killing 50 million babies through legalized abortion.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)

Thankful Jane
[/COLOR][/FONT]

The reference to 911 was the “lifting of the hedge of protection”. In other words, prior to this attack there was no attack on our soil (Pearl harbor? Civil War? I think he is referring to the last 50 years or so. With this same reasoning you could say that the Civil War was a judgment on this nation for the sin of slavery. Pearl Harbor could have been a wake up call from God that we have to stop being completely focused on America and instead take our position in the World.) So with some caveats this is a reasonable interpretation. The US was involved in the Gulf Wars, we have witnessed extensive terrorism worldwide, but until 911 the nation had been protected from these attacks on our soil.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)

Thankful Jane
[/COLOR][/FONT]

The 9 harbingers:

Isaiah 9:10

1. Instead of repentance they responded to God’s warning with defiance.
Isaiah 9:10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.
“God you won’t humble us, we will continue down our ways with defiance. We will do so with our own efforts and we will come back stronger than before.”
2. The fifth harbinger is to place a stone of judgment at the place of God’s judgment. The monument at the World Trade Center is a “stone of judgment”.
3. The sixth harbinger a sycamore must be struck down at the ground of judgment. When the second tower came down the debris struck and leveled a sycamore tree, which is a Biblical sign of judgment.
4. The seventh harbinger is called “Eres” it appeared in the sky 2 years after.
5. The ninth harbinger is the vow of judgment. The vow of bricks and sycomores in Isaiah 9:10. One day after 911 Tom Daschle quoted Isaiah 9:10 on capital hill, and this “vow of judgment” is a harbinger.

He then says the economic implosion we have recently experienced (the mortgage crisis) is called “the second shaking”.

I don’t know what to think. Do I agree that 911 could and should be viewed as a warning from God and that it demonstrates our “hedge of protection” has been removed? I am inclined to say yes.

Do I think the 911 memorial is a harbinger of God’s judgment? I am inclined to say this is an interesting idea.

I am not sure which tree he is referring to and since I am very familiar with ground zero, having visited the site before and after 911 I feel this may be a reach.

I do not know what the sign is that appeared in the sky unless it was the Red moon on October 2004, but that was 3 years later, not 2 years later.

I think that Daschle’s quote from Isaiah shows the hypocrisy of arguing that this country is not based on the word of God. Why didn’t he quote the Greek Scholars, etc. Everyone knows that we swear in officials on a Bible, we promise to tell the truth swearing on a Bible, and when push comes to shove we quote the Bible. I think it also demonstrates how clueless they are. They quote the Bible without having the faintest idea what it means.

The basic premise in all of this is that God is in charge and that nothing happens without His allowing it. So although I can’t verify much of what he says I can’t dismiss it either.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2H9fniQTY)

Thankful Jane
[/COLOR][/FONT]

He quotes Washington’s inaugural speech

1. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
2. Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

I do not understand all the discussion by AlwaysLearning, etal about his connecting God to America. This quote from Washington is his thesis. This was what was spoken at the first inauguration and many years later on this inauguration he is reminding us what was spoken to us.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

This thread is a discussion about Cahn's talk and it is what I am addressing. Nobody and especially me are asking you to have Cahn speak for you. On the contrary the reasonable request is being made that you listen to what he has to say and let us know what you think about it like the rest of us are doing. After that we can have an informed discussion about it.

Well then why don't you follow your "reasonable request" instead of pontificating.

Referring to Washington’s inauguration is very relevant. As he points out this is where the country was first consecrated. And the location of that consecration was in fact ground zero. This certainly supports his thesis. We were told at our consecration the condition of God blessing us”. God’s blessing is equivalent to the “propitious smiles of Heaven” and it is based on the eternal rules which Heaven has ordained.

The man is giving a speech on inauguration day to pray for the blessings of this country. It is certainly relevant to refer to Washington's first inauguration speech and the consecration of the nation which occurred at a church in NYC which was coincidentally located at ground zero. In this speech Washington says that we as a nation can only expect God's blessings if we obey the eternal rules of God ordained by Heaven. Which is the man's thesis. Your entire argument about the constitution and all this other drivel is a straw man.

[alwayslearning]

Again, I have only listened to 7 minutes but it is very clear to me that this entire discussion about the US constitution has nothing to do with what the speaker actually said.

What discussion on the US Constitution? Now I recommend you not only listen to Cahn's entire talk before commenting but also read the entire thread!

[alwayslearning]

Your entire argument about the constitution and all this other drivel is a straw man.

What entire argument about the Constitution?

[alwayslearning]

I am not convinced of this, but I have not read enough, nor studied anyone who has read enough, to give you any argument countering yours. Probably it was not the "shining city on the hill" that some wished it were, but I felt at least it was a move in the right direction.

Since MA was part of Britain at the time I think you might find it interesting and informative to study what was going on in England at least from the time of the settlement in Plymouth until King Charles II had to intervene due to the Quaker persecution. Actually you might find it helpful to study what was going on there and in France (our main ally in the Revolution) from the time of the Jamestown settlement until the Revolution.

[Escapedfromthecurse]

I was able to listen to his entire talk this morning. I don't think his passion can be disputed however I disagree with his underlying premise i.e. America was once a blessed nation because it was founded on eternal and heavenly principles and consecrated to God/Jesus and is losing (or has lost) that blessing under God's judgment for our sinful ways. And that the Twin Tower attack and more recent economic turn down are signs of this judgment. I think this is a very selective view of American history.

The premise that America was founded on eternal and heavenly principles and consecrated to God is taken verbatim from Washington's inaugural speech and the prayer that took place later at St. Paul's chapel as a consecration, the same site that the Twin Towers were located at. Of course this is a very selective view of American history I think that is obvious to everyone.

In actuality the nation was founded upon 3 strands of tradition: Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment. Many of the founders were Deists not Christians. They belonged to Masonic Lodges. Several had mistresses. Most owned slaves. But they were also quite smart and learned. Drawing on these traditions and adding in their own insights they were able to put together the documents and framework and begin building the institutions of a new nation. This was messy work at best as one finds out when they dig into the archives to see how the sausage was made - so to speak.

This is the straw man argument. His reference was clearly to the Mayflower compact. You are referring to the US constitution and the founding fathers. He was referring to an event 150 years prior to this. None of those on the Mayflower were "deists", they did not set out with three strands, and they didn't own slaves. You have substituted what he said for what you wanted him to say.

Whenever I hear that America has sinned and is under God's judgment and needs to turn back to Him (not an unusual theme) I always wonder 2 things:

1. At what time were we as a nation turned to God in the first place? What is the benchmark?

2. What would this look like in practical application today? How would American society actually function and operate once it "turned back to God"?

1. He provided this in his speech. "“America would become the most blessed nation on Earth, a refuge for the exiles, a light for the oppressed. A beacon against the dark forces of tyranny.” If you look at the verses I provided you can see there is a very strong Biblical basis to say that these things would be characteristics of a nation blessed by God.

2. I think, based on his speech, that it is safe to say that America would stop killing millions of babies a year. That would be a good start.

[alwayslearning]

Escapedfromthecurse have you listened to his entire talk and read this entire thread yet?

[escapedfromthecurse]

I'm not sure what your post has to do with this thread unless you are suggesting in a democratic society that the moral character of leaders is irrelevant and should be covered up. Or in the case of Jefferson and Franklin that believing in the divinity of Christ is not a requirement for being a Christian.

I am addressing the position of Cahn that at one time America was a blessed nation and because of our sin is no longer (or is losing) this blessing. If I am understanding you correctly Cahn should not be pointing this sin out? Or it was OK for the founding fathers to sin but if we sin we will lose the blessing?


No, you are not addressing the position of Cahn. This person has made it very clear he was not talking about Jefferson, Franklin or the founding fathers. Your assumption that this was the case was baseless. His quote in the speech was clearly referring to the Mayflower compact without any reference to the founding fathers at all, other than Washington's speech.

In his book, Harbinger, he states clearly he is not talking about the founding fathers, but rather to those who came 150 years earlier.

[Ohio]

Escapedfromthecurse have you listened to his entire talk and read this entire thread yet?

I think this question would qualify as pontificating. :truce:

[Escapedfromthecurse]

I second the motion. Or a synopsis to see if I want to listen to the whole thing.

The message is based on his book "The Harbinger". The book refers to 9 harbingers he identifies of God's judgment. This is based on Isaiah 9:10 and 9/11.

1 – the hedge is removed. This is the first harbinger of God’s judgment. God puts a hedge of protection around a nation under his protection. Prior to 9/11 it seemed that the US did not suffer the terrorist attacks that Israel and the rest of the world did. 9/11 was the removal of the hedge of protection.
2 – The terrorist is the second harbinger. It referred to the Assyrians who were responsible for the attack referred to by Isaiah 9:10. The Assyrians lived in modern day Iraq, they were raised up to be terrorists: “its in his heart to destroy” according to Isaiah. Terrorists are the 2nd harbinger.
3 – The oracle is the 3rd harbinger, it refers to Isaiah 9:10. This was Israel’s response to God’s judgment. Instead of repentance they responded defiantly. Interestingly, Tom Daschle quoted this same verse as the nation’s response the same week as 9/11.
4 – The tower. According to the Septuagint Isaiah 9:10 says they would rebuild a tower in defiance. At ground zero there is a plaque saying that “Freedom Tower” would be built as an act of defiance.
5 – The foundation stone of hewn stone. This was referred to in Isaiah 9:10. In Isaiah the nation of Israel responds with defiance saying they will rebuild rather than repent at God’s rebuke. Likewise, this hewn stone was laid at ground zero with a big ceremony in which they declared they would respond with defiance, no repentance.
6—Sycamore tree that was planted outside of St. Paul’s chapel it was destroyed on 9/11 but famously protected this chapel which was critical during the ordeal as a place for first responders and for those seeking missing people. This chapel was also the place where Washington came after the inauguration to have the New nation consecrated. Buildings falling down signify the falling of the kingdom. Sycamores being uprooted signify the uprooting of the kingdom. It was certainly a very significant location to signify the “uprooting” of the kingdom. This uprooted tree became a symbol of 9/11 with a plaque calling it “the Sycamore of Ground Zero).
7 – The Erez tree. Isaiah 9:10 says they will change the fallen sycamores into cedars, however the word is actually Erez which refers to conifer pine trees of which Cedars are one. The “sycamore of ground zero” was removed and turned into a monument and it was replaced with a conifer pine tree in 2003. Both the placing of the foundation stone at ground zero and the planting of this tree were both done as big public ceremonies and acts of defiance, just as Israel had done. They said “The tree of hope is planted in the same spot where a sixty year old sycamore stood the morning of September 11, 2001.”
8 – The utterance on the anniversary of 9/11 an American leader in Washington D.C. used Isaiah 9:10 as the basis of his speech: we are rebuilding, we’re replacing the sycamore tree, etc.
9 – The prophecy – The Senate majority leader as an official response to 9/11 a few days after the attack also used Isaiah 9:10 as a vow or prophecy of how the US would respond.

[UntoHim]

Hey, "Escapedfromthecurse" it is against the forum rules and even general "netiquette" to post under multiple monikers.:mad: You've been warned about this before. Sail straight my friend or you're going to find yourself landlocked.

[ZNPaaneah]

Hey, "Escapedfromthecurse" it is against the forum rules and even general "netiquette" to post under multiple monikers.:mad: You've been warned about this before. Sail straight my friend or you're going to find yourself landlocked.

Sorry about that. Steve asked me to post on his thread, I had turned him down but decided to read it again. That was when I decided to post on this thread. I only decided to post again as ZNP when it seemed Steve really needed some support. At that point I had already posted as EFTC so it seemed easier to just finish that discussion as is. Sorry if that is improper. However, I do not recall ever being warned about this before unless you have me confused with someone else. Thanks.

[countmeworthy]

This is from an email yesterday from Angelica Fazio. This is what I meant about what God may be looking at while you are not. I wonder what your thoughts are on her points about a blessed nation.

I agree with Tom (no forum member) and Jane about the relevance of Cahn's message. As far as the book, "The Harbinger," I purchased it and read it when it first came out. I definitely agree that Cahn is on to something regarding God's judgment of America. Before the book was in print, there was an email going around----apparently initiated by Cahn or someone close to him. To me, that email was even more impressive than the book. It wasn't couched in fictional context, and it actually showed photos of them laying the huge "quarried rock" and planting the fir tree where the sycamore had fallen, etc. It was a bit breathtaking! I have recently searched for that link and been unable to find it. I suppose Cahn had it removed to boost sales of the book. I don't know.

I'm not certain what Tom said about Obama's re-election; however, I suspect his sentiments resemble mine---that short of divine, miraculous intervention, Obama's reelection spells the end of America as we have known it. America as we had known it is already history by now. And this is just the beginning.

I would have posted, but I couldn't find a way to register. I don't have a lot of time to invest in this. However, I agree a whole lot with Carol Garza's comments on the blog. Obviously, Abraham Lincoln thought we (America) had "forgotten God" and turned away from our underpinnings in Him---even at the time Lincoln served. If we want to see the heart of the early patriots, we should look at their songs and what it was that inspired them. "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was just that: it stated what the heart was of those who were willing to risk their lives to establish this nation. There are fewer more inspirational Christian hymns---as far as fighting for Christ's cause is concerned. (Their doctrine didn't coincide with what the three of us believe. The author was obviously amillenial---and thought they were going to usher in Christ's return and reign through their military victory on earth. "As He (Christ) died to make men holy, let us live to make men free, while God is marching on." etc.

The war cry in the revolutionary was "No king but Jesus!" The second stanza of "My Country 'Tis of Thee" actually is a declaration of them reversing Israel's move of rejecting God for an earthly king. It goes, "Our father's God, to Thee---Author of Liberty--to Thee we sing. Long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light. Protect us by Thy might, great God, OUR KING!" The colonists honestly thought they were reversing the error of Israel of old. That was their position. In addition, the inscription on the "Liberty Bell": "Proclaim liberty throughout the land" was taken from Leviticus 25 and 27 regarding the jubilee of the children of Israel in their 70th year. The footprints of the Christian faith in our governmental documents and historic sites are too numerous to mention. Here's a brief listing of them: http://www.allabouthistory.org/spiritual-heritage-and-government-monuments-faq.htm

Sinners, deceived (possessing slaves but declaring equality of all men), and with doctrinal error----just like the rest of us. However, the concept of God, Christ, and the Bible ranked high in their thoughts. Even those deists could quote Scripture and believed it more than most of our clergy today. The authority of the Word of God was unquestioned. "The Old Deluder Satan Act" was the bases for establishing public education. It stated that, since our laws were based upon the Bible, it was essential for men to be able to read so that they could read their Bibles and keep the magistrates in line. Compare that to our attitude today. I believe it was Robert Charles Winthrop, an 1850 politician, who said we would be ruled "either by the Bible or the bayonet."

As far as contributing to the debate, I'm not sure what I could add. Like Tom, I don't have a lot of time to invest in this sort of thing. I continue to be 125% employed (hence, the amount of time it's taken me to get back to you regarding your email). I'd like to support Cahn's speaking/book in any way possible.

Hello Indie..please give my warmest regards to Angelica for me if she does not make another appearance here.

I do not understand how one person's personal positive insight on a book or YouTube turned into a heated debate.

Do we all not read the same bible (translations/versions aside)? In Matthew 7 (I think) Jesus clearly states not everyone who says "Lord Lord didn't I cast out demons in your Name and prophesy in Your Name?" Yet the Lord did not know these workers of iniquity. In Revelation chapters. 2-3, we also see Christ rebuking and commending the churches depending on their condition.

We ourselves run into cerebral believers making it very difficult for genuine fellowship. And we also run into carnal Christians as well as religious Christians. Now and then I run into a true Spirit Filled, God filled person making it so pleasurable to fellowship with.

I am sure back in the day when our country was being established and our laws/constitution was being implemented, there was a mixture of true living Christians, carnal Christians, and religious Christians working together. It is evidenced in their writings by including the Scriptures and God. Yet many if not most of our legislatures and Presidents lived immoral lives.

The only difference I see between our government leaders of today and those back then is if our constitution and laws were written today, there would be no mention of God or the scriptures. Our currency would not have the sealed imprint of "In God we trust".

Our government leaders back then may not have lived exemplary Christian lives but they were not embarrassed or ashamed of the Word of God.

Can you imagine what our constitution would look like if it was written for the first time today? Do you think the President would place his hand on a bible when taking the oath of office?

TJ was moved and enlightened by Cahn's perspective. So was I but I have also heard how our nations capital had its' buildings patterened by the Roman and Greek architecture. And how the Freemasons built their symbol into Washington DC.

In the end, I know what my bible tells me about the gentile nations and Israel. Jesus is King of kings, Lord of lords. And He IS coming again. Let us keep praying for many more people to get saved, After all, we are the Light of the world

Blessings everyone!

Carol Garza

[ZNPaaneah]

Hello Indie..please give my warmest regards to Angelica for me if she does not make another appearance here.

I do not understand how one person's personal positive insight on a book or YouTube turned into a heated debate.




Thank you for referring me to this. I enjoyed watching the video and am half way through the book. I enjoy his insights into Isaiah 9:10. I find it very relevant since this verse has been quoted repeatedly at the most significant of moments regarding 9/11.

One year prior to 9/11 our church organized a rally in front of the UN to raise awareness for what was going on in Sudan. I was one of the three committee members that organized that rally. We had a picture of a boy who was burned by the terrorists and we had a small coffin for a child. The rally was a memorial service. You might have seen the movie about the preacher who shoots guns, or something like that (Machine gun preacher?). This man was also at this rally.

The point that our pastor made at that rally was that if we don't respond to the terrorists attacking Christians in Sudan, then we will one day have to respond to them here in this country.

One year later we had planned to have a second rally on 9/13 but it was cancelled after 9/11. On 9/11 I had to walk out of Manhattan and as I crossed the bridge and looked back a huge pillar of smoke was rising from where the Twin towers were. I felt like I was right out of CNN footage from some war torn region. I also felt that our rally (these things cost us around $20,000) was like a big burnt offering to the Lord. We had laid out the offering, prayed, and God had answered from heaven with fire. (We had prayed to raise awareness so that we could take action. We didn't pray for the attack, but I knew this would raise awareness).

Now because of my study on what was happening in Sudan I knew that Iraq and Al Qaida were two very different entities. I also knew that justifying an attack on Iraq because of human rights abuses was complete hypocrisy since the two biggest abusers by Amnesty international's account were our two allies: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So I knew the US was responding with defiance.

One other interesting side note, I met one of the hijackers. He came into our firm to open an account with us. I was the one who opened the account. When I went into the back office to get the manager to sign off I told my manager that I had major misgivings about this guy. He was sitting with 3 other coworkers. I think my actual words were "this guy is a terrorist". However, I had no evidence other than my gut. I would have certainly gotten a bad write up about this event had it not been for 9/11. That was when we learned that he in fact was one of the terrorists. The FBI directed us to send the file to them.

So this story has been something that I have followed closely from day 1 and I do appreciate the added Biblical references. I am most impressed that St. Paul's was where the new nation was consecrated (I knew that Washington had gone there after the inauguration because a plaque outside the church explains that) and uprooting the sycamore at St. Paul's at the time that the towers fell has so much more meaning.

I guess there are three ways someone can respond:

You could scoff -- US is not a Christian country, these events are not harbingers of God's judgment, etc.

You could repent --

Or you could do nothing and just hopes it all goes away. Too afraid to scoff lest you incur God's judgment, too drugged to repent.

[aron]

On 9/11 I had to walk out of Manhattan and as I crossed the bridge and looked back a huge pillar of smoke was rising from where the Twin towers were...

A couple of days after 9/11, I was looking at a satellite photo of NYC from space, showing the column of smoke rising through the atmosphere and into the troposphere. Most of the photo covered the land area of NJ/NYC/CT, but much of the photo showed water (the Atlantic Ocean). As I was looking at the photo, I remembered that quote from Revelation 18, of the ships' captains looking on from afar, seeing the smoke rise, and mourning how in one moment the great city fell.

11 "The merchants of the earth cry and mourn over her, because no one buys their cargo anymore. 12 No one buys their cargo of gold, silver, gems, pearls, fine linen, purple cloth, silk, bright red cloth, all kinds of citron wood, articles made of ivory and very costly wood, bronze, iron, marble, 13 cinnamon, spices, incense, perfume, frankincense, wine, olive oil, flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, wagons, slaves (that is, humans). 14 'The fruit you craved is gone. All your luxuries and your splendor have disappeared. No one will ever find them again.' 15 "Frightened by her torture, the merchants who had become rich by selling these things will stand far away. They will cry and mourn, 16 saying, 'How horrible, how horrible for that important city which was wearing fine linen, purple clothes, bright red clothes, gold jewelry, gems, and pearls. 17 In one moment all this wealth has been destroyed!' Every ship's captain, everyone who traveled by ship, sailors, and everyone who made their living from the sea stood far away. 18 When they saw the smoke rise from her raging fire, they repeatedly cried out, 'Was there ever a city as important as this?' 19 Then they threw dust on their heads and shouted while crying and mourning, 'How horrible, how horrible for that important city. Everyone who had a ship at sea grew rich because of that city's high prices. In one moment it has been destroyed!'

I never heard anyone question why terrorists wanted to attack those 2 buildings. Why not a corn silo in Iowa? Why not the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam or Mount Rushmore? Maybe nobody questioned it because it was self-evident. Think about the three words denoting that cluster of buildings: The Center of World Trade. Revelation 18 is appropos: "wheat, cattle, ivory, fine linen and jewels..." etc etc ad infinitum.

Now because of my study on what was happening in Sudan I knew that Iraq and Al Qaida were two very different entities. I also knew that justifying an attack on Iraq because of human rights abuses was complete hypocrisy since the two biggest abusers by Amnesty international's account were our two allies: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So I knew the US was responding with defiance...

There was a photo on the front page of the New York Times about a week after we invaded Afghanistan. The picture was of a big map of the Middle East on the wall in Taliban Headquarters. Everywhere the U.S. military had a presence there was a U.S. flag pinned to the map. There were probably a dozen flags pinned there. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Mediterranean Sea, Somalia, Oman, Qatar, Persian Gulf, etc.

I was looking at the photo of that map and I realized that in the mind-set of the Taliban, the U.S. had already invaded the Middle East. One great tragedy of our foreign policy is that we (U.S.) thought that because we have more guns, we don't have to consider (i.e. respect) what the other guy is thinking; what his/her value set consists of, etc. If you don't agree with us, and respond "apropriately", we will come in and shoot you.

In that sense, I have been repenting, continually, for our empty commercialism, our futile tweets and facebook posts of what we ate for breakfast. I repent for the fact that 4 sets of terrorists on airplanes caused our country to abandon decades of fairly successful foreign policy (i.e. "containment"), and become a shoot-first nation.

(For U.S. policy of 'Containment', see e.g. http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1946_cold_war/kennan_and_containment.html )

I have already told the story of the fundamentalist church where I met in 2002/2003 whose pastor was rabid to invade Iraq and "christianize" that nation. Believe me, I think there is plenty to repent of.

I guess there are three ways someone can respond:

You could scoff -- US is not a Christian country, these events are not harbingers of God's judgment, etc.

You could repent --

Or you could do nothing and just hopes it all goes away.

What I scoff at is sloppy scholarship. Most religious polemicists I have read are too sure of themselves, or too afraid of the truth, to consider other viewpoints. They don't admit any weakness to their argument. They don't consider alternative explanations. Etc. And that goes for a lot of non-religious ones as well. I don't know if you ever saw the video "Loose Change" which basically said the attacks on the twin towers & Pentagon was a hoax to steal gold, or some such.

Even if their charges were credible, the whole thing was so sloppily done and insulting to my intelligence that I simply could not sit through it. I am not an 8-year old. Please don't talk to me as if I were. If you want me to respect your ideas please don't treat me with such a lack of respect.

If I too quickly lumped Cahn with such people, I apologize. I liked your list posted under "escapedfromthecurse".

[Ohio]

In that sense, I have been repenting, continually, for our empty commercialism, our futile tweets and facebook posts of what we ate for breakfast. I repent for the fact that 4 sets of terrorists on airplanes caused our country to abandon decades of fairly successful foreign policy (i.e. "containment"), and become a shoot-first nation.

It's probably best not to display liberal evaluations about US foreign policy on this thread. Some of us might be other-wise minded.

Containment was a cold-war policy against the Soviets. Had they attacked the trade towers and the pentagon, we would have nuked all of Moscow.

That said, I do appreciate your posts. :)

[Ohio]

What I scoff at is sloppy scholarship. Most religious polemicists I have read are too sure of themselves, or too afraid of the truth, to consider other viewpoints. They don't admit any weakness to their argument. They don't consider alternative explanations. Etc. And that goes for a lot of non-religious ones as well. I don't know if you ever saw the video "Loose Change" which basically said the attacks on the twin towers & Pentagon was a hoax to steal gold, or some such.

Even if their charges were credible, the whole thing was so sloppily done and insulting to my intelligence that I simply could not sit through it. I am not an 8-year old. Please don't talk to me as if I were. If you want me to respect your ideas please don't treat me with such a lack of respect.

If I too quickly lumped Cahn with such people, I apologize. I liked your list posted under "escapedfromthecurse".

aron, wouldn't it have been better just to provide us with something better than to insult the poster with claims of "sloppy scholarship?"

[OBW]

In that day, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not mention you in our Declaration of Independence and follow you in our Constitution? Did not our forefathers create a charter of great religious consequence when coming to this great land? Did we not declare our belief in your providence as we mentioned you in at least one inaugural address? Did we not act in righteousness when we defended your word against the infidels of the North (or South). Aren't we the ones who have declared that our nation was Christian?"

And I will respond, "Who made you the declarer of covenants? When did I come to you and make such a covenant? When did I make any declarations concerning your little kingdom? Depart from me you who twist my declarations to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to the nation of Israel as if your will can cause those blessing to become yours by efforts of your own. You who curse the prostitutes and sinners among you. Who disdain your homeless. Who dare to do all of this in my name."

"Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness."

- - - -

This may be too much. But I believe that we are presuming way beyond anything that we have the reach to claim. Other than the reality that some will hear those kinds of stern words concerning obvious lack of love for neighbor, the rest is somewhat fantasy.

But no more fantasy than the claim that we can unilaterally cause this nation to be blessed by our declaration that it is so. No nation on earth can lay claim to the covenant that God made with Israel all those years ago. There is serious question as to whether the current Israel can claim all that was enjoyed by its predecessor. But whether they can or can not, we surely cannot.

[ZNPaaneah]

In that day, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not mention you in our Declaration of Independence and follow you in our Constitution? Did not our forefathers create a charter of great religious consequence when coming to this great land? Did we not declare our belief in your providence as we mentioned you in at least one inaugural address? Did we not act in righteousness when we defended your word against the infidels of the North (or South). Aren't we the ones who have declared that our nation was Christian?"

And I will respond, "Who made you the declarer of covenants? When did I come to you and make such a covenant? When did I make any declarations concerning your little kingdom? Depart from me you who twist my declarations to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to the nation of Israel as if your will can cause those blessing to become yours by efforts of your own. You who curse the prostitutes and sinners among you. Who disdain your homeless. Who dare to do all of this in my name."

"Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness."

- - - -

This may be too much.

Agreed.

But I believe that we are presuming way beyond anything that we have the reach to claim.

What are "we" presuming?

Other than the reality that some will hear those kinds of stern words concerning obvious lack of love for neighbor, the rest is somewhat fantasy.

But no more fantasy than the claim that we can unilaterally cause this nation to be blessed by our declaration that it is so.

Who said that?

No nation on earth can lay claim to the covenant that God made with Israel all those years ago.

I was not aware that anyone had tried to lay claim to that covenant.

There is serious question as to whether the current Israel can claim all that was enjoyed by its predecessor. But whether they can or can not, we surely cannot.

I have no idea what this post has to do with Cahn's speech or his book. He was at a prayer breakfast on the day of the inauguration with the express purpose of praying for God to bless the nation, according to Paul's word (1Timothy 2:1-2). Surely if you pray for God's blessing you must do so with the faith that God will answer. To point out that this is not the first time that these prayers had been made, especially to refer to the prayers made on the first inauguration is certainly relevant. To say that earlier prayers for God's blessing had been answered is also quite reasonable.

Did I listen to a different speech? Can you give me the offending quote from his speech.

Thanks

[aron]

aron, wouldn't it have been better just to provide us with something better than to insult the poster with claims of "sloppy scholarship?"

Ohio, I am not selling my ideas on the market for lucre. Therefore I don't hold my ideas to the same standards. My ideas are opinions, which you will probably notice I do (at least occasionally) try to provide alternatives for, as well as pointing out their possible shortcomings.

But if I had my own publishing house, website, pastorate, YouTube channel or whatnot hopefully I would hopefully do even better than that. I myself make no claims other than being a rank amateur. What bugs me are rank amateurs posing as teachers, guides, apostles, and prophets.

[Ohio]

Ohio, I am not selling my ideas on the market for lucre. Therefore I don't hold my ideas to the same standards. My ideas are opinions, which you will probably notice I do (at least occasionally) try to provide alternatives for, as well as pointing out their possible shortcomings.

But if I had my own publishing house, website, pastorate, YouTube channel or whatnot hopefully I would hopefully do even better than that. I myself make no claims other than being a rank amateur. What bugs me are rank amateurs posing as teachers, guides, apostles, and prophets.

At this point aron I'm not sure what you are trying to say. At first I thought you were scolding ZNP for sloppy scholarship regarding his comment, "I guess there are three ways someone can respond: ... "

Or perhaps you were just venting about Bush era politics in the aftermath of 911, as if it were he who subsequently placed troops in a "dozen" places on the Mideast map in violation of the long-standing policy of "containment," which could be considered sloppy scholarship.

Or perhaps, based on some sloppy scholarship, that "rabid" pastor you used to know prayed that Iraq might be "Christianized." Btw, many missionaries did go to Iraq in those days. I personally know one from our young people's group who went to Kurdistan. We prayed much for him.

[OBW]

Z,

I have never said to refrain from praying for the nation. And if you are only focused on Cahn's actual call to prayer, then you might not have any complaint.

But the first half was a run-up to the call to prayer based on the assumption that, like Israel, America was founded in the same manner. And that things like the Mayflower compact, the first inaugural address, and many other statements constituted a basis for Israel-like blessings that we should be able to pray back into existence.

In effect, these historical documents, speeches, etc., are being treated like a contract between America and God upon which we can be blessed. And returning to that state is being treated like a "first love." We love that country so much better than the one we have now. We have the most tolerant country ever (or at least nearly so) and yet we have to have more. It is consuming us. We are willing to redirect the thrust of our prayers to get it back.

I am all for praying for peace within our borders and with the rest of the world. I am for praying for a turn in the minds of those who would call unrighteousness righteousness. I am for prayer to turn hearts from wickedness to God. But even if there is a true revival, I do not dare treat it as some kind of special blessing from God on the nation, but on those who turn back to Him.

We are sojourners in a foreign land. It may be a reasonably favorable land, but it is not the kingdom of God. It is the kingdom of the world. No matter how good an inaugural address is, how righteous the Mayflower compact was, how many references there were to God in various other documents or how many times meetings of the fledgling government were opened with prayer — even of some length — it is a secular nation. No amount or prayer can put on the nation a label that does not apply to all of its citizens. And "followers of God" does not apply to nearly all of them now.

Or even then. They may have had a better percentage. Or at least so if you take into account the fact that much of the major philosophy of the day was Judeo-Christian based. But while a valid study of the scripture is rightly a branch of philosophy, a philosophy merely based upon its tenets does not a Christian make. And there was plenty of that in play in that day and age. Pascal's wager was relatively new and probably was part of some amount of the apparent "belief" of some whose lives did not seem to measure up. Probably a lot of mental hedging of bets.

And I have no problem with them having written our founding documents and leading us into the next century as a nation rather than as a collection of squabbling, independent states.

[ZNPaaneah]

Z,

I have never said to refrain from praying for the nation. And if you are only focused on Cahn's actual call to prayer, then you might not have any complaint.

But the first half was a run-up to the call to prayer based on the assumption that, like Israel, America was founded in the same manner. And that things like the Mayflower compact, the first inaugural address, and many other statements constituted a basis for Israel-like blessings that we should be able to pray back into existence.

I did not listen to the speech until after reading the debate on it. Therefore I was looking specifically for this and found that the speech was very nuanced and never said this. He used Israel as an example of how God can both bless and discipline a nation. He said that the US is the most blessed nation in human history, but never made a connection to God's covenant with Israel as though the US has a special covenant with God and he never insinuated that either. The point I got is that if you pray for God's blessings then you have to also expect God's discipline. Washington's inaugural address and the subsequent consecration of the New nation were evidence that many had prayed for God's blessing, as further evidenced by a prayer breakfast on the morning of the inauguration for the blessings of God.

His contention is that 9/11 was the harbinger of God's judgment. On the surface that seems like the kind of thing that many false teachers would use to sell books. However, his 9 harbingers based on Isaiah 9:10 are very compelling.

In effect, these historical documents, speeches, etc., are being treated like a contract between America and God upon which we can be blessed. And returning to that state is being treated like a "first love." We love that country so much better than the one we have now. We have the most tolerant country ever (or at least nearly so) and yet we have to have more. It is consuming us. We are willing to redirect the thrust of our prayers to get it back.

Yes, he contends that we have removed and erased God from our national psyche, and this is strongly related to God's judgment. His major example was 50 million abortions. This is why I used the verse reference that I did to show that abortions were the basis for God to give the good land to Israel and drive the nations that were there out. 50 million abortions is a strong basis for God's judgment. The NT is clear, God is the one who raises up kingdoms and overthrows them.

I am all for praying for peace within our borders and with the rest of the world. I am for praying for a turn in the minds of those who would call unrighteousness righteousness. I am for prayer to turn hearts from wickedness to God. But even if there is a true revival, I do not dare treat it as some kind of special blessing from God on the nation, but on those who turn back to Him.

We are sojourners in a foreign land. It may be a reasonably favorable land, but it is not the kingdom of God. It is the kingdom of the world. No matter how good an inaugural address is, how righteous the Mayflower compact was, how many references there were to God in various other documents or how many times meetings of the fledgling government were opened with prayer — even of some length — it is a secular nation. No amount or prayer can put on the nation a label that does not apply to all of its citizens. And "followers of God" does not apply to nearly all of them now.

Once again, I listened carefully and there was not any suggestion that I picked up that this nation is "the kingdom or God".

According to my reading of the US constitution there is no law that makes abortion legal. However, I do feel there is a law that prohibits the federal government from legalizing abortion. The freedom of religion, as a right, says that the US government will not make any law that prohibits the worship of God. I think the verses that I have quoted as well as many others in the OT make it very clear that sacrificing your child or your seed to Molech (God of fornication) or Baal (your career) is something that inhibits the free worship of our God in this country. Therefore, according to the Constitution the Federal government has no right to legalize it, especially in the way they did with a Supreme Court ruling which essentially makes it a law on some bogus explanation. Abortion is something that each state should decide for themselves. That would not make us any less of a "secular nation".

Or even then. They may have had a better percentage. Or at least so if you take into account the fact that much of the major philosophy of the day was Judeo-Christian based. But while a valid study of the scripture is rightly a branch of philosophy, a philosophy merely based upon its tenets does not a Christian make. And there was plenty of that in play in that day and age. Pascal's wager was relatively new and probably was part of some amount of the apparent "belief" of some whose lives did not seem to measure up. Probably a lot of mental hedging of bets.

And I have no problem with them having written our founding documents and leading us into the next century as a nation rather than as a collection of squabbling, independent states.

So then we cannot pray for God's blessing because only a minority of citizens are "followers of God"? I already gave you the verse that God blessed the Egyptian household that Joseph was in for Joseph's sake. Surely Joseph was a minority, but he was a "follower of God" and that was sufficient. Now if God can bless Egypt for Joseph's sake and almost sink a ship for Jonah's sake, I think it is very clear that God can judge this nation for keeping silent while an unimaginable slaughter is going on.

[ZNPaaneah]

The dissenting opinion by the two justices that voted against Roe v Wade

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

To my opinion it is ridiculous to argue that the framers of the constitution were including the right to an abortion to the "right to privacy". Second, the freedom of religion trumps this anyway. I agree with the dissenting opinion. This is something that should be left to the States to decide. That way if you disagree with the decision you can move. I don't live in Nevada and I don't live in Utah.

Why doesn't the "right to privacy" extend to prostitution, a "don't ask don't tell" kind of ruling. Or why doesn't it extend to polygamy.

Laws should be legislated, not imposed by 7 justices.

[OBW]

The dissenting opinion by the two justices that voted against Roe v Wade

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

To my opinion it is ridiculous to argue that the framers of the constitution were including the right to an abortion to the "right to privacy". Second, the freedom of religion trumps this anyway. I agree with the dissenting opinion. This is something that should be left to the States to decide. That way if you disagree with the decision you can move. I don't live in Nevada and I don't live in Utah.

Why doesn't the "right to privacy" extend to prostitution, a "don't ask don't tell" kind of ruling. Or why doesn't it extend to polygamy.

Laws should be legislated, not imposed by 7 justices.Too true.

How about that. We agree on something. (Probably won't be the last time either.)

[aron]

Containment was a cold-war policy against the Soviets. Had they attacked the trade towers and the pentagon, we would have nuked all of Moscow.

Iraq didn't attack the trade towers or the pentagon. Yet we invaded anyway, on the flimsiest of manufactured pretenses. That was not containment; that was aggression, pure and simple. And when U.S. personnel couldn't find anything, once in Iraq, to justify our aggression, we re-worded our mission: suddenly GW Bush decided the Iraqi invasion was about despotism and "freedom". If so, why not invade Cuba as well, and North Korea also? Not enough oil, there?

Again, the well-served 'containment' idea of "Don't attack us because if you do we can and will make you pay" became "We're having a crisis of self-confidence and need to attack someone".

And no, those comments were not related to the idea of "sloppy scholarship"; they were posted in affirmation of ZNP's point that after 9/11 our leaders didn't repent, but became even more hardened, intransigent, and bellicose.

[ZNPaaneah]

Iraq didn't attack the trade towers or the pentagon. Yet we invaded anyway, on the flimsiest of manufactured pretenses. That was not containment; that was aggression, pure and simple. And when U.S. personnel couldn't find anything, once in Iraq, to justify our aggression, we re-worded our mission; GW Bush decided the Iraqi invasion was about "freedom". If so, why not invade Cuba as well, and North Korea also? Not enough oil, there?

Again, the well-served 'containment' idea of "Don't attack us because if you do we can and will make you pay" became "We're having a fit of hubris and paranoia and are going to attack someone".

And no, those comments were not related to the idea of "sloppy scholarship"; they were posted in affirmation of ZNP's point that after 9/11 our leaders didn't repent, but became even more hardened, intransigent, and bellicose.

I do not agree with our going to war in Iraq and I agree with the idea that WMD and Human Rights were shabby explanations to hide the real reason.

That said, I think those that accuse the US of going to war over oil do not fairly represent the choice. Iraq has the largest natural reserves of oil second only to Saudi Arabia. Since Saudi Arabia has booby trapped their refineries with dirty bombs it would be crazy talk to invade that country. You might argue that lives should not be lost fighting over oil. A perfectly reasonable feeling. However, without sufficient oil the US economy would rapidly descend into anarchy. By rapidly it would only be a month or two. Just a slight crimp in the supply caused major upheavals in NYC after Sandy.

The entire city was shut down for a week because the Subway didn't run. Without the subway kids can't get to school, and when that domino falls so many other dominoes fall too. In my opinion a trillion dollars spent on wind energy would have helped this countries security much more than a trillion dollars spent in Iraq. That refers to both physical and economic security.

Wind energy creates manufacturing jobs and high tech jobs, it would have been a fantastic boost to our economy. But, hindsight is 20/20 and it would have been a very gutsy call and a very tough call to pull it off. The last time a president tried to take this course of action the oil companies manufactured a gas shortage and that president was out after 1 term. Also, wind would be replacing coal, not oil. So the investment would not impact an oil shortage until the country moves to hybrid/electric vehicles. It would have been a very gutsy move politically, economically and diplomatically. And, it would have required one extremely effective leader to successfully pull it off.

In the end this will be something the US as a nation will need to repent of. But leading a country in repentance requires real leadership.

[aron]

At this point aron I'm not sure what you are trying to say...

Well, I could also be held up as a sloppy and disjointed thinker and writer. Maybe I am just jealous of those who have also done so, and made such a good living at it! Mea culpa if I have not been clear.

What I was getting at (possibly unrelated to discussions of Jonathan Cahn!) was people like Hank Hanegraaf introducing Gretchen Passantino as a "world-renowned expert" in her CRI write-up on the Local Churches. Number one, world-renowned experts usually don't need to be introduced as such. They simply let their credentials do the talking. Number two, Hanegraaf, her co-worker, is not a good source for such an assessment. But unfortunately there are a lot of gullible rubes out there, and Hanegraaf is handsomely rewarded for making confident assertions to them.

Another example is the Living Stream Ministry-affiliated Local Churches touting the "rich ministry of Witness Lee". Number one, that is not very christian to puff yourself up thusly. If it's true, let your work do the talking. Number two, again we have a clear financial conflict of interest here. A group stands to profit if they can convince potential consumers how good the product/output of the "ministry" of Witness Lee is.

I think that good scholarship says: Here is an idea, a thought, an hypothesis: "X" causes "Y"; or "A" is equivalent to "B". One humbly enters this idea into the discussion not as if it were the final word. One admits that POSSIBLY others have valid ideas as well, perhaps somewhat different from this idea. One offers alternatives, and admits possible flaws. One looks for evidence.

My point was that a lot of Christian shepherds and teachers make a lot of money leading a lot of gullible sheep astray, by presenting them with and oversimplified, distorted gospel. Like cotton-candy sellers at the fair, they don't really care about your health, they just want sales. But to get sales they have to pretend they care about you.

Where Jonathan Cahn falls into this mercantilization of the Gospel I don't know. He seems to point to bothersome questions to a vague publisher: "Don't look at me; I'm only the author. I didn't market this book."

http://standupforthetruth.com/2012/06/harbinger-author-johnathan-cahn-answers-questions/

The only thing I really know is OBW wasn't impressed and I kind of think like OBW (I think) so I jumped in. Perhaps my input didn't help this thread and/or discussion. Again, mea culpa.

[aron]

...the investment [in wind power] would not impact an oil shortage until the country moves to hybrid/electric vehicles. It would have been a very gutsy move politically, economically and diplomatically. And, it would have required one extremely effective leader to successfully pull it off.

Well, it takes guts to be a leader. "They will welcome us with open arms"~ Dick Cheney. You have to have some brass, to put that stuff out there.

Either way, you are going to have leaders. The question is: leading where?

One small, positive comment on Romney: He was filmed at a fund-raiser in Florida talking about the "culture of entitlement" that has engulfed, and paralyzed, so much of our society. It cost him dearly at the polls, I believe. What politician would have the nerve to talk about the 300-lb gorilla in the room?

[Thankful Jane]

I finally have some time to post. Sorry this doesn't follow the previous posts well.

Jane,

....And, unfortunately, you had something you wanted to say (that is probably very important). But you let someone who is pushing a ridiculous position say it for you. And as a result, you didn't say what you thought you were. You said what he said. You said all those things about "Christian Nation." You may not have intended it. But you did. And the only part of what he said that you really seem to have been aligned with is a need to repent....

Sometime we just don't have the way to express what we want to say. Find a better stand-in than Cahn.


Mike,

I didn’t post Cahn’s message to have someone speak for me. I posted it because it spoke to me. I think it spoke to me because I believe that God is (was and will be until time is no more) actively involved in the affairs of men and history. Cahn’s point was not that we should return to a prior blessing, but that we need to be warned that God’s judgment was on the horizon, even had begun. Cahn paralleled events that occurred during God’s judging of Israel with events that happened on 9/11, not just because it sounded like a plausible thesis, but because he had seen that there were stunning parallels to Isa 9:10.

To me, the point of Cahn’s message was a wake-up call concerning God’s judgment. The Bible is plain that God, after much longsuffering, does move His hand to judge. His judgment is always with the end goal of salvation and restoration. The Bible also shows that God gives fair (even overly fair) multiple warnings before He judges.

Furthermore, judgment is not limited to God’s people only. God even warned Nineveh, the capitol of Assyria, a gentile nation, by sending the prophet Jonah to preach to them about God’s impending judgment. The ruler and the people of Nineveh repented and God did not judge them. This shows that a nation doesn’t have to belong to God or be under God’s blessing, and then lose it, in order to become qualified for judgment (or warning). Also Nebucchadnezer (Babylonian king) was judged as an individual ruler (he went mad and was chained to a stump for a period of time) that he might be humbled, so that the “living might know that the Most High ruled in the kingdom of men.”

Back to Cahn: It was what he shared about Isa. 9:10 that primarily got my attention. (I thought that others who heard his message would be struck with the same thing. Instead, you started a discussion on this thread about there being no relationship between Israel, God’s blessing on the U.S., etc. You did this while saying that you had only listened the beginning of Cahn’s message, so you hadn’t heard what he said about Isaiah 9:10. I understand that it was hard for you to listen to him because you didn’t like his opening and where you thought he was headed with it.)

With regard to what Cahn said about Isa. 9:10, none of us can accurately or thoroughly explain history from God’s perspective, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t get glimpses of His involvement, if we are watching, which we are commanded to do when we are told to watch and pray (Mark 13:33). I think that Cahn, in what he shared about Isa 9:10, provides such a glimpse.

Isaiah 9:10 shows things that happened to Ephraim (the northern kingdom) and Samaria (it's capitol, I believe) as God began to judge them. This verse was the proud, stouthearted response of the northern kingdom to a first wave of God’s judgment which came by way of an attack from the Assyrians (which God allowed to happen by removing the hedge of protection from Israel.) The people of the northern kingdom responded to this attack by saying, “The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stone; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.” Because of this proud, defiant response, Isaiah tells them next that there will be another Assyrian invasion. “...For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Isaiah continues with prophecy about ever-increasing judgment against Ephraim.

Isn’t it possible that the reoccurrence in 2001 of specific things found in Isa. 9:10 are not coincidental and contain a message for us?

Ground zero, where Washington and others went to pray and dedicate America’s future to God immediately after Washington was inaugurated, was in New York, which was the US capitol at the time of Washington’s inauguration. On 9/12, Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, quoted Isa. 9:10 saying that the US would rebuild, not realizing that this same word had been spoken by Israel as a word of defiance against an act of God’s judgment which had been sent to wake them up.

The only building that was left intact at ground zero was the little chapel on the spot where Washington’s prayer and dedication had taken place. The chapel had been shielded from falling debris by a sycamore tree which was hit and cut down by that debris. Also, just as in Israel, where sycamores were cut down by God's judgment and then were replaced with cedar trees, the ground zero sycamore was replaced with a cedar tree.

Also, as had taken place in the northern kingdom, where a hewn stone was laid for the building of a new edifice (referred to in one place as a tower), a hewn stone was placed at Ground Zero as a foundation stone for the rebuilding of a new tower, called the Freedom Tower. On the third anniversary of 9/11 (9-11-2004) Jonathan Edwards, another congressman, gave an entire speech built around Isa. 9:10. In it he talked about how America was doing just that—rebuilding with hewn stone and planting cedars. (He was apparently unaware of the fact that this had literally occurred with respect to 9/11.) There are other uncanny parallels in actual things that happened at the time of 9/11 which fit with Isa. 9:10. I cannot simply write them off as coincidence without some real consideration and serious prayer. (I wonder if you and others who have used the argument that America was not particularly blessed by God in order to be dismissive of Cahn’s message, took time before you began your argument to stop and ask God to show you if Cahn’s message was from Him. I have to admit that I didn’t pray such a prayer at first, but I have now, and trust that He will answer.)

Obviously, Cahn had nothing to do with the things that happened. Rather, he reported to people, like a messenger, what God had shown him regarding Isa. 9:10 and events related to 9/11. The fact is that these things happened, and in my opinion, because I have heard about them from someone acting as a watchman (this is how I heard Cahn refer to himself in an interview), I should give them serious, sober consideration as a possible warning from God. I should take extremely seriously the need to begin praying desperately for God to turn people on this earth to Himself (not to restore our nation to some prior state of blessing. Blessing is the inevitable result of people turning to God.)

As I sit here writing, I can’t help but remember that Israel rejected time and time again the prophets that God sent to warn them. Shouldn’t we be cautious lest we inadvertently be found in similar shoes?

I heard a testimony from someone (years before hearing the Cahn message) that when they saw the towers fall on 9/11, they heard in their heart, and believed it was from the Lord, “It has begun.” They testified to me that this meant to them “judgment has begun.”

On the day that I heard Cahn’s word about Isaiah 9:10, this was my experience:

1. I saw a curtain pulled back, revealing awe-inspiring evidence that God is living, active, and very involved in what is happening today in the big picture on this earth. I was reminded that He is a hands-on God. He is not just sitting in the heavens in His front row throne-seat watching things unfold. He is unfolding them. (The timing of the video was significant to me because I had been recently witness to God actively orchestrating some specific things from the heavens, as only He can do, in several interrelated situations to which I was party.)

2. God got my attention freshly that I needed to be more diligently watching and praying. In particular, praying for the latter rain of the Spirit to be poured out on this earth for convicting men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment--for the salvation of many, for the manifestation of the sons of God, and for the enemies of Christ to be seen where they belong, beneath the feet of Jesus.

Thankful Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

I finally have some time to post. Sorry this doesn't follow the previous posts well.




Mike,

I didn’t post Cahn’s message to have someone speak for me. I posted it because it spoke to me. I think it spoke to me because I believe that God is (was and will be until time is no more) actively involved in the affairs of men and history. Cahn’s point was not that we should return to a prior blessing, but that we need to be warned that God’s judgment was on the horizon, even had begun. Cahn paralleled events that occurred during God’s judging of Israel with events that happened on 9/11, not just because it sounded like a plausible thesis, but because he had seen that there were stunning parallels to Isa 9:10.

To me, the point of Cahn’s message was a wake-up call concerning God’s judgment. The Bible is plain that God, after much longsuffering, does move His hand to judge. His judgment is always with the end goal of salvation and restoration. The Bible also shows that God gives fair (even overly fair) multiple warnings before He judges.

Furthermore, judgment is not limited to God’s people only. God even warned Nineveh, the capitol of Assyria, a gentile nation, by sending the prophet Jonah to preach to them about God’s impending judgment. The ruler and the people of Nineveh repented and God did not judge them. This shows that a nation doesn’t have to belong to God or be under God’s blessing, and then lose it, in order to become qualified for judgment (or warning). Also Nebucchadnezer (Babylonian king) was judged as an individual ruler (he went mad and was chained to a stump for a period of time) that he might be humbled, so that the “living might know that the Most High ruled in the kingdom of men.”

Back to Cahn: It was what he shared about Isa. 9:10 that primarily got my attention. (I thought that others who heard his message would be struck with the same thing. Instead, you started a discussion on this thread about there being no relationship between Israel, God’s blessing on the U.S., etc. You did this while saying that you had only listened the beginning of Cahn’s message, so you hadn’t heard what he said about Isaiah 9:10. I understand that it was hard for you to listen to him because you didn’t like his opening and where you thought he was headed with it.)

With regard to what Cahn said about Isa. 9:10, none of us can accurately or thoroughly explain history from God’s perspective, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t get glimpses of His involvement, if we are watching, which we are commanded to do when we are told to watch and pray (Mark 13:33). I think that Cahn, in what he shared about Isa 9:10, provides such a glimpse.

Isaiah 9:10 shows things that happened to Ephraim (the northern kingdom) and Samaria (it's capitol, I believe) as God began to judge them. This verse was the proud, stouthearted response of the northern kingdom to a first wave of God’s judgment which came by way of an attack from the Assyrians (which God allowed to happen by removing the hedge of protection from Israel.) The people of the northern kingdom responded to this attack by saying, “The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stone; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.” Because of this proud, defiant response, Isaiah tells them next that there will be another Assyrian invasion. “...For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Isaiah continues with prophecy about ever-increasing judgment against Ephraim.

Isn’t it possible that the reoccurrence in 2001 of specific things found in Isa. 9:10 are not coincidental and contain a message for us?

Ground zero, where Washington and others went to pray and dedicate America’s future to God immediately after Washington was inaugurated, was in New York, which was the US capitol at the time of Washington’s inauguration. On 9/12, Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, quoted Isa. 9:10 saying that the US would rebuild, not realizing that this same word had been spoken by Israel as a word of defiance against an act of God’s judgment which had been sent to wake them up.

The only building that was left intact at ground zero was the little chapel on the spot where Washington’s prayer and dedication had taken place. The chapel had been shielded from falling debris by a sycamore tree which was hit and cut down by that debris. Also, just as in Israel, where sycamores were cut down by God's judgment and then were replaced with cedar trees, the ground zero sycamore was replaced with a cedar tree.

Also, as had taken place in the northern kingdom, where a hewn stone was laid for the building of a new edifice (referred to in one place as a tower), a hewn stone was placed at Ground Zero as a foundation stone for the rebuilding of a new tower, called the Freedom Tower. On the third anniversary of 9/11 (9-11-2004) Jonathan Edwards, another congressman, gave an entire speech built around Isa. 9:10. In it he talked about how America was doing just that—rebuilding with hewn stone and planting cedars. (He was apparently unaware of the fact that this had literally occurred with respect to 9/11.) There are other uncanny parallels in actual things that happened at the time of 9/11 which fit with Isa. 9:10. I cannot simply write them off as coincidence without some real consideration and serious prayer. (I wonder if you and others who have used the argument that America was not particularly blessed by God in order to be dismissive of Cahn’s message, took time before you began your argument to stop and ask God to show you if Cahn’s message was from Him. I have to admit that I didn’t pray such a prayer at first, but I have now, and trust that He will answer.)

Obviously, Cahn had nothing to do with the things that happened. Rather, he reported to people, like a messenger, what God had shown him regarding Isa. 9:10 and events related to 9/11. The fact is that these things happened, and in my opinion, because I have heard about them from someone acting as a watchman (this is how I heard Cahn refer to himself in an interview), I should give them serious, sober consideration as a possible warning from God. I should take extremely seriously the need to begin praying desperately for God to turn people on this earth to Himself (not to restore our nation to some prior state of blessing. Blessing is the inevitable result of people turning to God.)

As I sit here writing, I can’t help but remember that Israel rejected time and time again the prophets that God sent to warn them. Shouldn’t we be cautious lest we inadvertently be found in similar shoes?

I heard a testimony from someone (years before hearing the Cahn message) that when they saw the towers fall on 9/11, they heard in their heart, and believed it was from the Lord, “It has begun.” They testified to me that this meant to them “judgment has begun.”

On the day that I heard Cahn’s word about Isaiah 9:10, this was my experience:

1. I saw a curtain pulled back, revealing awe-inspiring evidence that God is living, active, and very involved in what is happening today in the big picture on this earth. I was reminded that He is a hands-on God. He is not just sitting in the heavens in His front row throne-seat watching things unfold. He is unfolding them. (The timing of the video was significant to me because I had been recently witness to God actively orchestrating some specific things from the heavens, as only He can do, in several interrelated situations to which I was party.)

2. God got my attention freshly that I needed to be more diligently watching and praying. In particular, praying for the latter rain of the Spirit to be poured out on this earth for convicting men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment--for the salvation of many, for the manifestation of the sons of God, and for the enemies of Christ to be seen where they belong, beneath the feet of Jesus.

Thankful Jane

Nice response.

It is mind boggling to me that people can talk about praying for our leaders, and praying for God's blessing, etc. Yet if anyone suggests that God responds, or that in addition to blessing He might also judge, these very same ones reject that out of hand.

It would be pointless to even have the OT accounts if God does not continue to move and act. This idea is not something of the OT, it is clearly stated in Acts that our God is a sovereign God. Jesus is Lord indicates that nothing takes place that He does not allow.

If you think the formation of this country is under God's sovereignty or that the reformation of Israel is under God's sovereignty how can you not believe 911, or Hurricane Katrina are also under his sovereignty.

Now I can understand if someone supported the Iraq war thinking that they were somehow the ones behind the terrorist on 911, though you should now be clear that was not the case. I can also understand if you honestly felt we invaded Iraq due to WMD's, yet again that idea should have long ago been dispelled. Now my question is this, all those people who were killed under false pretenses deserve God's righteous judgment. Is God going to sit by idly? On a similar note, if God does not stand up in judgment on behalf of the 50 million aborted babies, who will? Isn't He the God of the fatherless?

[Nell]

Nice response.

It is mind boggling to me that people can talk about praying for our leaders, and praying for God's blessing, etc. Yet if anyone suggests that God responds, or that in addition to blessing He might also judge, these very same ones reject that out of hand. ...

Yeah...bottom line:

:lurking: Don't mess with Jane.

[OBW]

You sort of did let Cahn speak for you. You were sort of overwhelmed by that was going on inside and said you couldn't really describe it. So you gave us this link. So whatever it was you were trying to say, you really did leave it to him to describe.

Now since then, you have been more direct in speaking for yourself. But the continued references back to his speech and book are, to me, evidence of a level of misdirection. Not that you are misdirecting. But have been misdirected.

The last time a government sort of like ours allowed too much coziness with its preferred religion, the result was Pilgrims and others leaving for a new place. I'm all for praying. Even for the nation. And for repenting.

But the nation is not going to repent. It is a melting pot of Christians of many different kinds, including many who claim Christianity, but it is social, not religious. It includes those who claim different gods. And those who claim no god but themselves.

The nation was founded in such a way that many whose lives are centered around what Christian morality would call a moral sin are instead allowed to live in the way they chose. And it is the allowance of those lives that continues to allow us to live as we see fit. At some level, this nation is living as each man thinks is right in his own eyes. A familiar phrase. If this were Israel after Joshua, it would be the cause of times of punishment, followed by a rescue at the leadership of a Judge.

But this is not Israel. It is simply a pretty good kingdom of the world. It actually allows us as Christians to live extremely peaceful lives. Maybe we would be better off with less peace, less tolerance for us, and then have to prove with our living that there is something worthy about the God we serve. Instead, we argue that some book that the world has no interest in grants us some kind of right to a better nation.

It does not. It promises us hardship and persecution. We aren't even close to being persecuted. Unless you think the inability to force someone to listen to your prayer counts as persecution. That the inability to make abortion illegal is persecution.

Not saying that these things are your concerns. But it is what I hear around me constantly. It seems that it is the sins of the nation that caused it to be attacked in such a way. If that is the case, why are virtually every other nation of the earth not entirely destroyed? Aren't they even worse?

Or are we now back to actually accepting Cahn's argument that America is being judged like Israel for its sins. A nation with no contract with God being treated like a historical nation that did have such a contract.

This is a very ethnocentric (and egocentric) position. And one without precedence. Since someone suggested a parallel with Nineveh, where was the prophet before the judgment? Even Isaiah 9:10 was not just the result of the Northern kingdom presuming that their punishment was not from God. They had prophets speaking to them for years.

In our case, we only have the Word of God being spoken to His people. And we, like all Christians everywhere, are tasked with living a life that is worthy of the gospel and being ready to speak if asked what it is that is different. No charges to indicate that we have any ability to withhold the social and political currents of the world. Yes, we are to pray for peace. But the nations we inhabit are not imbued with special blessing for any reason. (There is even some consideration that the references to being a friend of Israel providing a benefit is suspect since that Israel no longer exists.) On what basis do we say otherwise outside of a self-declared covenant with God (that those at the time would possibly laugh at the idea that it was any such a thing).

If God spoke to us through the events of 9/11 and others like it, it should only be to stop trusting in chariots and horses — in kingdoms and governments. Instead, trust in the name of the Lord our God. He is our rock and salvation. America is not. The alleged "Christian" history of the nation is not.

If there is a message in the events of the past 13 years, that is what I would find in it. And to some degree I do find that message there. But I do not need to dwell on 9/11, or the direction that the nation and government seem to be going with respect to so many things to continue to turn to God. That is my need. America is not my need. I appreciate it greatly. I would like it to be even better. But whether it is or is not is not what I have been charged with as a Christian. It is for me to live a life according to the Spirit. The meat of that thread is much more important to my life than this one.

[Cal]

OBW,

I love you brother and I appreciate your intelligence and contributions here. But I have to say that sometimes you bring to mind Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic: a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Of course, that's a little harsh. I just said it brought it to mind. Not that you totally fit the description.

My feeling about the whole matter is this:

If what it takes to get people to pray is for someone to compare us to Israel and cajole us into believing we'll get a blessing much like we'd get if we had a contract with God like Israel and lived up to it--then I say more power to him.

The fact is if you obey God you will be blessed in many ways. Yes, we should expect persecution and suffering. But we should also expect blessing. God promised if we sought the kingdom first, our needs would be taken care of. That's a blessing. He told us if we had to lose our family to be faithful to him, he would replace it in this life and the next with many more people. That's a blessing.

The whole Bible is full of general declarations, both to people and nations, that if you follow God you will be blessed and taken care of, and if you don't you should not be surprised when you find yourself in a bad place.

Suppose America did have a turn to God. And suppose we did reap a blessing because of that. Is that so far-fetched? And if it did happen, what would be the point of continuing the academic argument that, no, technically we did not have a contract with God exactly like Israel's, even though the resultant blessing from obedience sure made it look like we did?

[OBW]

Igzy,

I think that cynic is not the right term, but it is not far off. I am skeptical. Not in a "debunking" way, but in a "show me why it is so" kind of way. There is plenty of proof for a lot.
My feeling about the whole matter is this:

If what it takes to get people to pray is for someone to compare us to Israel and cajole us into believing we'll get a blessing much like we'd get if we had a contract with God like Israel and lived up to it--then I say more power to him.

The fact is if you obey God you will be blessed in many ways.This is generally true. And it is the people who obey God who receive this benefit. And obedience starts with belief. Now blessing on the believers may spill over to those around them. That is a wonderful position to be in as a non-believer — getting some overflow of the blessings God is bestowing on His people.

And I agree that sometimes it is like when Paul referred to those who were preaching the gospel for the purpose of making the authorities angry and taking it out on Paul (who they had in prison). As Paul said, the gospel got preached.

My concerns (and skepticism) are not pointed at We the Believers waking up from our slumber and complacency and repenting and praying like we always should. It is at an overlay of belief that causes the repentance to be for the sins of others and the prayer to be perpetually aimed at problems others are having.

Surely we are to pray for others and for their problems. But that is not the primary thrust of our prayer and repentance. The primary thrust should be related to our worship of God, to prayer for his will and kingdom, for our needs, in repentance for our errors in conjunction with our forgiveness of those who have wronged us, and our prayer for deliverance from evil and temptation. Sounds somehow familiar.

And it does not include a prayer of repentance for errors that are not ours.

We each spent some of our lives engaged with a system that insisted that everything that was outside of their version of "truth" was a waste of time. Throwing that off is not simply accepting that nothing is a waste of time or a misdirection. If we are encouraged to truly follow a different error, then we become lead by someone building with wood hay and stubble. If my assessment of the thrust of this whole thing is correct, Cahn is building with those poor materials. Now we are not the builders but the building. The "tried by fire" problem will be his. But that does not mean that we should not see the error and turn back to the truth.

The truth is about us believing in and obeying Christ. The result in this life is the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law. That righteous fulfillment is not in a nation, but in His people. Everywhere. We are here thinking that we need to pray some blessing back upon the nation. What about all those poor Christians who don't live in America? What is their lot in life? To be sojourners in a "foreign" land, looking for that city whose builder is God. And that city is not America.

All of our energies dwelling on the history of chapels and addresses is an effort in myths and genealogies. It does not result in God's economy, but in disputes. The answer is not to teach God's economy, but to teach what was taught by Jesus, none of which even hinted at this kind of emphasis in mental, physical, and/or spiritual energies on obtaining a blessing for a secular nation.

But you are right. This is enough. You complain that I push back at what has been put forward. I think I have just as legitimate a complaint that it was ever put forward. So the answer is to just let it go? To step aside and let nonsense continue because someone got their feelings hurt?

Someone gets their feelings hurt every time there is a significant difference of opinion about any of the issues discussed here. That is not the basis for silence.

But I have said enough. If there are no ears to hear, then so be it.

I can assure you that there are many Christians outside of this nation that absolutely do not want to see us get what this effort seeks. It means a renewed sense of national pride leading our efforts to Americanize the rest of the world, including their Christian experience. Just like Lee set out to make Christianity in America (and the rest of the world) look like what they created in China. Fortunately he failed. For our sakes, I hope this effort does as well.

Not that we don't return to regular repentance and regular prayer. Even habitual prayer and willful repentance at set times. That is a must.

But I need to repent for me. My errors are not about America. How I live out this life that is now within me is my desperate need. Whether the laws of America allow prayer in public schools has nothing to do with it.

[alwayslearning]

What I find particularly odd is tying the U.S. to the OT nation of Israel. The Church was born and thrived under persecution in the cauldron of the pagan Greco-Roman world. I'm happy that the U.S. has been influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition but I'm under no delusions about what the State is and what it's interests are. It has been wisely said that "The church as a tool is a church of fools." Anytime the State tries to co-opts the church into it's agenda I grow wary. And the more the politicians shout about "family values" and "I'm a Christian vote for me!" the more I tell myself to let's wait and see.

[ZNPaaneah]

Igzy,

I think that cynic is not the right term, but it is not far off. I am skeptical. Not in a "debunking" way, but in a "show me why it is so" kind of way. There is plenty of proof for a lot.
[FONT=Verdana]This is generally true. And it is the people who obey God who receive this benefit. And obedience starts with belief. Now blessing on the believers may spill over to those around them. That is a wonderful position to be in as a non-believer — getting some overflow of the blessings God is bestowing on His people.

And I agree that sometimes it is like when Paul referred to those who were preaching the gospel for the purpose of making the authorities angry and taking it out on Paul (who they had in prison). As Paul said, the gospel got preached.

My concerns (and skepticism) are not pointed at We the Believers waking up from our slumber and complacency and repenting and praying like we always should. It is at an overlay of belief that causes the repentance to be for the sins of others and the prayer to be perpetually aimed at problems others are having.

Surely we are to pray for others and for their problems. But that is not the primary thrust of our prayer and repentance. The primary thrust should be related to our worship of God, to prayer for his will and kingdom, for our needs, in repentance for our errors in conjunction with our forgiveness of those who have wronged us, and our prayer for deliverance from evil and temptation. Sounds somehow familiar.

[COLOR="Blue"]And it does not include a prayer of repentance for errors that are not ours.


Do you agree with the teaching that Christians are going to rule over cities in the next age?

If you do agree then do you agree that Christians are being trained to rule in this age?

One other question, what part of "of the people, by the people and for the people" exonerates you from being responsible?

[ZNPaaneah]

What I find particularly odd is tying the U.S. to the OT nation of Israel. The Church was born and thrived under persecution in the cauldron of the pagan Greco-Roman world. I'm happy that the U.S. has been influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition but I'm under no delusions about what the State is and what it's interests are. It has been wisely said that "The church as a tool is a church of fools." Anytime the State tries to co-opts the church into it's agenda I grow wary. And the more the politicians shout about "family values" and "I'm a Christian vote for me!" the more I tell myself to let's wait and see.

Do you find it odd that Christians would have a prayer breakfast on the morning of the inauguration to pray for blessings for this country?

If not, what is odd about discussing the God who you are praying to? Since it is God who raises Kingdoms and causes others to fall doesn't it make sense to understand the basis for his judgment (which includes blessing)? Israel was blessed by God and they were also judged, isn't that a strong basis to say that if God is going to bless you then he might also discipline you as well?

The NT tells us to pray for the leaders and to obey those that have rule over us. We are also told that we are a light set on a hill. This implies that God intends to be Lord over all the Earth, not just the Christians, and that "every knee will bow". Since when did Christians become so limp wristed that they could justify shutting their eyes and ears to all unrighteousness?

[ZNPaaneah]

One might even argue that the arrogance of the U.S. leadership was precisely because they were deluded into the notion of 'American exceptionalism'. I remember hearing George W. Bush conclude a speech to Congress by solemnly intoning, "And may God bless America!" and watching Congress as they rose in a frenzy of huzzahs. This was during one of his speeches preparing them to rubber-stamp his invasion plans of Iraq.


What do you mean "one might"? That is precisely what the speech argued. His point was the 9/11 was the harbinger of God's judgment and instead of repentance the response was defiance. Same as Israel did many years ago.

[alwayslearning]

Since it is God who raises Kingdoms and causes others to fall doesn't it make sense to understand the basis for his judgment (which includes blessing)? Israel was blessed by God and they were also judged, isn't that a strong basis to say that if God is going to bless you then he might also discipline you as well?

What is the basis for his judgement of a democratic free society that is not a monolithic theocracy?

The NT tells us to pray for the leaders and to obey those that have rule over us. We are also told that we are a light set on a hill. This implies that God intends to be Lord over all the Earth, not just the Christians, and that "every knee will bow".

We should be a light on the hill. Are we? Is that what the world sees when they see Christians? And of course every knee will bow. When do you think that will take place?

[ZNPaaneah]

What is the basis for his judgement of a democratic free society that is not a monolithic theocracy?

We are his creation. The same basis by which Egypt was judged. God is the father of the fatherless. The Egyptians killed the babies of the Israelites, God comes in and judges their first born. The same basis by which all governments are judged, based on the covenant with Noah. Government is responsible to deal with murder in a responsible way. If they fail to do so they will break the covenant. God said that killing babies was something He had not even imagined. It was the basis for taking the good land from the inhabitants and giving it to Israel. This "democratic free" society has legalized the assembly line slaughter of 50 million babies (oh yeah, right, they never did legalize that, 7 men said it would be OK, which really means it was decided by 3 of those men. These 7 men were never elected and they do not represent anyone but themselves. Had this been decided by a "democratically elected government" it would never have been legalized. Since when is a vote by 7 men to decide to kill 50 million babies the act of a "democratic free society").

We should be a light on the hill. Are we? Is that what the world sees when they see Christians? And of course every knee will bow. When do you think that will take place?

What is your point? I understand the statement that "every knee shall bow" to mean, better to bow your knee now than wait till later.

[alwayslearning]

We are his creation. The same basis by which Egypt was judged. God is the father of the fatherless. The Egyptians killed the babies of the Israelites, God comes in and judges their first born. The same basis by which all governments are judged, based on the covenant with Noah. Government is responsible to deal with murder in a responsible way. If they fail to do so they will break the covenant. God said that killing babies was something He had not even imagined. It was the basis for taking the good land from the inhabitants and giving it to Israel. This "democratic free" society has legalized the assembly line slaughter of 50 million babies (oh yeah, right, they never did legalize that, 7 men said it would be OK, which really means it was decided by 3 of those men. These 7 men were never elected and they do not represent anyone but themselves. Had this been decided by a "democratically elected government" it would never have been legalized. Since when is a vote by 7 men to decide to kill 50 million babies the act of a "democratic free society").

Anything else?

What is your point? I understand the statement that "every knee shall bow" to mean, better to bow your knee now than wait till later.

Now is obviously better than later but when will every knee bow?

[OBW]

Do you agree with the teaching that Christians are going to rule over cities in the next age?

If you do agree then do you agree that Christians are being trained to rule in this age?

One other question, what part of "of the people, by the people and for the people" exonerates you from being responsible?I agree that there is an aspect of ruling in the next age. Or at least something that is best described as such.

But there is nothing in what I can read in scripture that indicates that our "efforts" here on earth are designed to train us for the age to come in that manner. I do not agree that we are simply being trained to "rule," especially in this age. In fact, I find plenty to tell me that we are not here for this world, to rule it or otherwise, other than to be salt and light, not movers and shakers.

As for the general statement that the government of the US is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" I do not find that I am responsible, but rather invited to participate. And even to the extent that I might take on responsibility with respect to some part of it, that does not make the "spiritual" aspect of that part my "responsibility" outside of my own personal exercise of spirituality.

Phrasing your argument as you did might work on the simpleminded. But it presupposes that Christians in America are being groomed to rule over cities. I guess all the rest of the poor Christian schmucks in the world are being groomed to rule over hovels and cattle stalls. They surely will never get the opportunity to be part of "of, by, and for the people," therefore lacking in training for ruling a city.

Or is it the character of those who will eventually rule rather than training in ruling that matters?

[aron]

What does any of this have to do with the message that this thread linked to, or to the book?

Cahn's message was on how 9/11 was a warning from God that was not heeded. My point on President Bush and the U.S. Congress invoking God's blessing as they prepared to invade Iraq was to show how they didn't hear the warning and repent. Quite the opposite.

9/11 was surely a wake-up call. I pray for the leaders of the U.S., and also for the leaders and the people of Germany and Japan and Haiti. Others may pray for Canada and Denmark, I don't know. If the story of a sycamore tree helps someone pray, wonderful. Everyone needs stories to make sense of the world.

BTW, I told a story of watching the smoke rise from the World Trade Center site in September 2001 and remembering the scene in Revelation 18, where the merchants stand off and wail as they watch the smoke as the city burns. Their riches have come to naught in one stroke. That also could have applied to Rome in 410 when the Visigoths sacked it. Or Tokyo when it was firebombed by U.S. B-29s. Etc.

Maybe that also was Cahn's point. Anyway, he sold a lot of copies of his book so I'm sure someone got helped.

[ZNPaaneah]

I agree that there is an aspect of ruling in the next age. Or at least something that is best described as such.

But there is nothing in what I can read in scripture that indicates that our "efforts" here on earth are designed to train us for the age to come in that manner. I do not agree that we are simply being trained to "rule," especially in this age. In fact, I find plenty to tell me that we are not here for this world, to rule it or otherwise, other than to be salt and light, not movers and shakers.

As for the general statement that the government of the US is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" I do not find that I am responsible, but rather invited to participate. And even to the extent that I might take on responsibility with respect to some part of it, that does not make the "spiritual" aspect of that part my "responsibility" outside of my own personal exercise of spirituality.

Phrasing your argument as you did might work on the simpleminded. But it presupposes that Christians in America are being groomed to rule over cities. I guess all the rest of the poor Christian schmucks in the world are being groomed to rule over hovels and cattle stalls. They surely will never get the opportunity to be part of "of, by, and for the people," therefore lacking in training for ruling a city.

Or is it the character of those who will eventually rule rather than training in ruling that matters?

Fair enough, in this age Christians are supposed to be Light and Salt, let's work with that.

I thought Cahn's message was both light and salt.

Please explain why it you thought it wasn't.

The United States has a constitution which explains how laws are made in this country. For 7 men to short circuit that and say that one of the inalienable rights mentioned in the constitution is the right to kill your baby and keep that private is outrageous. There is no "right to an abortion" in the constitution. Why isn't shining a light on this considered "light"?

Salt kills germs. Isn't creeping fornication a germ? Isn't a society that exterminates 50 billion babies a "germ". Why shouldn't a word against this be considered "salt"?

[Nell]

And after all, God does love republicans and sinners (aka democrats.)

Nice, Ohio. Real nice! :lol:

[Cal]

My concerns (and skepticism) are not pointed at We the Believers waking up from our slumber and complacency and repenting and praying like we always should. It is at an overlay of belief that causes the repentance to be for the sins of others and the prayer to be perpetually aimed at problems others are having.

Surely we are to pray for others and for their problems. But that is not the primary thrust of our prayer and repentance. The primary thrust should be related to our worship of God, to prayer for his will and kingdom, for our needs, in repentance for our errors in conjunction with our forgiveness of those who have wronged us, and our prayer for deliverance from evil and temptation. Sounds somehow familiar.

I can't take on your whole post because I don't have time. But I do want to take issue with this because to me its exemplary of what to me seems an error you make sometimes.

I guess I would call it an error of categorization--calling something one thing for the sake of argument when it could just as easily been called something else. In this case you are categorizing prayer for others as some kind of penance in their name.

I do not see that our prays for others and their repentance is a secondary type of prayer, even if they seem to include this kind of proxy repentance. To me praying that God's kingdom come and praying for repentance in others are very much the same thing. Where is God's kingdom to come but in the hearts of people? Angels streaming from heaven in glory with the Son of Man is the ultimate result of the the kingdom coming. But I think when Jesus said pray that God's kingdom come he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the hearts of people repenting and submitting to God.

Now if you meant that our prayers are no ultimate substitute for the repentance of others, I agree. But at the same time an attitude of heartbreak and prayer because of the sins of others is not a bad thing. In fact, the Bible depicts this as a practice of Job.

'When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have [his children] purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, "Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." This was Job's regular custom.' Job 1:5


But, again, I think your attitude toward prayer is a little wrongheaded. I think praying for people and their problems (their problems of sin) is top shelf stuff. Otherwise, what do you mean by "your kingdom come?" Angels streaming in glory? That sounds a little like the LRC spiritualized indifference you often decry.

[Cal]

The truth is about us believing in and obeying Christ. The result in this life is the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law. That righteous fulfillment is not in a nation, but in His people. Everywhere. We are here thinking that we need to pray some blessing back upon the nation. What about all those poor Christians who don't live in America? What is their lot in life? To be sojourners in a "foreign" land, looking for that city whose builder is God. And that city is not America.


I just found some more time :D

I agree with this. God is not a respecter of people. He could just as easily use any other nation, group or individual. Whoever will may come.

Yet... the fact is it does happen in some places, groups or individuals... and not others. And when it does, God calls those involved... chosen.

So saying the USA is chosen is no different than saying the LRC is chosen. It depends on what you mean by it. On the one hand, whoever will may come. On the other hand, some do and some don't. And God says the one who do come are chosen. What does that mean? I like to think it means glory to God.

But if you come and then become lazy and corrupt again and then rest on your "chosen-ness," let alone your "uniqueness" (:eek:) then that is folly and hubris. That's what the LRC did and that's what the USA has done.

It's an honor to be chosen by God, but that doesn't justify an attitude of arrogant entitlement.

[Cal]

But you are right. This is enough. You complain that I push back at what has been put forward. I think I have just as legitimate a complaint that it was ever put forward. So the answer is to just let it go? To step aside and let nonsense continue because someone got their feelings hurt?

Someone gets their feelings hurt every time there is a significant difference of opinion about any of the issues discussed here. That is not the basis for silence.

But I have said enough. If there are no ears to hear, then so be it.

You just keep pushing back. That's okay. And I'll keep telling you when I think you are being too academic. Deal?

I can assure you that there are many Christians outside of this nation that absolutely do not want to see us get what this effort seeks. It means a renewed sense of national pride leading our efforts to Americanize the rest of the world, including their Christian experience. Just like Lee set out to make Christianity in America (and the rest of the world) look like what they created in China. Fortunately he failed. For our sakes, I hope this effort does as well.

I disagree with your assertion that God has no words for nations as wholes. The OT is full of them.

I think you heard something he didn't say. I just see a man trying to speak to a nation as a nation about Biblical principles. I don't see a man trying to stir up nationalism.

[alwayslearning]

Salt kills germs. Isn't creeping fornication a germ? Isn't a society that exterminates 50 billion babies a "germ". Why shouldn't a word against this be considered "salt"?

That wasn't the only part of his message but OK...how would YOU write the laws against fornication and abortion? Please give us something concrete to work with!

[Ohio]

It is cut and dry. There is no constitutional protection for abortion. Therefore the constitution is very clear, this is a matter for the States to decide. Each state should pass their own law. The Supreme court is not a legislative body, and the idea that abortion is protected by the constitution as a right to privacy is as ugly a lie as you could dredge up from the pit of hell.

Every state already has laws in place. If Roe ever were overturned, then all these state laws would once again be in effect.

[Cassidy]

"....replacement theologians cannot show anywhere in the Bible that God will ever permanently remove His blessings from them"

True, yet, today the land is filled with atheists. However, when the Lord returns visibly then will all Israel repent and the promised abundant blessings will be manifest.

[OBW]

I thought Cahn's message was both light and salt.

Please explain why it you thought it wasn't.It doesn't qualify because it is not for the world, but for the church. But as such it is misdirecting us toward something that doesn't exist. It is aimed at eliminating certain sins from the public so that America can once again be blessed. (I disagree that the kind of position of being blessed ever existed, but that is his position.)

Salt and light is about us being God's image on the earth. Whether America is what Cahn thinks it ought to be, or is more like China in the darkest days of Communism, or Iran right now is totally irrelevant to us being salt and light.

If there is a need to repent and pray, it is for us to repent and pray concerning ourselves. We cannot repent for others or pray them into righteousness any more than we can pray them out of a Catholic purgatory. We can pray that the Spirit will work on people to open their eyes.

But if our goal is a blessed America, then it is a misguided goal. It makes America an idol. The idea seems so appealing. But it is making the improvement of our natural lives the center of our call to pray. If we get moved to pray beyond our own pitiful state, we should be praying for our willingness to live the justice that is commanded of us.

Instead, we are putting our prayer and efforts into fighting the sins of the world like abortions, gay marriage, etc. As I have said before, we are happy to suggest in song that they can come to God "Just as I Am" but we are otherwise going to insist that they straighten up or go to jail.

Now that is a position that exemplifies the Christianity that is demanding the return of the "Christian nation." It is not the Christianity that I believe we are called to by God and his Word.

[ZNPaaneah]

It doesn't qualify because it is not for the world, but for the church.

What? When the Lord said "let your light shine" that was for the church and not for the world? When He said to the disciples "you are a light set on a hill" that was for the church to see not the world? Likewise with the salt? You appear to have a completely different Bible from me. Did I misunderstand? Did you misspeak? Please explain.

[ZNPaaneah]

If there is a need to repent and pray, it is for us to repent and pray concerning ourselves. We cannot repent for others or pray them into righteousness any more than we can pray them out of a Catholic purgatory. We can pray that the Spirit will work on people to open their eyes.


You can't have it both ways. If you want the US to be a free democracy with a government by the people, for the people and of the people. Then the people must bear responsibility for that government and those laws. You and I are responsible for the laws of this land. Now, if like Ghandi you were light and salt you are not responsible for the actions of British imperialism. You are responsible for your response to those actions.

I have never suggested. nor did Cahn, that we are to repent on behalf of the director of Planned Parenthood. You have created this pathetic little straw man.

[Thankful Jane]

I have a little time in my day, so I’d like to back-track and respond to a few statements made in an earlier post.
Before Israel came to be, God made a covenant with Abraham to make a nation out of him, and beyond that, to bless the world through that nation. Who did God woo to leave their people to move the promised land and be made into a nation according to God’s promise? I can’t see even a huge stretch of the available facts getting to that comparison. In the interest of biblical accuracy, in Genesis 17:4-6, God said to Abraham,

“As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. [5] Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. [6] And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.”

In Romans 4:17-18, Paul repeated this saying,

“(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. [18] Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”

Also, Jacob, in his blessing on Ephraim (Joseph’s second son) makes another such statement:

“And his father [Jacob] refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he [Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 48:19)

I am not saying I understand what these references to "many nations" or a "multitude of nations" mean, but someone brought them to my attention several years ago. In light of them, it isn’t accurate to say “God made a covenant with Abraham to make a nation out of him.”

The above statements are just the plain word of the Bible. God said them, not me. He said many nations would come out of Abraham and specifically a multitude of nations would come out of Ephraim.

A multitude of nations coming out of Abraham could be explained by the fact that Abraham had Ishmael by Hagar, who was an Egyptian, and nations came out of Ishmael. However, this explanation does not account for Jacob saying concerning Ephraim that his seed would become a multitude of nations.



Israel did not become blessed because they decided to consecrate to God. They were blessed because God chose them as a people.

If they were blessed because God chose them as a people, then part of that blessed people was the seed of Ephraim, who became a multitude of nations, and accordingly, those nations would be blessed also.

I do not know what this means, but it means something. I’m just putting out some food for thought here J.

[OBW]

Overextension and overapplication. Israel is Israel. Remember that Ishmael was also born of Abraham. And he has become many nations as well. But to presume a blessing upon Ishmael's descendents in the same way as Israel is a serious misunderstanding.

[Thankful Jane]

Overextension and overapplication. Israel is Israel. Remember that Ishmael was also born of Abraham. And he has become many nations as well. But to presume a blessing upon Ishmael's descendents in the same way as Israel is a serious misunderstanding.

I have no idea what you mean by overextension and overapplication. I made no application. If you are going to respond, it would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote in my post.

It strikes me wrongly for you to ask me to remember something that I had already pointed out in the post (about Ishmael).

Please do not ascribe ideas to me that I did not write and characterize them as a "serious misunderstanding." I made no comment, had no thought, and made no presumption about blessing (whatever you mean by that) on Ishmael's descendants.

My point was that God's promise to Abraham was not to make him "a" nation, as you had written.

I also pointed out that Jacob's blessing on Ephraim was that he would become a multitude of nations.

As I said, I do not know what this means, but it means something.

My post contained straightforward observations about the words of the Bible, and as I said, it was food for thought. Of course, I would be interested in what anyone thought about those verses.

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

I have no idea what you mean by overextension and over-application. I made no application. If you are going to respond, it would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote in my post.

It strikes me wrongly for you to ask me to remember something that I had already pointed out in the post (about Ishmael).

Please do not ascribe ideas to me that I did not write and characterize them as a "serious misunderstanding." I made no comment, had no thought, and made no presumption about blessing (whatever you mean by that) on Ishmael's descendants.

My point was that God's promise to Abraham was not to make him "a" nation, as you had written.

I also pointed out that Jacob's blessing on Ephraim was that he would become a multitude of nations.

As I said, I do not know what this means, but it means something.

My post contained straightforward observations about the words of the Bible, and as I said, it was food for thought. Of course, I would be interested in what anyone thought about those verses.

Thankful JaneThe point concerning Ishmael was that there was not the same promise of blessing for him. He was promised to be the father of many nations. And it is also stated that he would be problem for the family he was exiled from. He was not promised all the stuff that Israel was promised.

As for overextended, it is the reading of the mention of nations with the intent of implying that everything concerning the covenant between Israel and God (which, BTW, was on top of Abraham's covenant, not simply the same covenant) did not flow through any of these verses to other nations. As I recall, God came and asked if they were willing to be for Him and follow Him. Upon their agreement, the law was given. And the promises that attached to any specific nation were also given.

It seems that all of the "national" promises being mentioned are not really the outgrowth of the Abrahamic covenant, but the specific covenant between God and the nation of Israel at the foot of Mt Sinai.

So, once again, there appears to be an overextension of covenant, prophecy, etc. Finding what amounts to a data point in common between two different things does not cause one to flow onto the other.

In other words, I see a lot of dots being called connected when I do not see the connection.

And, if you read my most recent post in the new thread on politics, you will see a related problem for me. One which I have raised here in different terms. But I will rephrase it here within the scope of this discussion.

As this discussion has unfolded, it would appear that it is the lack of favorable treatment of Christian values, even in terms of how laws are made, that is a significant cornerstone of the claim of America's "fall from grace." Our response begins as something benign, or even positive. Repent and pray. That is good. Something we should do without buildings falling. That it took such a thing is a shame to us. Not to the nation, the government, or the laws that allow abortion and refuse prayer in schools.

But if, after our repentance and prayer, the secular government does not reinstate sanctioned prayer in schools, favored status as iconic symbols in our courts (such as the posting of the ten commandments), legal restrictions on abortions, reduction in the rights of gays, very generous reading of the 10th amendment and of the right to bear arms . . . then what does it mean? That the nation didn't really repent? Or that we didn't repent hard enough for it?

Is it, as has been suggested, an invitation to get very active in politics so that we can increase pressure to make those things legally required?

So how does that stack up with "love your neighbor"? With "eats with sinners"? Jesus ate with sinners. He didn't lambaste them, then wait until they were sinning no more. Paul said that even the language of angels can be wielded without love and is a clanging symbol. Do we eat with Zacchaeus first, or demand that he change first?

I do not fear a slippery slope here. It seems to be the unavoidable outgrowth of a movement to insist that a secular nation can repent and pray its way out of bad things happening.

The nation cannot pray. Only the citizens can. And they aren't all praying, therefore the nation is not praying.

And outside of all of this, my second fear with this kind of movement is that it is just as much of a distraction from what is the real call of the gospel as was in the LRC. It sounds so good. But I find nothing in the linkages of scripture that actually arrive at the conclusions about what could be spiritual truth.

Instead, I see myths of super-spirituality in the founding fathers, linked through genealogies of churches near ground zero, and so many other things. We are aligning our spiritual efforts because a 200+ year-old church was near ground zero and didn't fall. This story of a sycamore tree saving the building is quite questionable. Besides the insiders' writings, where is this published in a way other than repeating what one of these writers has published? Caught a few pieces of stray shrapnel? What does that mean? How does a tree with a diameter of few feet protect a building of many feet in width? If the tree and the church remained standing, the answer is probably that there was not an assault of debris in that direction sufficient to do such damage.

Where do we take a stand to live peaceably? To repent for ourselves? To pray earnestly? To live righteously, but as sojourners, not as if the actual citizens? (Not saying to avoid anything to do with politics.)

If your talk were focused upon me, you, and the rest of us repenting continually for our continual failings without reference to some funny overlay of special nation status, you would find me fully with you. The same for prayer. Even praying for the nation. But not as if it can gain favored nation status, but as if every man woman and child needs to meet the Savior. That we all need to gain freedom from the bondage of sin. Better laws concerning how Christianity is treated in this country is irrelevant to that effort. Making sin illegal civilly does not decrease sin. It just puts it in hiding and/or changes the sin of choice. Why? because we are talking about sinners. And sinners will sin.

The answer is in changed lives. What arises from praying for a return to some presumed Christian status as a nation is legislated lives. But it doesn't change even one of those lives.

[Cal]

But if, after our repentance and prayer, the secular government does not reinstate sanctioned prayer in schools, favored status as iconic symbols in our courts (such as the posting of the ten commandments), legal restrictions on abortions, reduction in the rights of gays, very generous reading of the 10th amendment and of the right to bear arms . . . then what does it mean? That the nation didn't really repent? Or that we didn't repent hard enough for it?

If enough people really pray and repent, eventually there is going to be a critical mass of changed American lives that affect laws. It doesn't make sense that a significant amount of Americans would experience spiritual revival and it not have some repercussions in the halls of state and Federal congresses. Your paragraph seems to be saying that there is no way to pray in a way that would result in more justice in America from our lawmakers. But there is. If the people change the laws will change. And are you so sure Cahn is not talking about people changing first? You don't think he realizes this is a democracy? How can the laws change in a democracy without the people changing?

Cahn is talking about real prayer, real repentance. Yes, change starts with changed lives, but changed lives start with prayer. If we just pray for more just laws without being just ourselves, obviously change is not going to happen. You need people who actually value those laws. Again, we are after all talking about a democracy.

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

No, just laws are not the end goal. But the idea that, all else being equal, God wouldn't prefer the most just laws we can establish, is a bit strange to me. Yes, he uses everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a preference.

[Thankful Jane]

The point concerning Ishmael was that there was not the same promise of blessing for him. He was promised to be the father of many nations. And it is also stated that he would be problem for the family he was exiled from. He was not promised all the stuff that Israel was promised.

....

If your talk were focused upon me, you, and the rest of us repenting continually for our continual failings without reference to some funny overlay of special nation status, you would find me fully with you. The same for prayer. Even praying for the nation. But not as if it can gain favored nation status, but as if every man woman and child needs to meet the Savior. That we all need to gain freedom from the bondage of sin. Better laws concerning how Christianity is treated in this country is irrelevant to that effort. Making sin illegal civilly does not decrease sin. It just puts it in hiding and/or changes the sin of choice. Why? because we are talking about sinners. And sinners will sin.

The answer is in changed lives. What arises from praying for a return to some presumed Christian status as a nation is legislated lives. But it doesn't change even one of those lives.
Mike,

I did not finish reading your post. I tried twice and the second time my brain exploded. It is a miracle that I can write these lines.

I feel that you are talking at me with a waterfall of words that I'm sure make sense to you, but don't make sense to me. I simply don't have the time it would require to try and get your meaning, much less respond. Sorry.

Please be at peace. You don't need to rescue me from beliefs that I don't hold.

Jane

[Ohio]

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

It is a sad fact that often the laws of the land have more impact upon our conscience than the laws of God. This is especially true for our next generation. When the media, the teachers, and their peers at school all convince our young daughters that sex is completely acceptable, then their parents' faith seems irrelevant. When the school and her classmates can arrange an abortion without mommy knowing, she can easily be convinced that she is doing "the right thing." That is, until the "problem" is gone, and she is left to consider what just happened to her.

Fact is, the conscience of our young people is definitely affected by the laws of the land. The same is true with adultery. The laws of the land say there is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the marriage bond via an extramarital affair. My Discover card is more binding than my legal relationship with my wife. God's word may say otherwise, but today's society seems for more impressed with "short-term" consequences.

If God was not so interested in laws and moral codes for his people, then we would never have heard about Moses at Mount Sanai or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

[ZNPaaneah]

:hysterical:Mike,

I did not finish reading your post. I tried twice and the second time my brain exploded. It is a miracle that I can write these lines.

I feel that you are talking at me with a waterfall of words that I'm sure make sense to you, but don't make sense to me. I simply don't have the time it would require to try and get your meaning, much less respond. Sorry.

Please be at peace. You don't need to rescue me from beliefs that I don't hold.

Jane

Wow, how many times have I wanted to say that!:hysterical:

[ZNPaaneah]

It is a sad fact that often the laws of the land have more impact upon our conscience than the laws of God. This is especially true for our next generation. When the media, the teachers, and their peers at school all convince our young daughters that sex is completely acceptable, then their parents' faith seems irrelevant. When the school and her classmates can arrange an abortion without mommy knowing, she can easily be convinced that she is doing "the right thing." That is, until the "problem" is gone, and she is left to consider what just happened to her.

Fact is, the conscience of our young people is definitely affected by the laws of the land. The same is true with adultery. The laws of the land say there is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the marriage bond via an extramarital affair. My Discover card is more binding than my legal relationship with my wife. God's word may say otherwise, but today's society seems for more impressed with "short-term" consequences.

If God was not so interested in laws and moral codes for his people, then we would never have heard about Moses at Mount Sanai or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

How can anyone read the Bible and miss the fact that this is important to God. If it is important to God how arrogant and proud to claim that we can ignore it.

[Ohio]

:hysterical:Wow, how many times have I wanted to say that!:hysterical:
Those who disagree only for the sake of disagreeing, usually do not provide the most logical of explanations. You sure had fun with it though. AL is an easier read, but no less frustrating, since he also desires only to prove you (and me) wrong.

Untohim seems to think politics is the problem, but we could discuss movies or cooking or the weather and have the same issues develop. There just seems to be no way to find common ground with some folks, no matter what we discuss.

[UntoHim]

Untohim seems to think politics is the problem, but we could discuss movies or cooking or the weather and have the same issues develop. There just seems to be no way to find common ground with some folks, no matter what we discuss.

No I don't think politics is the problem and I never said it was. What I have said is there is only so much time most of us have to post and read on an Internet forum. I think the subject of Witness Lee and the Local Church (teachings, practices and history) can and should keep us all busy enough. Don't we all get to tone up our argumentative mussels enough on this subject alone? There are TONS of forums that cover and discuss politics. I don't think having one thread here covering political matters is that big of a deal, I just would not like to see it become the dominant subject. We have 2 or 3 new members who are probably getting discouraged from posting because of all the political stuff.

Anyway, this is why I posted that Jesus was very conservative and at the same time very liberal....all in the very same chapter of the Bible.

My main point, my main concern is that we "render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." In MY VIEW the discussion of politics and political matters is rendering unto Caesar. As I just said, there are many places on the Internet to render unto Caesar. My hope, my prayer has always been that this little forum would be a place where we could at least try to spend a little time rendering unto God what is God's.

Ok, I will now return ya'll to your regularly scheduled programing....

[OBW]

If enough people really pray and repent, eventually there is going to be a critical mass of changed American lives that affect laws. It doesn't make sense that a significant amount of Americans would experience spiritual revival and it not have some repercussions in the halls of state and Federal congresses. Your paragraph seems to be saying that there is no way to pray in a way that would result in more justice in America from our lawmakers. But there is. If the people change the laws will change. And are you so sure Cahn is not talking about people changing first? You don't think he realizes this is a democracy? How can the laws change in a democracy without the people changing?I would not say that God does not care about our laws. But his concern is more about the lives of people. And if we are so certain that "doing it on your own" is meaningless, then all the laws we can dream up is not the answer. Accepting the Savior is.

I did not propose that it could not happen. But I have doubts at the kind of levels that we are talking about here. I said "what if." If at our best, and at the actual rate of conversion of people to Christ, we don't arrive at "critical mass" to begin to move the pendulum, what have the Christians of America lost?

Favored religion status. That is it. And we should never presume that of any government, even one that is supposedly based on Christian principles. Even with those principles in place, it is secular and is full of secular people.
But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.I don't think I made any comment on God's happiness with or care about our laws. Or those of other countries.

I would agree that just laws are always preferable. Even in our own eyes. But decides what is just? For a secular nation, a question that we as Christians might answer one way might be answered differently by a sufficiently large number of people that to outlaw their position might not actually reflect justice or righteousness. I am required to live according to God's righteousness and justice. We can say that everyone is required. But that is semantics. They are not required to do so in this life. But their choice in the matter is subject to penalty in the next.

So when does life begin (to take the abortion question as an example)? We quickly point to the Bible and realize that God refers to us a known in the womb — even at conception. And you don't "know" inanimate objects. But for those who reject God and/or the Bible, how do you force the answer to conception so that they are legally required to obey the Christian perspective? I am not saying to give up. But you need to find the way to move it from nearly at birth back to significantly toward conception with an argument that they will accept. And you may not get that all the way back to conception.

Then you have the issue that this nation does not allow the taking of a life "without due process." So there will be legitimate petitions for termination of pregnancy where a mother's life is in serious danger. And if it requires a lengthy process, then no petition will be meaningful. So there will need to be some level of legislation providing guidelines.

I would prefer that we had an army of doctors (all of them) that had morality that we could simply trust to do the right thing at all times.

But even with this kind of process in place, how do you keep from requiring people with honest differences of opinion on the subject from becoming subject to civil/criminal penalty because of the insistence of Christians? I'm not saying is it not the "right way" if we were Israel of the Old Testament. I question whether it is not entirely contrary to the command to love our neighbor. Whether it is not at odds with the example of eating with the sinners and inviting them into a relationship with Christ that changes their lives. That ends the life of prostitution, or being a cheating tax collector. Or thinking that homosexuality is just "who I am" therefore OK. Or thinking that my financial comfort requires an abortion and it is OK.

I am not talking about something that could happen if we are able to get the laws the way we want them. It will be what we create by getting those laws.

Now if the government, on its own, moves toward better laws and administers them without favoritism and without reference to Christianity or God, then we will have obtained what we want without setting that chain of events in motion.

Or will we? We also want prayer in the schools. And the claimed references to God and Christianity in history to be returned to prominence. If we manage to get those, then we will find that we have failed to avoid the taint that comes with the change in laws.

No, just laws are not the end goal. But the idea that, all else being equal, God wouldn't prefer the most just laws we can establish, is a bit strange to me. Yes, he uses everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a preference.As long as "we" is everybody and not just the Christians marching in the streets demanding that those evil abortionists and homosexuals be stopped, then you may be at least partly right.

But I think that God would prefer that men turn to Him more than that secular kingdoms of the world have the most just paws possible. And if getting the second results in antagonism of the people that God would like to turn His way, then is seems we have gone out of our way to push them further away. Of course, if we take "God works in all things" to its extreme, we can argue that God can even use our browbeating of the heathen. I guess that makes it all better. God can work through it anyway.

But if we are sojourners in this world, how is it that the laws of this passing world are so strongly on our radar that we drop almost everything else to go after them?

And more than that, we go after the best set of laws there are and try to make them better while horrible laws exist elsewhere. Laws that even deny the open preaching of the gospel.

If there is a mark, this is not it.

I have said enough. If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

[Cal]

But even with this kind of process in place, how do you keep from requiring people with honest differences of opinion on the subject from becoming subject to civil/criminal penalty because of the insistence of Christians?

Why just Christians? Why not also atheists or liberals or conservatives or Muslims, or any group with an opinion?

I think you are losing sight of the point that this is a democracy. Ultimately we are not going to get anything that is not the will of the majority, because ultimately that's what politicians respond to. You might say we do have laws most people don't like. Maybe. But not ones they dislike enough to want to be bothered with trying to get them changed. If a vocal and motivated majority petitions the government, you can bet the government will hear them.

Who decides what is just? In a democracy the people do. So why can't Christians join in the debate? You keep talking like there is this oligarchy of Christians who are going to force their laws on everyone else. How are they going to do that? So that is really a red herring. We can't force anything on anyone, unless we are the majority and vote as the majority. And if we do then, well, we were the majority and that's the way a democracy works.

How did we get the laws we have? Because by and large the people approve of them. Now you wouldn't know that by the way people gripe, but basically Americans get what they want. They want Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and they don't really want to have to pay for them. Well, that's what we've got. So you can be sure if we outlawed abortion, like we just outlawed single-use plastic grocery bags in Austin, it would be so because (1) the majority wants it OR (2) the majority doesn't want to bother with trying to fight it.

So your scenario about forcing Christian laws on Americans is really irrelevant because Americans can't force laws on anyone without being the majority, and a motivated majority at that, OR because the real majority doesn't care enough to do anything about it. And if they don't care, you really can't say anything was forced on them.

Are you saying we would still be wise to keep abortion legal even if the majority wanted it illegal, just so we wouldn't offend the minority that wanted it legal?

[ZNPaaneah]

But if we are sojourners in this world, how is it that the laws of this passing world are so strongly on our radar that we drop almost everything else to go after them?


What we are so heavenly that we are of no earthly good? We see lies and deceit and just keep quiet? My experience with WL, WN, PL, etc. is that you do not ignore lies and deceit. You have to challenge it head on. Churchill said that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. The constitution guarantees the right to free speech, the flip side is we cannot shirk our responsibility as citizens by saying "what could I do". You were given the right to speak up. If you keep silent you are without excuse.

[Cal]

ZNP,

I'm afraid I had to move most of your post to the closed Abortion thread. Let's not make this discussion about abortion specifically. The issue is about how in general Christians should engage themselves in affecting the laws of the country they live in.

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,

I'm afraid I had to move most of your post to the closed Abortion thread. Let's not make this discussion about abortion specifically. The issue is about how in general Christians should engage themselves in affecting the laws of the country they live in.

I think this is a matter of the "word of righteousness" that is mentioned in Hebrews. I see no reason why the way in which Christians should engage in affecting the laws should be considered a priestly service after the order of Melchisedec. I understand the feeling that it shouldn't be after the order of Aaron, that is fine. But Melchisedec does not have any similar affiliation. Likewise if Jesus was made a priest after the order of Melchisedec I see no reason why we can't follow after Him.

Hebrews
5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

[Cal]

In a democracy, focused minorities (special interests) often trump a blasé majority. This is why we get things like the wool and mohair subsidy on the books for decades. Although it greatly benefited sheep and goat raisers, it was not worth the 30 cents saved in per capita annual taxes (or whatever small amount went to the subsidy) for the average citizen to raise a ruckus about it. There's nothing insidious about that. It's just the nature of democracies.

But it was a case of the majority being too uninterested to do anything about a law they didn't like. Eventually, however, the majority will stand up to laws pressed by dedicated minorities when those laws become sufficiently objectionable. This is what would happen with any untoward "Christian" laws a minority might get enacted. The rest would be tolerated, simply because the majority isn't bothered enough by them. To the victor goes the spoils. So if you don't like the laws, work to to get them changed. But let's stop the nonsense about "forcing" laws on others. All laws are forced on others, right down to banning single-use plastic bags.

BTW, the wool and mohair subsidy was phased out in 1995, having become the poster child of wasteful government spending.

[ZNPaaneah]

In a democracy, focused minorities (special interests) often trump a blasé majority. This is why we get things like the wool and mohair subsidy on the books for decades. Although it greatly benefited sheep and goat raisers, it was not worth the 30 cents saved in per capita annual taxes (or whatever small amount went to the subsidy) for the average citizen to raise a ruckus about it. There's nothing insidious about that. It's just the nature of democracies.

But it was a case of the majority being too uninterested to do anything about a law they didn't like. Eventually, however, the majority will stand up to laws pressed by dedicated minorities when those laws become sufficiently objectionable. This is what would happen with any untoward "Christian" laws a minority might get enacted. The rest would be tolerated, simply because the majority isn't bothered enough by them. To the victor goes the spoils. So if you don't like the laws, work to to get them changed. But let's stop the nonsense about "forcing" laws on others. All laws are forced on others, right down to banning single-use plastic bags.

BTW, the wool and mohair subsidy was phased out in 1995, having become the poster child of wasteful government spending.

But how would a Christian minority focused on an objectionable law work? Should you treat this labor as a "ministry" or as "community service"? According to the NT what did Jesus, Paul, James, etc. speak on our involvement in the community at large? Is this a distraction from our heavenly calling or is this part of our heavenly calling?

Many on this forum feel that the teachings in the LRC were designed to create an isolated group from society and were self serving in teaching they didn't need to care for the poor, or the widows, or the fatherless. However, we don't want the pendulum to swing to the other extreme that our ministry is indistinguishable from worldly foundations like the YMCA, etc.

[OBW]

What we are so heavenly that we are of no earthly good? We see lies and deceit and just keep quiet? My experience with WL, WN, PL, etc. is that you do not ignore lies and deceit. You have to challenge it head on. Churchill said that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. The constitution guarantees the right to free speech, the flip side is we cannot shirk our responsibility as citizens by saying "what could I do". You were given the right to speak up. If you keep silent you are without excuse.And while I made that specific statement, I have also said that I am not opposing political activity on our part. And I do not oppose acknowledging our Christian heritage and perspective as we do that.

The problem is how that is done. If our lives affect enough others that we change the face of the nation, then maybe there will be a change in the laws and other societal landscape. But that is the outgrowth of our living the gospel, not politicking for stronger laws. The difference seems to be lost on too many people. For a movement of Christians to start to push, even demand, more "moral" laws (from the Christian perspective) places the very core of the church into the realm of politics. While we do not desire the kind of marriage of church and state that our founders sought to free themselves from, we seem to be determined to obtain the benefit of having it anyway. When that happens how do you assert that we are not simply in bed with the government and find that people who are on the outside are exactly like the Pilgrims.

We may not take it as far as they did in England, or in Rome or Constantinople, but we are dancing around the same error. Becoming the "in power" religion that is able to execute God's rules on those who do not claim to follow our God.

What shall we do about those who would mock our religion in the media? Who would argue for the freedom to stop at the numerous appointed times during the school day to pray to Mecca?

And, picking back on an issue that is now banned here and in the other (locked) thread (but only as an example), how do we deal with the legitimate exceptions on abortion, especially where one or the other is almost certainly to die? Do we just leave it for the natural outcome to decide and punish those who refuse to wait for that? In other words, do we want laws that favor us and our heritage and our religion and disfavor those of others, with the result that we create a sort of Religious state?

Stop suggesting that I do not get involved in politics in any way, or that I am insisting on such a thing. I am not. I am merely pointing to a different approach to it. One that is not concerned with my "rights" but with the will of God which is concerned with the salvation of mankind, not the subjugation of it to well-meaning religious masters.

[OBW]

Why just Christians? Why not also atheists or liberals or conservatives or Muslims, or any group with an opinion?I have the same problem when those people push agendas that would insist on their position to the exclusion of mine (where mine is not unrighteous).

I think you are losing sight of the point that this is a democracy. Ultimately we are not going to get anything that is not the will of the majority, because ultimately that's what politicians respond to.Like I said to ZNP, I have not said to avoid the political arena. I have warned in favor of a different approach.

You might say we do have laws most people don't like.I don't think I ever said that. I'm sure that there are laws that some people don't like.

But responding forward to at least one of your comments later in the post, there are many issues in which people find themselves in favor of a certain way but not sufficiently to oppose others who have reasons (whether we like them or not) to take a different position. A lot of it falls inside of the "it only hurts me" category, or is a matter "in private without harm to others." There are people who would like to outlaw public displays of romantic or lustful expression between members of the same sex. I find it repulsive. But unless it is of a nature that I would similarly deny such public display between a "normal" couple, I believe that it should not be outlawed. Just an example. That is very different from just not being bothered enough to want to change them. I find a just reason to refrain from such action (writing a law) as a matter of tolerance.

I do not see Christians being able to simply force their desires on others. But if Christians were to become the majority voting force (and managed to all be on the same page — doubtful) there are still many things that, in love for neighbor, that we should not do even though we could.

It might be that insisting on opening schools back up to prayer over the PA each morning is really too much — unless we are also going to permit an Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, etc., prayer, and a brief statement from the resident atheist.

Same for returning the 10 commandments to prominent display in capitol and court buildings. I don't think it is a problem to allow it. But it might be.

It gets murkier as you start into the laws that are so religiously and politically charged. Abortion. Homosexuality. EEOC. Even immigration laws.

I think you can get to more significant restrictions on abortion. Even to a rationale for restricting government funding of it due to the general outrage of to significant a part of the population against the practice. But if you think you can make it simply go away and not slam the Christian influence in the process — and find the repercussions severe when we cease to be the majority — then you are mistaken.

The issue is not what is possible, but what is prudent.

And it is not to refrain from politics.

[Cal]

I do not see Christians being able to simply force their desires on others. But if Christians were to become the majority voting force (and managed to all be on the same page — doubtful) there are still many things that, in love for neighbor, that we should not do even though we could.


I agree with this. But you have to look at the likely scenarios. If America gained an overwhelming majority of real, committed Christians (as opposed to nominal), how would that come about? It most likely would be through real life change, rather than simply religious fervor. So some kind of cultural revolution enforced through law is unlikely. Although zealous Christian restorationists get the grease, most Christians are pretty reasonable. They understand that the freedom they enjoy must be extended to others.

But simply because someone wants America to turn to God and receive a blessing does not mean the other shoe dropping is to round up all gays and abortion practitioners and hang them from the nearest tree. Frankly, I think it would be sad commentary indeed if Christians got significantly more political power and used it to persecute gays or something like that.

The Christian Coalition experience showed that bare knuckles politics is not the way to bring in the kingdom of God. At the same time, grass roots citizenship informed by the knowledge of God is completely legitimate.

The danger of oppression from a Christian majority is one reason why Christians should not be "one" and organized in the way the LRC envisions it. Can you imagine what would happen to freedom if that group came to power? Holy moly!

[OBW]

Igzy,

That is really what I am talking about.

The problem is that the underlying rhetoric of most of the calls to repentance and prayer that come from people like Cahn is focused on the things that have occurred as a result of the slow elimination of the tendency toward social Christianity (not true Christians) and therefore the rise in freedom to not be Christian.

The sins that we are being called to repent and pray about are not the sins of the Christians (for the most part), but of the "sinners." (I do not use that term disparagingly. Many of my coworkers are sinners in the truest since of being unsaved. Of course, I ignore the fact that we all are sinners and do not simply stop all sinning upon salvation.)

So it would seem that the goal of whatever spiritual activity Cahn and others are calling for is to reduce the tendency for sinners (unsaved) to sin. (In other words, it is not about us repenting for our own sins, but for the sins of others.) That is only accomplished through salvation, not laws. And even when making more righteous and moral laws, we must always be careful that we are not essentially targeting only the different morals of other people. It is irrelevant during this life that we honestly (and correctly) believe that their morals are corrupt and/or deficient. Forcing our views upon them is simply contrary to our call to love.

Which brings me back to one of my broken records. America is a kingdom of the world. It may be a very good one, but it is nevertheless a kingdom of the world. Yes, it is our charge as its earthly citizens to be involved in its government. But within our living as the people of a different kingdom, it may just be to our disadvantage (or even spiritual harm) to take the position of ruler rather than servant. (And there has been at least one suggestion that we should be using this as training for "ruling cities" in the next age. I think that is quite a stretch — especially to think that learning about American democracy is a reasonable proving ground for Millennial "ruling.")

But I do agree that we need to repent. Repent that we have turned the gospel into propositions and checklists. Repent that we have not loved our neighbor as ourselves. Repent that we have neglected justice related to the widow, orphan, homeless, alien, etc. This kind of repentance coupled with prayer for the will and power to take on those tasks might change our respect in the community. It might cause many to ask what it is about those Christians. That is so much more important that any kind of national benefit we could seek for ourselves (and for others) that does not move them toward Christ, but just makes our collective lives better.

The gospel is not better lives. It is different lives.

[ZNPaaneah]

Igzy,

That is really what I am talking about.

The problem is that the underlying rhetoric of most of the calls to repentance and prayer that come from people like Cahn is focused on the things that have occurred as a result of the slow elimination of the tendency toward social Christianity (not true Christians) and therefore the rise in freedom to not be Christian.

Can we stop be so vague and general "people like Cahn"? I have no idea who you are talking about and what these imaginary people have said. So this makes it impossible to comment. Why can't we just refer to what Cahn has said. We heard his speech. If you wish you can read his book.

So it would seem that the goal of whatever spiritual activity Cahn and others are calling for is to reduce the tendency for sinners (unsaved) to sin.

Again, these comments are too vague to be of any value. The only concrete example that Cahn gave that I can recall (please help if you can recall other examples he used) was abortion. This is not a matter of the "slow elimination of the tendency toward social Christianity" it is about an abrupt action that completely violates the laws of this land. This is not about "reducing the tendency for sinners to sin" because once this issue is given to the States the States can still vote to allow sinners to continue to sin. It is about short circuiting the laws of the land and pushing through an agenda that 7 people support.

[OBW]

While I would probably prefer that this particular thread stayed buried in the past, Dancing has been reading through the archives and came across it. From the last post (before Dancing) the writer quoted this little sound bite from me for comment:
So it would seem that the goal of whatever spiritual activity Cahn and others are calling for is to reduce the tendency for sinners (unsaved) to sin.To which the following reply was made.
Again, these comments are too vague to be of any value. The only concrete example that Cahn gave that I can recall (please help if you can recall other examples he used) was abortion. This is not a matter of the "slow elimination of the tendency toward social Christianity" it is about an abrupt action that completely violates the laws of this land. This is not about "reducing the tendency for sinners to sin" because once this issue is given to the States the States can still vote to allow sinners to continue to sin. It is about short circuiting the laws of the land and pushing through an agenda that 7 people support.The problem with this kind of comment is that it claims that mine was too vague. That's what happens when you only quote one sentence out of a paragraph, out of a complete post. Without context, the one sentence just doesn't tell much.

But based on the response, it would seem that a political solution is the issue. There are those who are thwarting the constitution (at least in their mind, and I have to admit in my mind as well) and the solution is to reclaim the "Christian Nation" and force the righteousness of God upon all the heathen who would not follow God's laws.

If that is actually the will of the people (ignoring the Christian Nation part since there has never been such a thing), then the people will do it. They won't have to argue "Christian" rhetoric to shame others into joining them so that they get a majority and then get what they want.

But if it is a political endeavor, then the real issue is why we are fighting the sins of heathen through taking political authority. Why do we justify doing what we chide the winners in the days of Constantine when they took on the ability to use the government's force to rid the world of heretics. When it became a civil offense to not agree on all aspects of the latest council and creed down to the smallest point.

Now it has gone from religious fervor to civil fervor. We want to attack not only the Christians (or alleged Christians) who are not on board with our specific creed, but the heathen who don't buy into any of it.

No, what is completely missing in the response to my original comment is the rest of my comment. They did not comment on my post, but on what they wanted to comment on. And what better way than taking a single sentence out of context (just like we often do scripture) and argue about something that it does not actually say. My original comment was about the salvation of people. It was not about the laws of the USA or the belief that some are hijacking them.

I said:
So it would seem that the goal of whatever spiritual activity Cahn and others are calling for is to reduce the tendency for sinners (unsaved) to sin. (In other words, it is not about us repenting for our own sins, but for the sins of others.) That is only accomplished through salvation, not laws. And even when making more righteous and moral laws, we must always be careful that we are not essentially targeting only the different morals of other people. It is irrelevant during this life that we honestly (and correctly) believe that their morals are corrupt and/or deficient. Forcing our views upon them is simply contrary to our call to love.

Which brings me back to one of my broken records. America is a kingdom of the world. It may be a very good one, but it is nevertheless a kingdom of the world. Yes, it is our charge as its earthly citizens to be involved in its government. But within our living as the people of a different kingdom, it may just be to our disadvantage (or even spiritual harm) to take the position of ruler rather than servant. (And there has been at least one suggestion that we should be using this as training for "ruling cities" in the next age. I think that is quite a stretch — especially to think that learning about American democracy is a reasonable proving ground for Millennial "ruling.")

But I do agree that we need to repent. Repent that we have turned the gospel into propositions and checklists. Repent that we have not loved our neighbor as ourselves. Repent that we have neglected justice related to the widow, orphan, homeless, alien, etc. This kind of repentance coupled with prayer for the will and power to take on those tasks might change our respect in the community. It might cause many to ask what it is about those Christians. That is so much more important that any kind of national benefit we could seek for ourselves (and for others) that does not move them toward Christ, but just makes our collective lives better.

The gospel is not better lives. It is different lives.

[awareness]

While I would probably prefer that this particular thread stayed buried in the past..
All this sounds like ISIS or ISIL, whatever they're called. And like the wishes of Christian Dominionists.

[OBW]

All this sounds like ISIS or ISIL, whatever they're called. And like the wishes of Christian Dominionists.If the Christian Nation had been Lee's thing, he would have declared that ISIS and others pushing varieties of Sharia (sp?) law are Satan's counterfeits.

In short, at some level, the Christian Nation has strong tendencies to be just a somewhat nicer versions of ISIS. They will not overrun Mexico and Canada. But woe unto those who live within its boundaries when they are able to make sin not only subject to the wrath of God, but to the wrath of angry Christians. (Something oxymoronic about that last phrase.)

[Nell]

Leviticus 25:1-10King James Version (KJV)

25 And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord.

3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the Lord: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

5 That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

6 And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee.

7 And for thy cattle, and for the beast that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be meat.

8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.

9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.

10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

The year of the Shemitah, also called the Sabbath year, began at sundown Wednesday Sept. 24, 2014 with the start of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and continues through Sept. 13, 2015.

While the rules for farming may no longer apply, Jonathan Cahn believes the broader principle of the seven-year cycle still holds the secret of how God deals with nations in terms of blessings and judgment. Is it possible that financial crashes, the rise and fall of nations, even empires, can occur within the patterns of seven-year cycles?

A historical perspective (examples)
Cahn tracks American history and sees the Shemitah at work.

The nation, as he points out in “The Harbinger,” was dedicated to God at the inauguration of George Washington in 1789. And the blessings followed the nation for more than 100 years, except for a brief but terrible period of turmoil, division and death during the Civil War.

By 1917, at the end of World War I, America began its meteoric rise to global superpower status. “It shifts history,” said Cahn, noting that 1917 was a Shemitah year.

“Then you come to 1945, another Shemitah, and World War II.” By the end of that war America sat alone atop the world order.

The blessings continued throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. But that’s when things started going awry, according to Cahn. Prayer was removed from public schools and God was removed from the public square.

Abortion became legal in 1973. “When you get to another (Shemitah) in 1973, you have the beginning of the fall of America. Abortion gets legalized, the financial world collapses. We lose our first war, Vietnam, on the same day that we won World War II on the other Shemitah,” Cahn said.

“And then you get to 2001, and when you get to September, that’s the peak of the Shemitah, and that’s when 9/11 happens.” The word Shemitah can also be interpreted as “collapse,” he said. “You have not only a collapse of markets but a collapse of towers, the symbol of American strength,” Cahn said. “The warning is, if America doesn’t turn back to God, its blessings, which come from God, will be removed from the land.”


Nell

[Ohio]

I used to buy into this line of reasoning concerning Israel, but the facts must be highly "doctored" to maintain their "prognosis."

Right now China is rising to power financially, and yet they care nothing for Israel. On the contrary, China supports Iran.

Numerous Moslem countries are awash in oil monies, virtual Utopias on earth.

Because of US support for Israel, we should be blessed, yet we are not. Unemployment, crime, racism, debt, etc. there is no end to our problems. I don't see the kind of "blessing" which should accompany our long standing policies of being the sole supporter of Israel on earth.

[zeek]

Re: Jonathan Cahn: Lee wasn't enough for you huh? You have to find another Shepard to follow? Lately I visit this website for my daily dose of crazy. Lets all get fanatical and disturbed shall we? Been there, done that. No thanks.

[Ohio]

I used to buy into this line of reasoning concerning Israel, but the facts must be highly "doctored" to maintain their "prognosis."

Right now China is rising to power financially, and yet they care nothing for Israel. On the contrary, China supports Iran.

Numerous Moslem countries are awash in oil monies, virtual Utopias on earth.

Because of US support for Israel, we should be blessed, yet we are not. Unemployment, crime, racism, debt, etc. there is no end to our problems. I don't see the kind of "blessing" which should accompany our long standing policies of being the sole supporter of Israel on earth.

[Nell]

I used to buy into this line of reasoning concerning Israel, but the facts must be highly "doctored" to maintain their "prognosis."

Right now China is rising to power financially, and yet they care nothing for Israel. On the contrary, China supports Iran.

Numerous Moslem countries are awash in oil monies, virtual Utopias on earth.

Because of US support for Israel, we should be blessed, yet we are not. Unemployment, crime, racism, debt, etc. there is no end to our problems. I don't see the kind of "blessing" which should accompany our long standing policies of being the sole supporter of Israel on earth.

I think his point is that the unemployment, crime, racism, debt, etc., may be the result, the judgment for turning away from God as a national policy, including legalized murder of unborn children, banning prayer in public schools, etc. Supporting Isreal has diminished also, especially in this current administration. Who knows where we would be were it not for what support there is?

Regardless, Cahn's case is historically accurate, down to the day. Whether we agree or not, and to what extent we agree, really doesn't matter in my mind. Time will tell. By October, 2015 history will be written, the case will be made one way or another. Cahn will be the wisest prophet of our time, or the donkey. His message is one of repentance and turning back to God.

I personally think it would be a good idea to pay attention, just in case.

Nell

[zeek]

I think his point is that the unemployment, crime, racism, debt, etc., may be the result, the judgment for turning away from God as a national policy, including legalized murder of unborn children, banning prayer in public schools, etc. Supporting Isreal has diminished also, especially in this current administration. Who knows where we would be were it not for what support there is?

Regardless, Cahn's case is historically accurate, down to the day. Whether we agree or not, and to what extent we agree, really doesn't matter in my mind. Time will tell. By October, 2015 history will be written, the case will be made one way or another. Cahn will be the wisest prophet of our time, or the donkey. His message is one of repentance and turning back to God.

I personally think it would be a good idea to pay attention, just in case.

Nell

Either way, you can say that you did your part in spreading fear. Fear sells books.

[Nell]

Re: Jonathan Cahn: Lee wasn't enough for you huh? You have to find another Shepard to follow? Lately I visit this website for my daily dose of crazy. Lets all get fanatical and disturbed shall we? Been there, done that. No thanks.

Thank you for your concern. There's only one Shepard in my life. His name is Jesus. Do I read others? Yes.

Posts like this one remind me of the little boy who cried wolf. Eventually, the wolf came but the little boy had long since been dismissed as a "daily dose of crazy and/or spreading fear."

Like I said. Time will tell.

Nell

[Nell]

Acts 5:34-39 New International Version (NIV)

34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.

35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. (Jonathan Cahn?)

36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.

37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.

39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”



So chill guys. Don't get yourselves all worked up. Don't read this thread. Just wait! :-) :lurk5:

Nell

[OBW]

This thread is a wonderful waste of time. It is chasing yet another distraction. As if Lee and the LRC weren't enough of a distraction.

It is another formula for some kind of prosperity. Maybe not monetary, but it is usually included in there somewhere.
If we drive the homosexuals back into the closets, God will bless us.

If we wipe out the abortion clinics, God will bless us.

If we say the right words about Israel, God will bless us.

If we give enough money to pastor so-and-so, God will bless us.

If we dress in first-century garb, live in clay or stone houses with thatch roofs and dirt floors, and have to wash the dirt from our feet each evening, then God will bless us.

If we read from only the authorized versions of the Bible, God will bless us.

If we hold to the literal 6-day creation story, then God will bless us.

(And if we dress-up in WWII uniforms and do enough activities like the people who came from the skies, more of them will come and bring stuff.)
Ignoring the literal cargo-cult reference at the end, which of those is actually found in the Bible?

Only one (and only sort of). And if we distill it down to "they shall prosper that love thee," then doesn't simply adhering to the admonition to love God and love your neighbor as yourself achieve that? And whatever we get for it is to us, not to our little kingdom of the world called the United States of America.

I love the USA. But it is not the kingdom of God.

[Nell]

This thread is a wonderful waste of time. It is chasing yet another distraction. ...

OBW, I hope you're right.

But, there might be something to Cahn's perspective. Not sure, but maybe. One thing for sure, time will tell. Wasting time and chase distractions is what we do, isn't it? At least this one has an end date. October 1, 2015 you can come back out and say "I told you so!!!"

I really hope you're right....all of you.

Nell

Note: If you're interested in Cahn's perspective, research him somewhere else. This thread is not exactly "fair and balanced".

[zeek]

Thank you for your concern. There's only one Shepard in my life. His name is Jesus. Do I read others? Yes.

Posts like this one remind me of the little boy who cried wolf. Eventually, the wolf came but the little boy had long since been dismissed as a "daily dose of crazy and/or spreading fear."

Like I said. Time will tell.

Nell

If Jesus is your Shepard then I suppose you don't need Jesus + the Law. Religion probably originated due to fear. Men sacrificed people and then animals and then god-men saviors to appease God. The worst kinds of religion continues perpetuate fear in the name of God. The best promote calm and compassion. Which kind are you promoting?

[awareness]

Cahn will be the wisest prophet of our time, or the donkey.
But will he make as much as Harold Camping made with his scare tactics?

[Nell]

But will he make as much as Harold Camping made with his scare tactics?

Time will tell.

[awareness]

Time will tell.
Believe who and think how you want. But you'd be wise not to click the donate button on his websites, and prolly shouldn't buy his books either. Well on second thought, it's your money ... give it away as you see fit. Help make Cahn rich.

And I've got a bridge to sell you too.

And stay true to form. This has been used over and over again, with prophecy: When it doesn't happen say it happened "spiritually" in heaven.

[Nell]

If Jesus is your Shepard then I suppose you don't need Jesus + the Law. Religion probably originated due to fear. Men sacrificed people and then animals and then god-men saviors to appease God. The worst kinds of religion continues perpetuate fear in the name of God. The best promote calm and compassion. Which kind are you promoting?

Seriously? I read a book (including the Bible) and did some research. Respond to what I'm actually saying instead of all this strawman nonsense. Talk about a waste of time.

And don't question or insult my Christian testimony. Jesus IS my Shepard.

Nell

[Nell]

Believe who and think how you want. But you'd be wise not to click the donate button on his websites, and prolly shouldn't buy his books either. Well on second thought, it's your money ... give it away as you see fit. Help make Cahn rich.

And I've got a bridge to sell you too.

And stay true to form. This has been used over and over again, with prophecy: When it doesn't happen say it happened "spiritually" in heaven.

Will do. Don't need permission. Don't need a bridge. Don't know what you're talking about.

When WHAT doesn't happen??? Is something going to not happen? :stunned:

I'm so confused. I can't keep up with all the straw men. :scratchhead:

Nell

[awareness]

Will do. Don't need permission. Don't need a bridge. Don't know what you're talking about. When WHAT doesn't happen???

I'm so confused. I can't keep up with all the straw men.

Nell
Then you are not qualified to keep up with Cahn and Sid either.

[zeek]

Seriously? I read a book (including the Bible) and did some research. Respond to what I'm actually saying instead of all this strawman nonsense. Talk about a waste of time.

And don't question or insult my Christian testimony. Jesus IS my Shepard.

Nell

Don't take it personally. I don't know you. I'm looking at your propositions. You have brought us the latest doom and gloom prophesies to loom over us for the next year. None of us has any control over whether the nation repents or not. Cahn's hypothesis is selective. It ignores the good stuff that has happened every seven years and the bad stuff that happens every year in between. Show me a year where something bad did not happen. So help me to see how this is more than fear mongering.

[Ohio]

I think his point is that the unemployment, crime, racism, debt, etc., may be the result, the judgment for turning away from God as a national policy, including legalized murder of unborn children, banning prayer in public schools, etc. Supporting Isreal has diminished also, especially in this current administration. Who knows where we would be were it not for what support there is?

Back in the 60's recession, our family skidded along in poverty, and my brother and I peddled papers every after noon so Mom could buy food.

Was this the heyday of God's blessing upon us?

I seem to remember crime, racism, riots, fires all around during those "blessed" days, especially after MLK was gunned down.

Abortion was not legal, the sexual revolution had not seized us, Israel was supported and even retook Jerusalem with our help back in '67, just about the time of the height of American chaos.

Like I said, I used to believe this line of reasoning, but the facts don't match up.

[Ohio]

Either way, you can say that you did your part in spreading fear. Fear sells books.

The ministry of anxiety has benefited many a bank account.

[Ohio]

OBW, I hope you're right.

But, there might be something to Cahn's perspective. Not sure, but maybe. One thing for sure, time will tell. Wasting time and chase distractions is what we do, isn't it? At least this one has an end date. October 1, 2015 you can come back out and say "I told you so!!!"



Does that correspond with a blood moon?

[Nell]

Don't take it personally. I don't know you. I'm looking at your propositions. You have brought us the latest doom and gloom prophesies to loom over us for the next year. None of us has any control over whether the nation repents or not. So help me to see how this is more than fear mongering.
Zeek--

Thank you for that.

I do find awareness' remarks out of line and I won't be responding to anyone's insults. As Christians, we should be able to have a civil conversation, even if we disagree.

I recommend that you stop reading this topic and pick up The Harbinger. This topic contains misinformation and misrepresentation that are difficult to wade through. If/when you get the book, (I downloaded a Kindle) assume it isn't true. (That shouldn't be hard!) Make Jonathan Cahn convince you that there is something to his story. Be a total skeptic. That's what I did.

I wasn't prepared for the writing style of the book. It was a little off-putting at first, but the story was compelling enough that I hung in there. It's written like a fictional account of pieces of a puzzle being put together when you didn't previously know a puzzle existed.

Overlay all these factual, historical events over events that occurred in the Old Testament.

As the story builds, you will either be convinced or you will remain a skeptic. Either way, you'll be educated about the contents of this topic and you'll learn a lot about the events of September 11 and its place in American history that you didn't know existed.

Regardless of whether you buy in to Cahn's premise, you may be able to appreciate that God does warn us when we're about to get into trouble and we really do need to repent and turn to Him, or turn back to Him.

If you don't want to spend the $$$'s, check out a few web sites.

That's my best help for you. I think you'll enjoy the read.

Again, thank you for your kindness to me. Sorry I can't explain it like I see it in my head.

Nell

[Ohio]

I do find awareness' remarks out of line and I won't be responding to anyone's insults. As Christians, we should be able to have a civil conversation, even if we disagree.

Now I did not see any insults from awareness, but post-LC I think occasional skepticism is warranted.

The basic premise here is that America's support for Israel determines God's blessing. I used to buy into that, but now I ask, "If God has blessed America for decades, then why would He stop, when we are the only country in the world which will come to their defense?"

Is God judging all of America because we got a Mooslim in the White House? What about all the Jewish and Christian groups here praying and supporting Israel? Why doesn't God judge just the countries that have professed hatred towards Israel?

[Nell]

The basic premise here is that America's support for Israel determines God's blessing. I used to buy into that, but now I ask, "If God has blessed America for decades, then why would He stop, when we are the only country in the world which will come to their defense?"

This is a premise that neither Jane nor I put forth on this topic. Neither is that a premise Jonathan Cahn presents in The Harbinger or any of the videos I've seen. I'm not saying he doesn't talk about that somewhere, just not that I've seen or heard. I don't know where it came from but it wasn't from me.



Is God judging all of America because we got a Mooslim in the White House? What about all the Jewish and Christian groups here praying and supporting Israel? Why doesn't God judge just the countries that have professed hatred towards Israel?

I don't know.

[Ohio]

This is a premise that neither Jane nor I put forth on this topic. Neither is that a premise Jonathan Cahn presents in The Harbinger or any of the videos I've seen. I'm not saying he doesn't talk about that somewhere, just not that I've seen or heard. I don't know where it came from but it wasn't from me.

OK, thanks.

I must have received that view from others who have read the book. :)

[awareness]

I do find awareness' remarks out of line and I won't be responding to anyone's insults.
Sorry if I insulted you. But I can't believe after the local church that you'll still fall for the likes of Cahn and Sid. It really blows my mind.

Same for Dancing falling for the law. That blows my mind too.

I suspect the both of you need to learn more lessons about falling for crazy leaders, that obviously intend to fleece gullible sheep, or mislead them.

Both of you seem to read. How about reading some history books, to learn more about how these kinds of scams have happened over and over again?

Why be so easy to believe just about anybody?

[OBW]

I think this all comes down to someone providing and answer to a problem that sounds spiritual. And it would be really nice if it were true.

I keep thinking of Charlie Brown wondering why he never wins a baseball game. "But we're so sincere." In this case, it just sounds so spiritual.

And it keeps underpinning something that I first saw in myself, then in a lot of us who come to these forums. We don't want the LRC. But there is something in us that is seeking for something superior. And that is the reason that we got caught in the LRC and the reason that we are prone to getting stuck in other such things. We aren't satisfied with "very good." We want it all. (Think of that little girl in Willy Wonka singing something like "I want it all," and "I want it now.")

Those who seek "God's best" as an alternative to the community of faith that is around them will be rewarded with the smoke and mirrors of one charlatan after another. We are still stuck with despising our brothers. So they are too poor, or unspiritual, or worldly . . . .

We want to feel good. But we were never promised to feel good. Or have lots of outward blessings. Or even good teeth. We were promised struggles and hardships.

We were not asked to be spiritual, but to be righteous. But we despise "works" and seek after a better worship experience (be it a throwback to "traditional" or the latest thing), or better teachings.

We despise ourselves for not being willing to go to Mongolia to preach the gospel, but think it nothing to continue to act like heathen right here at home. In other words, we all think that only 10-talent servants can "make it" and continue to despise our one-talent task of hungering and thirsting for righteousness (and living that righteousness).

For myself, not for everyone else. If I cannot live it, who am I kidding to be arguing about how unrighteous the unsaved in my country are? Or even the Christian sitting next to me at church?

[Nell]

Sorry if I insulted you. But I can't believe after the local church that you'll still fall for the likes of Cahn and Sid. It really blows my mind.

In other words: "Sorry if I insulted you...but you deserve it."


Same for Dancing falling for the law. That blows my mind too.

I suspect the both of you need to learn more lessons about falling for crazy leaders, that obviously intend to fleece gullible sheep, or mislead them.

Both of you seem to read. How about reading some history books, to learn more about how these kinds of scams have happened over and over again?

Why be so easy to believe just about anybody?

Who do you want me to believe? You?

Gullible? Really? You're going there? We "seem to read"? This just blows MY mind!

You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. You don't know what, if anything, I've "fallen for". I read a book and wanted to discuss it on this ... uh...discussion forum.

What is that to you? Who are you?

We can't discuss topics that blow your mind? Is that how it works? We can't discuss a topic you don't want us to discuss? We need your permission?

Not too far from the Local Church after all.

Nell

Sid? Sid Roth? I know the name but that's it. I haven't fallen for anyone named Sid.

[zeek]

Zeek--

Thank you for that.

I do find awareness' remarks out of line and I won't be responding to anyone's insults. As Christians, we should be able to have a civil conversation, even if we disagree.

I recommend that you stop reading this topic and pick up The Harbinger. This topic contains misinformation and misrepresentation that are difficult to wade through. If/when you get the book, (I downloaded a Kindle) assume it isn't true. (That shouldn't be hard!) Make Jonathan Cahn convince you that there is something to his story. Be a total skeptic. That's what I did.

I wasn't prepared for the writing style of the book. It was a little off-putting at first, but the story was compelling enough that I hung in there. It's written like a fictional account of pieces of a puzzle being put together when you didn't previously know a puzzle existed.

Overlay all these factual, historical events over events that occurred in the Old Testament.

As the story builds, you will either be convinced or you will remain a skeptic. Either way, you'll be educated about the contents of this topic and you'll learn a lot about the events of September 11 and its place in American history that you didn't know existed.

Regardless of whether you buy in to Cahn's premise, you may be able to appreciate that God does warn us when we're about to get into trouble and we really do need to repent and turn to Him, or turn back to Him.

If you don't want to spend the $$$'s, check out a few web sites.

That's my best help for you. I think you'll enjoy the read.

Again, thank you for your kindness to me. Sorry I can't explain it like I see it in my head.

Nell

You're welcome Nell. I already checked out Cahn at Wikipedia, and "Q&A with Jonathan Cahn". Ministry Today. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
Jump up ^ Jothen, Tiffany (July 17, 2013). "'The Harbinger': Is God Warning America? - Jonathan Cahn Relates America To Ancient Israel". Christian Post. Retrieved 22 January 2014. I saw no substance to his hypothesis. I might read his book, but at the moment I have a lot of reading on my plate of a less speculative variety and as I said his predictions are quite nebulous and selective. I'm not saying that Cahn is a con, but, I haven't ruled it out. If 2015 is like most other years in recorded history, there will be plenty of events fro him to point to and say "I told you so" like a finger-wagging parent. He'll be able to sell a sequel and fill a hall.

[rayliotta]

In any case, I'm thinking that Nell's interest in Cahn's writings probably does not include attending several Cahn meetings a week, listening to people call Cahn the minister of the age, or living in Cahn corporate living, etc., etc. Hopefully, anyway?

[awareness]

I'm not saying that Cahn is a con
So he might not be a Cahn-man?

What about his claim that Isaiah 9:10 parallels 9/11? That's so far fetched that it reaches into the absurd. And all his other parallels are stretched beyond reality too.

But it sells books ... all because to Christians America looks to be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. So it's an easy sell.

Ha.

[Nell]

Is God warning America?

It's a question asked by Cahn. Here's a question asked by me:

If God wanted to warn America, how would he do it?

Nell

[Ohio]

So he might not be a Cahn-man?

What about his claim that Isaiah 9:10 parallels 9/11? That's so far fetched that it reaches into the absurd. And all his other parallels are stretched beyond reality too.

But it sells books ... all because to Christians America looks to be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. So it's an easy sell.

Ha.

You must not be a real believer then!

[Ohio]

Is God warning America?

It's a question asked by Cahn. Here's a question asked by me:

If God wanted to warn America, how would he do it?

Nell

Warn America about what?

Would He warn the rest of the world too?

[awareness]

Is God warning America?

It's a question asked by Cahn. Here's a question asked by me:

If God wanted to warn America, how would he do it?

Nell
Why would God want to warn America? America is not Israel, like in the OT.

When the OT, and the NT, were written, America wasn't even known about.

When did America become the center of God's concern?

[awareness]

Okay while things are slow I'll explain myself, and why I react to people like Cahn & Sid Roth the way that I do.

In Florida I hung with some Christians that were into the Left Behind Series of books. They were very excited over them, and hung on every word, like they were the Bible, or an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

So because they couldn't shut up about the books I took a look at them. I'll read anything. And as is my habit I fact check what I read.

Well the fact checking didn't pan out. The claims about what Bible verses meant were wild and far fetched. And ... and I say AND, right on the cover of the books it says, "Novel."

When I pointed out that the books were novels they said yes, but they teach the Bible.

And that's it. That's why they were so hung on the books. They believed that since the books were riddled with Bible verses they were reading "God's word." Sort of like Lee's Life-Studies.

But they weren't getting the Bible themselves. They were getting it from the Left Behind authors, who were writing novels that, didn't have to write the truth.

That's one reason I react the way that I do.

Here's another: A couple of years ago a Christian friend I have here called me all excited. She had just finished reading a book that she described as phenomenal. Said it was titled "The Shack," by William P. Young.

She wanted me to read it so badly that she drove 45 minutes to bring it to me. Well I read it, and enjoyed it. It was fetching from the get-go.

But it was corny (I'll read anything). It was about a family whose young daughter gets nabbed and killed. And when he goes looking for her in the woods he comes across a cabin. Well, in short, he meets God in the cabin. Who is a black woman. And he meets Jesus there too, and the Holy Spirit, who was, as you can imagine, flighty.

Hey, again, it said right on the cover "Novel." So in a couple of days she calls me asking what I think. I told her I enjoyed it but that I doubted those at her Church of Christ would cotton to God being a black woman.

She said, "then they can't except God as He is." I said, "Joanna, it's just a story. It says right on the cover that it's a novel." "But it comes from real events," she retorted. I said, "No it doesn't. I researched it. It's a figment of the imagination."

She was so downcast. She made me feel like I rained on her parade. I felt bad. I burst her fantasy bubble. I don't know. Maybe I done wrong. Maybe believing in fantasies is more healthy than pharmaceutical meds from the doctor. But I had to tell her the truth of my take on the book.

So here and now:

I don't have a copy of Harbingers. But I checked it out on Amazon. And I couldn't find on the front or back of the book anything about it being a novel. In fact, early on in the book, Rabbi Cahn says it's not fiction but is for real. But the book is in the fiction section. In fact, it won #2 in the fiction genre.

So Rabbi Cahn is not as honest as Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, of Left Behind. He really intends to deceive by littering his book with Bible verses, to trick the reader into thinking and feeling like s/he is reading " God's Word."

When it's really just a figment of Cahn's imagination. The Jews are known for being good story tellers.

So enjoy it like I enjoyed The Shack. Just don't take it so literally, or seriously ... making the mistake of my friend Joanna, and friends in Florida.

[zeek]

Cahn's putative non-fiction book is The Mystery of the Shemitah: The 3,000-Year-Old Mystery That Holds the Secret of America's Future, the World's Future, and Your Future!. It is hyped thusly:

The book you can't afford NOT to read.
It is already affecting your life…
And it WILL affect your future!


It virtually screams to be read!!!

I thought calm was the new happy. Turns out Disturbed is. :eek:

[Friedel]

I recommend that you stop reading this topic and pick up The Harbinger. This topic contains misinformation and misrepresentation that are difficult to wade through.

Regardless of whether you buy in to Cahn's premise, you may be able to appreciate that God does warn us when we're about to get into trouble and we really do need to repent and turn to Him, or turn back to Him.

Nell

The modern Rabbinical Judaism is not the same as the Judaism of the ancient times. That is why Paul wrote Titus NOT to take "heed to Jewish myths [Rabbinical Judaism] and to commands of men turning away from the truth" (Titus 1:14, my emphasis). (Some translations use "Jewish fables".)

To the Galatians he was more blunt and forthright: "I marvel that you are turning so quickly from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; except there are certain people who trouble you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel to you other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6–8). "I do not annul the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing" (2:21, my emphasis).

And he wrote Timothy: "For there will be a time when they will not put up with sound doctrine, but according to their own lusts, they will heap up for themselves teachers, tickling their ears, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3, 4, my emphasis).

Finally, "God will send them strong delusion, in order for them to believe the lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11, my emphasis).

[Friedel]

Cahn's putative non-fiction book is The Mystery of the Shemitah: The 3,000-Year-Old Mystery That Holds the Secret of America's Future, the World's Future, and Your Future!. It is hyped thusly: The book you can't afford NOT to read.
It is already affecting your life…
And it WILL affect your future!
It virtually screams to be read!!!


This is very, very disturbing.

[Nell]

Here's what I find disturbing: the morning news.

When the President of the United States believes the worst problem facing this world is "global warming", you know you're in trouble. Reminds me of the phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." (Obama played golf while....)

When one terrorist group after another comes on the scene, each more powerful and radical than the last, dedicated to the destruction of the US, you know you're in trouble.

When American citizens (and citizens of other western countries) are beheaded in the public square, you know you're in trouble.

Is there a place, a country, on this planet where there is peace?

Jesus is coming. The stage is being set for...something. I believe most Christians believe this. Jesus hasn't come yet, but one day, He will.

We're told in scripture to "watch and pray". For me, that's what I take away from Jonathan Cahn. I'm watching for what, if anything, may happen in this 7th year.

If Cahn is wrong, nothing lost.

If Cahn is right and we're not forewarned, we might be in trouble. Well OK. We're already in trouble. Let's say, worse trouble. A message of repentance is a good thing. Isn't it? That's really about the sum total of Cahn's message to every person. God will do what He will. I want to be standing with Him and ready for whatever happens. I want to be clean.

What's interesting to me is Israel. I haven't heard much from Israel in the news (Fox News) in the last few weeks. Have you? Do you think Israel is asleep? I'm real curious about what those guys are up to. I'm pretty sure they're not obsessing about "no boots on the ground".

We don't know when He will return, but we are told to watch and pray. Be ready...whatever that means.

If God wanted to send a warning to Christians to repent and turn back to himself, I think He might do it according to the pattern he established in the Old Testament. That's what Cahn is saying. It makes sense, and it's been historically accurate over the last 100 or so years.

Regardless of your take on Cahn, the message of the Bible is the same. Repent for the kingdom is at hand. How bad can it be?

Nell

The verses about tickling ears, sound doctrine, delusion, etc., are good verses, and apply to many situations and circumstances. It would be wise to take each of the verses and dig in to what Cahn is saying to see if, for example, he is perverting the gospel. You can't quote verses at someone just because you think they're guilty. You have to find out where the perversion is. What is the truth Cahn is turning away from?

Using Scriptures to accuse are not proof of guilt. Witness Lee was good at this.

---just a thought

[zeek]

Jesus hasn't come yet, but one day, He will.

Check your bible. Mine says he came already.


If Cahn is wrong, nothing lost.

Which raises an interesting question. How would we know if he is wrong? Is his hypothesis falsifiable?



What's interesting to me is Israel. I haven't heard much from Israel in the news (Fox News) in the last few weeks. Have you?

What? You mean you missed this?

http://nypost.com/2014/09/26/ultra-orthodox-jews-delay-flight-refuse-to-sit-next-to-women/

They were flying back to Israel for Rosh Hashanah.


If God wanted to send a warning to Christians to repent and turn back to himself, I think He might do it according to the pattern he established in the Old Testament. That's what Cahn is saying. It makes sense, and it's been historically accurate over the last 100 or so years.


What God wants is always an open question. I used to be in a cult that claimed to know the answer in rather concrete terms. No harm done.


Regardless of your take on Cahn, the message of the Bible is the same. Repent for the kingdom is at hand. How bad can it be?


Another open question. Those kind of questions can be thought provoking, I'll grant you that. In view of our putative "sin nature", it is most prudent to be in a constant state of repentance.


It would be wise to take each of the verses and dig in to what Cahn is saying to see if, for example, he is perverting the gospel.

The way accusations fly around here, that would make Cahn a member of a rather large club.

---just a thought

Thought appreciated.

[awareness]

We don't know when He will return, but we are told to watch and pray. Be ready...whatever that means.
What ever that means? Does it mean buying books, donating, and throwing support to those that make merchandise of the second coming?

Cahn reminds me of the sensation made of The Bible Code (http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Code-Michael-Drosnin/dp/0684849739). It's like he's gone thru the Bible and figured out God's combination lock in the sky, or some such.

[awareness]

What? You mean you missed this?

http://nypost.com/2014/09/26/ultra-orthodox-jews-delay-flight-refuse-to-sit-next-to-women/

They were flying back to Israel for Rosh Hashanah.
When I first read this story my first thought was: So that's the Law Dancing wants us to love.

And worse, these were Haredi orthodox Jews. So according to Dancing's "wake up call," to "love the law," when we have sex with our wife we have to do it thru a hole in a sheet that covers her.

Discounting stoning, and the happiness of dashing babies against the stones (Psalm 137:9), the law is just too corny and funny to love.

[Friedel]

The verses about tickling ears, sound doctrine, delusion, etc., are good verses, and apply to many situations and circumstances. It would be wise to take each of the verses and dig in to what Cahn is saying to see if, for example, he is perverting the gospel. You can't quote verses at someone just because you think they're guilty. You have to find out where the perversion is. What is the truth Cahn is turning away from?


I did not quote verses at anyone because I considered them guilty; I quoted these verses in sequence because they speak a serious and solemn general warning.

And it is obvious I was not speaking to Jonathan Cahn.

[UntoHim]

When I first read this story my first thought was: So that's the Law Dancing wants us to love.

And worse, these were Haredi orthodox Jews. So according to Dancing's "wake up call," to "love the law," when we have sex with our wife we have to do it thru a hole in a sheet that covers her.

Discounting stoning, and the happiness of dashing babies against the stones (Psalm 137:9), the law is just too corny and funny to love.

Harold I'm shocked that you let zeek beat you to the punch on that one! I expected to see one of you jump on that before the flight landed!

Come on guys, Dancing has repeatedly and specifically said she is not referring to these post biblical, totally man-made religious edicts. Go ahead and argue and contend against WHAT SHE HAS ACTUALLY SAID and not against a straw man. You guys are WAY better than this.

[zeek]

Harold I'm shocked that you let zeek beat you to the punch on that one! I expected to see one of you jump on that before the flight landed!

Come on guys, Dancing has repeatedly and specifically said she is not referring to these post biblical, totally man-made religious edicts. Go ahead and argue and contend against WHAT SHE HAS ACTUALLY SAID and not against a straw man. You guys are WAY better than this.
How did you make a connection between that news story and Dancing? I made no reference to Dancing nor did I mean to imply anything about her. You're reading too hard. Nell said she hadn't heard enough about Israel lately so I cited a fun "Jews in the news item". They were on their way to Israel. Like everybody here I LOVE the Jews, the Torah, Israel and all the right stuff. But, I'm glad I wasn't on that plane.

I never really entered full on into the debate between Dancing and all those other folks. Do you think she's right with her Jesus + Law hypothesis? I thought that, for the Christian, Jesus replaced the Law as the sole mediator with God. No? Well, see-- that's why I come here to LCD---to learn.

[awareness]

Harold I'm shocked that you let zeek beat you to the punch on that one!.
I admit I thought about bringing it up a couple of days ago. But decided against it. Then Zeek brought it up and I thought it might be of the Spirit, or at least a synchronicity, to remark about it.

Dancing has repeatedly and specifically said she is not referring to these post biblical, totally man-made religious edicts.

Okay okay, but Dancing has not made it clear. But maybe she does mean we're to love the law of Reformed Judaism.

She admits to not eating kosher so, she'd prolly be okay with sitting next to a male on an airplane, prolly don't use a sheet, and don't get happiness from dashing babies ... thank God.

To be honest, after all this discussion of law, I don't know what is meant. It seems, the real strawman, as presented so far, as constructed here, is "The Law."

Moreover, and more importantly, is it Jesus, or Jesus plus law?

Come on bro UntoHim, you're better than this.

[UntoHim]

How did you make a connection between that news story and Dancing? I made no reference to Dancing nor did I mean to imply anything about her. You're reading too hard. Nell said she hadn't heard enough about Israel lately so I cited a fun "Jews in the news item". They were on their way to Israel. Like everybody here I LOVE the Jews, the Torah, Israel and all the right stuff. But, I'm glad I wasn't on that plane.

Sorry, zeek you're right. I too often look at you and our friend awareness as a tag team of sorts. I know better now. Shame on me. Amen to not being on that plane. When I read that story I thought about the former (I think, I hope) Local Church weird, super bizarre group chant of "Ooooooh Looooooord Jeeeeeesus" in such situations (as the praying-out-loud Jewish men). I guess we meant well like the Jewish men, but I don't believe God was even the slightest involved in either activity.

I never really entered full on into the debate between Dancing and all those other folks. Do you think she's right with her Jesus + Law hypothesis? I thought that, for the Christian, Jesus replaced the Law as the sole mediator with God. No? Well, see-- that's why I come here to LCD---to learn.

Opps, wrong thread for this one. But in short, our friend Dancing, IF she is pushing "Jesus + Law" I would personally, strongly disagree with this kind of thinking. I personally don't agree with much of the whole "Messianic Judaism" movement. The reasons for me are much more theological than cultural, if you know what I mean. Again, probably a subject for a different thread. I would say that she is still, for the most part, if she colors between the lines, within the general theme of this forum. And that's all I gotta say about that.:cool:

[Nell]

I did not quote verses at anyone because I considered them guilty; I quoted these verses in sequence because they speak a serious and solemn general warning.

And it is obvious I was not speaking to Jonathan Cahn.

I'm glad you clarified your message. It wasn't obvious to me that you weren't speaking to Cahn, because of the context in which you quoted those strong verses. Specifically, this topic, has turned into a dogpile on Jonathan Cahn, so I thought you were rolling out the heavy artillery and moving in for the kill! My mistake.

Thank you for clearing it up though!

Such verses are indeed a solemn warning.

Nell

[OBW]

I think that there is quite a bit of muddling of this thread with the one(s) where the law is being discussed. There is a link, but it is rather small. This one is suggesting that instead of looking at Israel and the Jews, we should refocus the prophecies concerning Israel so that they point to the US (and more importantly, to us).

There is no doubt that we should pray for our leaders, as should all Christians of all countries pray for their leaders. Pray for peace. But unlike the hints that it would come, then the direct discourses through the prophets to repent and return the nation to following God (speaking of and to Israel/Judah) there is no modern equivalent because the kingdom of Israel, an earthly kingdom with God as its head, has been replaced by the kingdom of God which has no earthly center, but is found in the church under the headship of Christ.

And the last time I looked, the US has never come close to being a church. It is a kingdom of the earth. It was established by a collection of men who included some Christians. And it included some that wanted a moral society that looked a lot like the morality of the Bible.

But other than fishing around for things that we can "back-fill" to line up with something OT, there is nothing in the Bible that says any of it is meaningful. It may indicate that some thought they could add a pinch of this and a dash of that and get favored-nation status. And whether or not anyone actually did all of that 200 years ago, others are now scouring history, architecture, etc., looking for things they can backfill to create a myth — another genealogy — by which to call down God to do our bidding.

It is absolutely correct to pray — for ourselves, for others, for the nation, and the world. Those prayers should be related to the kingdom of God. To the furtherance of the gospel. To the ability to live lives in peace.

But the kind of myth about the US and its supposed position with God, or the one they believe it could have, is a variant on the prosperity gospel. Just has a less personally selfish goal.

Ask us to pray for peace. Ask us to pray for the lives of men. Ask us to pray that people would return to God.

But don't ask us to pray for a myth that imbues any kingdom of the earth with the benefits of a theocracy. That is busy trying to find markers of goodness that will make it special to God. Seems the best you will get it a nation that doesn't even rise to the spiritual level of a Thyatira — unless you execute or incarcerate everyone who does not live the Christian life. Or at least push their immorality out of the public eye. And then you have to consider the spiritual degradation to have done that.

A lot of cleaning of the outside of a filthy cup.

Let's pray for the people. Live our lives in the manner that we have been commanded. Seems that we despise that charge. But it is the one-talent command that we all have. Not everyone is called to go to Africa or Asia as a missionary. Or be the guy on the street corner preaching to whoever will listen. Or just seeking out opportunities to speak. But if we can't live the life of an image bearer of God in our regular living, how are we expected to be much more than a curiosity when we open our mouths and this incongruous collection of words comes out. Like the guy who just pummeled his opponent in the ring and then gives "the glory to God." Really? God helped you do that? Beat another human nearly to death? Probably going to have early onset Alzheimer's or MS or something like that? That was for the glory of God?

Reminds me of the guy I used to work with that was the most vocal concerning his Christianity, yet every year he drove to and from NYC using yet another radar detector that he immediately returned under the 30-day money-back guarantee. He had no idea how everyone laughed at his alleged morality. That one is blatant. But what about the rest of us? Do we live as God commanded? Or just claim God's grace and forgiveness and hope it will get better? Salt and light is not about preaching the gospel. It is about living right. That is the gospel — changed lives.

[awareness]

Sorry, zeek you're right. I too often look at you and our friend awareness as a tag team of sorts. I know better now.
Just to be clear. Zeek in I do think similarly. But we are not the same at all. I came up thru the years with computers, and the various customers associated. Zeek came up thru the years with people, and their mental conditions. (I exasperate him. He's unable to treat (fix) my mental condition ... he has taught me, tho, that calm is the new happiness ... and I expose him to my laughing ministry. Laughing is God's secret in the cosmos. - Luke 6:21)

And we do talk on cells, on mostly a daily basis, (unlike you Untohim, that don't call or take my calls), and we email each other. But, we had not discussed the crazy Jews on that plane, nor did I email him about it. He came into that headline on his own.

So he didn't tag me to come into the ring for a body slam. I came in without a tag ... in clear violation of the rules ... to do a body slam ... and quickly ran back to my corner.

Love ya UntoHim. Yer a good referee.

Ha-rold

[awareness]

This one is suggesting that instead of looking at Israel and the Jews, we should refocus the prophecies concerning Israel so that they point to the US (and more importantly, to us).
I blame David Barton, of Wallbuilders fame, for propagating these myths of the Christian founding of America, and making Christians believe America is the center of Bible prophesies. He fails to understand if we tear down the wall that separates church and state, Americans, like Europeans, will associate religion with the government and will run to non-believing.

But Christians hang on his every word. Christians seem so gullible for it.

It is true that by founding freedom of religion (from the state) they (the founding fathers) provided the way for religion to thrive in America. But now Christians, thanks to Barton, are turning on that freedom ... to their demise.

So I add. I won't stone anybody, I won't dash babies, I won't go around rebuking, and I will not ever support a theocracy. Not even in heaven.

[Nell]

In any case, I'm thinking that Nell's interest in Cahn's writings probably does not include attending several Cahn meetings a week, listening to people call Cahn the minister of the age, or living in Cahn corporate living, etc., etc. Hopefully, anyway?

You are correct!

Nell

[UntoHim]

Ok, this thread is wondering... big time. I just realized this thread is in "The Thread of Gold by Jane Carole Anderson" thread. I don't think she ever ended for this thing to end up discussing the teachings and norms of the Heredi Jews. I noticed the original YouTube link to Jonathan Cahn's address is now broken.
Here is a link that works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9xMxkNROto
Anyway, let's get back to a discussion of this address given by Cahn or let's just let it fade back into the archives.

[awareness]

In watching the video my first impression of Cahn is that I'm listening to a pitchman, like Billy Mays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mays).

Cahn weaves an interesting analogy between ancient Israel and America, but the devil is in the details.

America was not founded by God like Israel was founded by God. The parallel doesn't hold. So his whole premise falls apart ... and with it, his wild far fetched story.

He's an ear tickler ...

[zeek]

Sorry, zeek you're right. I too often look at you and our friend awareness as a tag team of sorts. I know better now. Shame on me. Amen to not being on that plane. When I read that story I thought about the former (I think, I hope) Local Church weird, super bizarre group chant of "Ooooooh Looooooord Jeeeeeesus" in such situations (as the praying-out-loud Jewish men). I guess we meant well like the Jewish men, but I don't believe God was even the slightest involved in either activity.

Apology accepted.



COLOR="Navy"]Oops, wrong thread for this one. But in short, our friend Dancing, IF she is pushing "Jesus + Law" I would personally, strongly disagree with this kind of thinking. I personally don't agree with much of the whole "Messianic Judaism" movement. The reasons for me are much more theological than cultural, if you know what I mean. Again, probably a subject for a different thread. I would say that she is still, for the most part, if she colors between the lines, within the general theme of this forum. And that's all I gotta say about that.:cool:[/COLOR]

My impression is that people when they leave the local church go in all kinds of different directions. Some leave the Christian faith altogether. Some abandon all religion for secular life. Some go to other religions. Some take up another brand of Christianity.

For those of us who claim the Christian faith, the commonality is our allegiance with-- our heart connection to Jesus not some other thing or person be it the Torah, our political opinions or whatever.

As to Awareness/Harold, I regularly disagree with him on all kinds of issues and tell him so. If he and I come down on the same side of some issue it is because we actually agree. I don't participate in hidden alliances or agendas, cliques or coalitions with Harold or anyone else here.

[Nell]

What about his claim that Isaiah 9:10 parallels 9/11? That's so far fetched that it reaches into the absurd. And all his other parallels are stretched beyond reality too.


Since you asked, here are the verses, and following are the quotes that Senators Daschle and Edwards, then Pres. Obama, in the speeches they delivered on Capitol Hill which make the connection to Isaiah 9:10.

Isaiah 9:8-16
8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,
10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.
11 Therefore the Lord shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;
12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
13 For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord of hosts.
14 Therefore the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.
15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed

Isaiah 9:10 is a vow of defiance. Isaiah 9:11 is a prophecy of future calamity.

On September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks on America, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, in a speech on Capitol Hill quotes Isaiah 9:10...we will rebuild. He is surely totally unaware that this verse is a vow of defiance to God. Yet, here is the vow.

Three years later on September 11, 2004, Senator John Edwards quotes the same verse, Isaiah 9:10 and from this verse his entire speech is derived.

February 24, 2009, Barack Obama, on Capitol Hill, states this:
I want every American to know this: We will rebuild. We will recover. And the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

These men were all speaking to the American people, and on behalf of the American people. They were all referring to the attacks on 9/11.

How is that far fetched? How is that absurd? Daschle, Edwards and Obama made the connection to Isa. 9:10. Not Cahn. Cahn just noticed what they did. Were they aware the verses were spoken in defiance to God? Probably not. They were likely speaking in defiance to those who perpetrated the attacks. Regardless, they were loose in the way they handled the Word.

Coincidence? You may believe that. Speech writers love to quote the Bible, but sure this one could just be a coincidence that 3 men quoted the same verse without knowing it was from the Bible. If this was the only message, you might be right. This is only one example from Cahn's case.

Regardless, its a fascinating compilation of facts like this one and it's overlay on the Old Testament pattern.

Of course, "The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones:" refers to the twin towers. Interestingly though, at ground zero there actually was a sycamore tree that was uprooted and later replaced with a cedar. Somehow the uprooted sycamore wasn't covered in rubble...it was that close to ground zero. The uprooted sycamore is still there. ( "...the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.")


Nell

Just so you'll know, Cahn makes no comment on 9:10 and 9/11. That is likely coincidence, but who knows?

[awareness]

Of course, "The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones:" refers to the twin towers.
That clearly is a far fetched premise. America is not Israel, like back when Isaiah was written (742-538 BC).

"The bricks fallen down?"

What bricks? And when did the towers just fall down? What I saw of the fallen towers was not bricks, but iron girders.

"but we will build with hewn stones?"

That's not the case now. We don't build with hewn stones, like they did back then.

"the sycomores are cut down?"

What cedars got cut down, related to the twin towers?

"but we will change them into cedars."

So the supposed twin tower sycomores got cut down and now we're gonna change them to cedars?

Sounds loony to me. Just merchandising in fear.

[OBW]

Isaiah 9:10 is a vow of defiance. Isaiah 9:11 is a prophecy of future calamity.

On September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks on America, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, in a speech on Capitol Hill quotes Isaiah 9:10...we will rebuild. He is surely totally unaware that this verse is a vow of defiance to God. Yet, here is the vow.On what basis does this now-fulfilled prophecy relating to Israel apply to the US?

Are we given Carte Blanche to find similarities of modern events to events in the OT times and force them to be prophecies about now? It that because Jesus and the other NT writers seemed to be able to repurpose the propchecy about a virgin (young woman?) bearing a child to be a foretelling of the coming Messiah?

This is not even Christian. It is making the revelation of God into the book of mysterious prophecies. It turns the message of Christ into the message of America. And if the message of Christ looks too much like the message of America (even in its allegedly "better" days) then I will probably give up by status as a card-carrying believer. Those days were the days of slavery. Of witch hunts. Of the partial slaughter and ultimate subjugation of the indigenous people of the land in the name of "manifest destiny."

We think the early days were so blessed? In 1812, our nation was under attack by the British. They burned our capital. It was essentially a stalemate. We did not win the war (that is revisionist history). Instead, the British decided that it was stretching its resources too thin to fight us while they fought Napoleon and France, so they signed a treaty and let us go in peace.

Blessed nations don't have to send warships to Africa to stop others from plundering their merchant vessels on the seas.

Go to the cemeteries of rural parts of the US and look for rashes of deaths during specific time periods a century and more ago. Famine? Cholera? Typhoid? Attack by hostiles? Don't look specially blessed.

I am not claiming that we have had a specially harsh time. Not really anything different than many others. But since we like to cherry pick what kind of benefit we will call a blessing, then almost everyone can lay claim to blessings. And many of them can do so without being able to claim to follow the God of the Bible at all. Democracy began with an experiment in Athens prior to Christ (and without any Jewish influence) in a land full of idolatry. And so on.

You keep saying things like "if you see it." Well, it is something that can be read into scripture just like the ground of the church, joining the KKK being to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, the prosperity gospel, and so many other things that are not there in the text, but are found between the lines by people with something they want to find between the lines.

Note that most of the things attributed to Nostradamus are either so vague as to be subject to easy revisionism, or were never written by him. The same can be said of these kinds of things that are not associated with the gospel of Christ.

I pray that you will be awakened from this stupor. That sound teachings concerning Christ will return as the thing that comes from scripture.

[OBW]

I want every American to know this: We will rebuild. We will recover. And the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.Where is this statement contraindicated in the Bible? Where is the determination of a nation to rebuild its infrastructure after an attack by a foreign hostile something that is in defiance of God?

So what that some of these statements included an incorrectly understood verse in the Bible. Do you really thing that this will bring down God's judgment on the nation? Using someone else's words to say what they wanted to say? Note that Paul somewhat borrowed from Socrates in at least one place. Should he be relegated to the status of heathen and pagan for it? Does it make what he says pagan?

[Ohio]

Where is this statement contraindicated in the Bible? Where is the determination of a nation to rebuild its infrastructure after an attack by a foreign hostile something that is in defiance of God?

So what that some of these statements included an incorrectly understood verse in the Bible. Do you really thing that this will bring down God's judgment on the nation? Using someone else's words to say what they wanted to say? Note that Paul somewhat borrowed from Socrates in at least one place. Should he be relegated to the status of heathen and pagan for it? Does it make what he says pagan?

After every tornado in Oklahoma, earthquake in California, and every Hurricane on the Gulf, some politician will say "we will rebuild."

Little did we know!

[awareness]

What irony. Chan is speaking at the:

PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

Telling us America has turned away from God. While he's accepted at this prayer breakfast.

Just this alone disproves his claims that America has turned away from God.

What a joke. But it provides comedy in time of need.

Ha.

[UntoHim]

Harold, do you have anything to say about what was actually said in the address? We already know how you feel about Mr. Cahn, and the general thesis he put forth in this speech, you have made that abundantly clear already.;)

Hey, and this goes for everybody, let's give our sister Nell a little bit more consideration and respect here. It's no wonder why we have so little participation from women/sisters around this place. Let me tell you, I've had some conversations with Nell on the phone and believe you me, she can handle herself quite well with anybody in a debate, it's just that this particular venue here does not give somebody with limited time a fair hearing. People like me, Mike and Harold can take pot shots at people like Nell and she might not have the time, interest or energy to make a substantial response. Just because someone posts something here on this forum does not make it The Gospel Truth, so let's not hold them to the same standard as if they were defending The Gospel Truth.

I have ALWAYS had some basic hopes, wishes, prayers, and (fill-in-the-blank) for this forum from the very beginning. First and foremost is that it could be a place of open, frank and civil discussions between CURRENT and FORMER members of the Local Church. Much to my disappointment, this first hope and wish has hardly been realized. Another hope and wish and prayer has been that there could be some open, frank and civil discussions between us former members, irrespective (I use this term advisedly) of where we find ourselves on our individual paths. Of course this second one has proved to be much more easier said than done!

Bottom line - let's try to be as open, frank and CIVIL as we can muster. Anyone who has been around here knows UntoHim's 1st Commandment - "Thou shalt not misunderstand on purpose".

[zeek]

What irony. Chan is speaking at the:

PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

Telling us America has turned away from God. While he's accepted at this prayer breakfast.

Just this alone disproves his claims that America has turned away from God.

What a joke. But it provides comedy in time of need.

Ha.

Are you claiming that the fact that Cahn spoke at a presidential inaugural breakfast disproves that America has turned away from God? If that's true then I suppose the fact that Herod consulted John the Baptist was proof that Judea hadn't turned away from God. But, John's decapitation, Jesus' crucifixion, and the destruction of the temple kind of disproved that, right? Or is there some special significance you are reading in Cahn speaking there? :confused5:

[awareness]

Harold, do you have anything to say about what was actually said in the address?
Yes. His claim that America was founded by God. Jesus did not write the constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence.

The founders were running from government controlled religion. They weren't about to make the same mistake. So the founding principle was freedom of religion, or freedom from any religion at all, and no government sponsored religion.

That's why Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist church that there would be separation of church and state.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Jefferson - Jan. 1. 1802

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat Benjamin Franklin
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836).
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." From - Thomas Paine (1737-1809)- The Age of Reason

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli on June 10, 1797 that states :

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


So Cahn is wrong about America being founded on God and Christian principles. America was founded on freedom. Therefore, another premise, besides Isaiah 9:10, falls down.

[zeek]

Yes. His claim that America was founded by God. Jesus did not write the constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence.

The founders were running from government controlled religion. They weren't about to make the same mistake. So the founding principle was freedom of religion, or freedom from any religion at all, and no government sponsored religion.

That's why Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist church that there would be separation of church and state.




So Cahn is wrong about America being founded on God and Christian principles. America was founded on freedom. Therefore, another premise, besides Isaiah 9:10, falls down.

I agree. Referring to the USA Cahn said: "They brought forth it's first government in the name of Jesus." This is wrong. The U.S' Constitution says no such thing.

[Nell]

America: The Day of Dedication (Consecration)

While not direct quotes, the following narrative is from The Harbinger and from George Washington's first Inaugural Address. (Not the U.S. Constitution, etc.)

On April 30, 1789, the day of the inauguration of the first President of the United States, George Washington spoke the following words:

"...It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes."

And then a warning:

"...Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. "

Of course, everyone remembers from American history that the first capitol of the United States was not Washington, D.C., but New York City. The place where Washington gave this inaugural address was in St. Paul's Chapel which stands to this day. Washington took the oath of office at Federal Hall, a short distance from St. Paul's Chapel. If you Google map St. Paul's Chapel in New York City, you'll see it is at the corner of Ground Zero.

All the buildings close to Ground Zero were either destroyed or ruined...except for one...St. Paul's Chapel. The little stone building where George Washington dedicated America to God...how was it spared? There was an object between the Chapel and the force of the blast which protected it. What object? A sycamore tree. The sycamore absorbed the force of the blast when the twin towers fell, and was uprooted, much like the pattern described in Isaiah 9:10.

The little place where America was dedicated to God was protected from destruction. St. Paul's Chapel is often called "The Miracle of 9/11". If not for the sycamore taking the hit, St. Paul's Chapel would have likely been obliterated along with the many surrounding buildings destroyed when the twin towers fell.

Fascinating.

Nell

[Ohio]

So , based on these last posts, it seems like America was founded on freedom by numerous brilliant men, but the first President and General of the army was a God fearing man

[Nell]

So , based on these last posts, it seems like America was founded on freedom by numerous brilliant men, but the first President and General of the army was a God fearing man

Yes. Numerous brilliant Christian men and one who consecrated the newly formed United States of America to God as his first act as President.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755

Nell

[OBW]

Just took a look at the Ground zero site and while the fact that "not a window was broken" is a little unexpected, the building was actually quite protected from the brunt of the power of the outward thrust of debris from the falling towers. They were essentially 2 to 3 blocks away to the WSW with WTC 4 & 5 (I've seen a map that designated them as 3 & 4, but I think 4 & 5 is correct) in between (which did not fall). There is a sizeable gap between 4 and 5, but it does not provide what would be a direct line between the south tower and the church because there is a building immediately south of the church (a hotel) which somewhat shielded the church. The church is not against the west street (Church street), but the east street (Broadway). The West side is the cemetery that is full of large trees, including the sycamore that is mentioned. While it is true that the sycamore was uprooted, it may have been the only thing that was likely in the direct path of any of the primary outflow from the falling towers. Since we are not talking about things falling on it from up high, blocks away, we are talking about the outward flow of force with dust, ash, and debris as the buildings collapse where they stood.

It could be asserted that maybe a window or two could or should have broken, but that is not a certainty. It is not as if the church was simply across the street from the fall. It was not.

Seems that the only ones who want to make a big deal about the whole thing are those with a message to sell.

And so we are once again presented with myths and endless genealogies.

[awareness]

Yes. Numerous brilliant Christian men and one who consecrated the newly formed United States of America to God as his first act as President.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755

Nell
How did I know David Barton would be pulled out of the woodwork?

He too believes that America is the center of God's concern.

[Friedel]

Yes. Numerous brilliant Christian men and one who consecrated the newly formed United States of America to God as his first act as President.

Nell

I read George Washington's full address at his inauguration. The closest he came to mentioning "God" is to refer to "that Almighty Being". Who was he actually referring to? I am not convinced he was necessarily a believer; maybe just religious. Perhaps I was expecting too much. I don't know.

What I do know is that Washington smoked pot, as did Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who also used opium/laudanum for most of his life. :-)

I remember Ronald Reagan quoting John 3:16 at a prayer breakfast in 1984. Perhaps his speech writer did that quote for him, perhaps he really meant it.

Who remembers the president of Taiwan around the middle 1980s? He was a follower of Witness Lee and I once heard someone describe him as a "three-meetings-a-week-brother". I assume he was a true believer.

[Friedel]

Thought all might enjoy this quote:

“… We were created, and after the fall redeemed, that we might be worshipers of the Most High God. The reason God made man in His image was that he might appreciate God and admire and adore and worship Him. Worship means ‘to feel in the heart.’ A person who merely goes through the form and doesn’t feel anything is not worshiping. Only the Holy Spirit can enable a fallen man to worship God acceptably.

“Now because we were created to worship, worship is the normal employment of moral beings … not something stuck on or added. It is something that is built into human nature. Worship is the one shining gem that is lost to the modern church, and I believe that we ought to search for this until we find it.”From A.W. Tozer in “Worship: The Missing Jewel in the Evangelical Church.”

[Nell]

Here's another one for all to enjoy.

"A Pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself."

A.W. Tozer

[zeek]

America: The Day of Dedication (Consecration)

While not direct quotes, the following narrative is from The Harbinger and from George Washington's first Inaugural Address. (Not the U.S. Constitution, etc.)

On April 30, 1789, the day of the inauguration of the first President of the United States, George Washington spoke the following words:

"...It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes."

And then a warning:

"...Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. "

Of course, everyone remembers from American history that the first capitol of the United States was not Washington, D.C., but New York City. The place where Washington gave this inaugural address was in St. Paul's Chapel which stands to this day. Washington took the oath of office at Federal Hall, a short distance from St. Paul's Chapel. If you Google map St. Paul's Chapel in New York City, you'll see it is at the corner of Ground Zero.

All the buildings close to Ground Zero were either destroyed or ruined...except for one...St. Paul's Chapel. The little stone building where George Washington dedicated America to God...how was it spared? There was an object between the Chapel and the force of the blast which protected it. What object? A sycamore tree. The sycamore absorbed the force of the blast when the twin towers fell, and was uprooted, much like the pattern described in Isaiah 9:10.

The little place where America was dedicated to God was protected from destruction. St. Paul's Chapel is often called "The Miracle of 9/11". If not for the sycamore taking the hit, St. Paul's Chapel would have likely been obliterated along with the many surrounding buildings destroyed when the twin towers fell.

Fascinating.

Nell

So, let me see if I follow your reasoning here. God was behind the deaths of the seemingly innocent people who perished in the twin towers in the attacks on 9/11/2001, but He used a tree to spare an inanimate building for symbolic purposes?

[OBW]

Thought all might enjoy this quote:

“… We were created, and after the fall redeemed, that we might be worshipers of the Most High God. The reason God made man in His image was that he might appreciate God and admire and adore and worship Him. Worship means ‘to feel in the heart.’ A person who merely goes through the form and doesn’t feel anything is not worshiping. Only the Holy Spirit can enable a fallen man to worship God acceptably.

“Now because we were created to worship, worship is the normal employment of moral beings … not something stuck on or added. It is something that is built into human nature. Worship is the one shining gem that is lost to the modern church, and I believe that we ought to search for this until we find it.”
From A.W. Tozer in “Worship: The Missing Jewel in the Evangelical Church.”
I hate to say it, but my reading of the account in Genesis did not involve man admiring, adoring, or worshipping God. It did involve being put in charge of the created earth. It did involve a time with God, but that time was not described. I put this with the declaration that the highest goal of man is to . . . . You know the one. It is lofty. It sounds very spiritual. But I just cannot find where that is what Jesus required of us. Or God in general (in the OT) for that matter.

And based on the amount of time that the children of Israel were required to spend worshipping and sacrificing to God out of the year, those pathetic, mooing Christians that only go for one to one-and-a-half hours each week get in more worship time than the Jews likely did (at least prior to the development of the synagogues).

I think that Tozer is right to say that the manner of worship we often engage in is not very satisfying (to God — although likely to man or we wouldn't do it).

[awareness]

So, let me see if I follow your reasoning here. God was behind the deaths of the seemingly innocent people who perished in the twin towers in the attacks on 9/11/2001, but He used a tree to spare an inanimate building for symbolic purposes?
Here's a funny take:

We had a Sycamore growing in the front yard, under powerlines. The power company said it had to go. They CUT it down. Unlike the Sycamore at ground zero - that was pushed down, not CUT down.

Anyway the power company offered a replacement. A Cedar was requested, but not offered. We selected a Dogwood.

Well Isaiah 9:10 was speaking about my house. We've had things fall down, and have hewn stones.

And the Dogwood speaks of Christ :

In Jesus' time, the dogwood grew
To a stately size and a lovely hue.
'Twas strong and firm, its branches interwoven.
For the cross of Christ its timbers were chosen.
Seeing the distress at this use of their wood
Christ made a promise which still holds good:
"Never again shall the dogwood grow
Large enough to be used so.
Slender and twisted, it shall be
With blossoms like the cross for all to see.
As blood stains the petals marked in brown,
The blossom's center wears a thorny crown.
All who see it will remember Me
Crucified on a cross from the dogwood tree.
Cherished and protected, this tree shall be
A reminder to all of My agony."

So my Sycamore was predicted in Isaiah.

See, I can draw grand supernatural links, parallels, and scenarios too.

Don't follow Cahn or Lee, follow me. I take Paypal donations.

[bearbear]

Not to take away from Cahn, because I personally do think he's on to something (the seven year pattern of stock market crashes on Elul 29 is too uncanny to ignore), but most of the founders of America, including George Washington were Deists (by Washington's pastor's own admission even). Even further than that, the majority were involved in Freemasonry which like many other secret societies are rebranded Babylonian and Egyptian mystery religions which worship Baal/Ashtoreth. You can't be a true Christian and a freemason because of the secret rituals and vows freemasons require which go against the root of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. (See testimony of a former 32nd degree freemason turned christian here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL7_B0CIFc)

I personally take the view that America is the Mystery Babylon of Revelation 18 as crazy as it sounds. Here's a talk by Rick Coombes who tried to prove America wasn't Mystery Babylon and ended up writing a book saying that it was. Many Bible Prophecy scholars are also taking on this view including Gary Stearman of Prophecy in the News, one of the largest bible prophecy ministries in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoiHuNaEIjs

On another note, I've been trying to find the sources for George Washington's consecration of America at Ground Zero / St. Paul's chapel. Does anyone have a link to this historical record?

[Nell]

A harbinger is anything that foreshadows a future event; omen; sign. In the present topic, a harbinger is a warning. A warning is not a bad thing. A warning is a good thing. Don't you think? This narrative is part paraphrase and part direct quotes from the book. I hope it does the book justice.

In Cahn's book "The Harbinger" he writes about warnings that began over twenty-seven hundred years ago in the days of ancient Israel. In the final days of that kingdom, before its judgment, there were nine signs of the nation of Israel heading to judgment.

Nations are made up of people, and the people of Israel ignored the signs. They may have even engaged in the same kind of unnecessary, unkind, derisive and rude mockery we have seen. Not at all becoming children of God.

The people of Israel ignored the signs and continued on a path of defiance against God. They were certainly free to do that. It was the path they chose. They were given time to turn back to God or enter into His judgment. They refused to turn back. In 722 BC they were destroyed. For us today, all we have to do is read. Or read someone else who has an interest in the book. We could also politely share a warning of our own and discuss it with civility and respect as the people of Israel may have done. (I have always thought disrespecting others says more about the disrespecter than the disrespectee.)

Those signs of judgment that appeared in Israel's last days are now appearing on American soil. Some in New York City. Some in Washington DC. Some in the form of objects, others as events, even ceremonies. Some have involved the highest leaders of the land.

Isaiah was not prophesying about America, but a biblical pattern of judgment. The pattern revealed in Isaiah is one that Cahn believes is now replaying in America. I see his point/s.

For many Americans, The Harbinger is connecting the dots to something many, if not most, believers have felt in their hearts for a long time: America is in trouble and likely on a path to judgment. Things can't go on this way forever. Can they? Who can fix this mess?

According to Scripture, God is righteous and judges nations. God is merciful and warns of judgment. God acts in a way that is consistent with His nature and His workings as revealed in Scripture, and He is able to warn a nation of judgment that is to come through the Scriptures. If you see these things happening, or think something is happening, it would be a good time to pay attention.

The Scriptures were written for our instruction. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Judgment vs. mercy is just as relevant today as it was in ancient times.

What happened on September 11, 2001 was carried out by evil men. The Assyrians were also evil men who carried out the attack on ancient Israel that brought about the demise of the Northern Kingdom. God was not with them or for them. God was against them. He is also against the evil of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

However, God allows and uses all things, both good and evil, for the purposes of redemption. In that purpose, He spared not His own son.

I don't know which is worse, being surprised by a thief in the night, or, having been warned that the thief was coming but choosing to ignore the warning and instead mock the messengers.

1 Thessalonians 5 (NIV)
The Day of the Lord

5 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

Nell

[awareness]

Another reason I don't fall for this type of doom and gloom is because ever since I was a kid and could read I've seen in the headlines of the gossip rags in the checkout lines in grocery store : World coming to an End, or some such.

When I was young it would scare the beejeebies out of me. My mother, who was longing for the end of the world, provided little comfort.

But the predictions never came true. Now when I spot one of these headlines in the checkout line it's a joke to me. It makes me laugh.

But I love to laugh ... So thanks Jonathan Cahn, you ol' doomer and gloomer.

Personally I think a good old fashion fire and brimstone sermon, like the ones we had when I was growing up in the Southern Baptist Church, takes the cake. (Think of another Jonathan, as in Jonathan Edwards, and his famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.") (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html)

"The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."

Heebie-jeebies ... good ol' doom and gloom ... such warm memories. It warms the cockles of my heart ... and makes me laugh.

[Friedel]

On another note, I've been trying to find the sources for George Washington's consecration of America at Ground Zero / St. Paul's chapel. Does anyone have a link to this historical record?

Try these:

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=11&title=Transcript+of+President+George+Washington%27 s+First+Inaugural+Speech+%281789%29

http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/days-event/morning-worship-service

http://www.redstate.com/diary/qbart/2011/04/28/bad-news-about-the-washington-prayer/

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/firstinaug.htm

[Nell]

Not to take away from Cahn, because I personally do think he's on to something (the seven year pattern of stock market crashes on Elul 29 is too uncanny to ignore), but most of the founders of America, including George Washington were Deists (by Washington's pastor's own admission even). Even further than that, the majority were involved in Freemasonry which like many other secret societies are rebranded Babylonian and Egyptian mystery religions which worship Baal/Ashtoreth. You can't be a true Christian and a freemason because of the secret rituals and vows freemasons require which go against the root of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. (See testimony of a former 32nd degree freemason turned christian here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL7_B0CIFc)

I personally take the view that America is the Mystery Babylon of Revelation 18 as crazy as it sounds. Here's a talk by Rick Coombes who tried to prove America wasn't Mystery Babylon and ended up writing a book saying that it was. Many Bible Prophecy scholars are also taking on this view including Gary Stearman of Prophecy in the News, one of the largest bible prophecy ministries in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoiHuNaEIjs

On another note, I've been trying to find the sources for George Washington's consecration of America at Ground Zero / St. Paul's chapel. Does anyone have a link to this historical record?

You're right. That's my point exactly. Too many signs to ignore. Really though, it's not about Cahn. He's the messenger and he might be on to something.

The Founding Fathers weren't perfect, which in my mind makes this scenario even more interesting. God works with what he has.

The next date to watch is September 13, 2015, Elul 29 of this current Shemitah which began September 25, 2014.

In the United States this week alone we've seen an American beheaded in Oklahoma, and a confirmed ebola case in Dallas. Maybe we should start making a list.

Nell

[Friedel]

You're right. That's my point exactly. Too many signs to ignore. Really though, it's not about Cahn. He's the messenger and he might be on to something.

The Founding Fathers weren't perfect, which in my mind makes this scenario even more interesting. God works with what he has.

The next date to watch is September 13, 2015, Elul 29 of this current Shemitah which began September 25, 2014.

In the United States this week alone we've seen an American beheaded in Oklahoma, and a confirmed ebola case in Dallas. Maybe we should start making a list.

Is Jonathan Cahn practicing some kind of divination with his harbingers?


Nell

I hope you do not mind me asking: "the next date to watch" for what? What is Cahn's nine harbingers supposed to indicate or what will it prove?

Reading about Cahn and listening to some of his speaking it reminds me of John Robert Stevens who used pyramids for his date-setting.

Is this not some kind of divination?

[awareness]

The Founding Fathers weren't perfect,
Hey sis Nell, you are right. the founding fathers weren't perfect. In fact, they weren't even close to the type of Christians today, that are seeking to revise founding history, to make it seem like the founders were evangelicals. They weren't. If these revisionist evangelicals today were back there with the founding fathers they would have been preaching sermons against those founding fathers for not even being Christian.

But I see a common arrogance between these revisionist evangelical Christians today and the Christians that came here from Europe ; those spouting "manifest destiny," those that wrote home claiming they were here "taking the promise land," those that Ben Franklin remarked about when he said, "I hate these Christians going around with a Bible in one hand, and an ax in the other, to scalp Indians with."

This effort to paint the founders as Evangelicals is hubris. This effort to claim America was found by God is hubris.

God did not make a covenant with the founders like with Abraham. That did not happen.

The founding of America was a very human effort. And it was nasty, like Israel was ("thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" Deut 20:16). I don't even see a smidgen of Christ in it. The Christians came here and committed genocide against the first nation peoples. They did not love their neighbors.

America was founded by God. What a joke. It's Christian arrogance, not humility, that's making this claim ... the same arrogance that was scalping Indians to steal their land. There was nothing Christian about it. It was all tooooo human.

[Nell]

...This effort to claim America was found by God is hubris.

There is a lot of human behavior surrounding the birth of this country that cannot be reconciled with logic or common civility, much less Christian principles. The same can be said of ancient Israel. I think they may have us beat, though.

I don't believe America was "founded by God" either. I have not seen those words in Cahn's work. It may be there, but I haven't seen it. Historical writings by the Founding Fathers indicate some degree of biblical influence and Christian influence, but "founded by God" isn't something I've seen in Cahn's work. Regardless, I don't believe that's the point Cahn is trying to make.

This is me, but since the Founding Fathers did make some degree of commitment, consecration, etc., to God, America as a nation and a people are bound by their consecration or vows. This would be accurate according to Scripture...you are bound by the vows you make. That's just what I think. I don't know how accurate that is...God knows.

Cahn's work is about the pattern found in Isaiah regarding how God dealt with/judged Israel and the similarities to what may be happening in America today.

The Bible is full of imperfect men (in fact, all but One) and their pursuit of God. More accurately perhaps, God's pursuit of the perfect man He created who subsequently fell into sin. This sinful man needed redemption back to a state where God could fellowship with him, and he with God. God pursued His man, His people, and dealt with them and their sinful state according to a pattern. This was in the Old Testament.

Then comes Jesus! God sent His only Son to accomplish His plan for redemption of sinful man. When that was done, His Son had died. He soon rose from the dead and went away to be with His Father for a time, but told us "I'll be back." That was a long time ago.

So now we wait. We watch. He said He would be back, but speculation about this event is rampant. There are clues about how and when it's going to happen, but his best advice to us is "watch and pray".

So here we are. Watching. Then here comes this Messianic Jew in New York who is sitting around watching. When you watch long enough, you just might see something. Cahn saw a pattern, and he shared it with us. I'm glad he did. It makes sense to me. Now we get to watch, too.

Nell

I know. It's waaay simplistic. I left out a lot of the story. Sorry.

[awareness]

I don't believe America was "founded by God" either. I have not seen those words in Cahn's work.
He said America was founded on Jesus ... didn't he? ... if I remember correctly ... early on in his message. Maybe he was just cracking a joke. But nobody got it. Including me.

[Nell]

He said America was founded on Jesus ... didn't he? ... if I remember correctly ... early on in his message. Maybe he was just cracking a joke. But nobody got it. Including me.

I don't think so, but I can't say for sure. That would be inconsistent with his message. I'll let you know if I find anything like that.

Nell

[awareness]

I don't think so, but I can't say for sure. That would be inconsistent with his message. I'll let you know if I find anything like that.

Nell
Quote from the transcript:

But there was another civilization that was likewise founded on God’s word, dedicated to His will, and consecrated to His purposes, from its very inception – America. Those who came to these shores four centuries ago to found a new civilization did so by dedicating it to God, committing it for His purposes and glory. America was to be a city on a hill, a civilization to which others would look. It was to be a holy commonwealth. And so they modeled it after Israel of the Bible. They brought forth its first governments in the name of Jesus and for the glory of God. This is complete baloney. None of this is true. He cannot provide any proofs of this claim ... not without piling on more baloney.

[Nell]

Quote from the transcript:

This is complete baloney. None of this is true. He cannot provide any proofs of this claim ... not without piling on more baloney.

Well, there you have it. "They" brought forth the first government in the name of Jesus. I would like to see his references. Was that spoken or written?

I would like to read more before applying the baloney factor, but I honestly don't have a big problem with it. It may be overstated, but I don't know. The pattern is still in place.

Thanks for the info.

Nell

[awareness]

Well, there you have it. "They" brought forth the first government in the name of Jesus. I would like to see his references. Was that spoken or written?

I would like to read more before applying the baloney factor, but I honestly don't have a big problem with it. It may be overstated, but I don't know. The pattern is still in place.

Thanks for the info.

Nell
Good sis. I'm encouraged that you don't seem to have your wagon hooked up.

So what? We'll know by Oct. 1, 1915? What should we do until then?

Maybe we should spend thousands on Jim Bakker's survival kits. I understand he's back, after his jail time, and he's makin' loads of money again ... off of fear associated with the second coming.

Christian's don't ever learn ... seems ... fear sells.

[bearbear]

Good sis. I'm encouraged that you don't seem to have your wagon hooked up.

So what? We'll know by Oct. 1, 1915? What should we do until then?

Maybe we should spend thousands on Jim Bakker's survival kits. I understand he's back, after his jail time, and he's makin' loads of money again ... off of fear associated with the second coming.

Christian's don't ever learn ... seems ... fear sells.

We all know of the bloopers, but there have been several cases where the prophet was correct, in the case below the prophecy was from a vision and not deduced from scripture:

A boy prophet prophesied the future massacre of Armenian Christians in Turkey in 1915 years before it happened. There's a huge community of Armenians in LA that believed his prophecy and left before it happened. Those that stayed got killed.

https://hewhohasearslethimhear.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/massacres-of-christians-foretold-and-fulfilled/



How God foretold to a boy in Kara Kala (Armenia) a time of unspeakable tragedy for the entire area

‘This person was known throughout the region as the ‘Boy Prophet’ even though at the time of the incident with the steer’s head the Boy Prophet was fifty-eight years old.

The man’s real name was Efim Gerasemovitch Klubniken, and he had a remarkable history. He was of Russian origin, his family being among the first Pentecostals to come across the border, settling permanently in Kara Kala. From earliest childhood Efim had shown a gift for prayer, frequently going on long fasts, praying around the clock.

As everybody in Kara Kala knew, when Efim was eleven years old he had heard the Lord calling him again to one of his prayer vigils. This time he persisted for seven days and nights, and during this time received a vision.

This in itself was not extraordinary. Indeed, as Grandfather had been accustomed to grumble, anyone who went that long without eating or sleeping was bound to start seeing things. But what Efim was able to do during those seven days was not so easy to explain.

Efim could neither read nor write. Yet, as he sat in the little stone cottage in Kara Kala, he saw before him a vision of charts and a message in a beautiful handwriting. Efim asked for pen and paper. And for seven days sitting at the rough plank-table where the family ate, he laboriously copied down the form and shape of letters and diagrams that passed before his eyes.

When he had finished, the manuscript was taken to people in the village who could read. It turned out that this illiterate child had written out in Russian characters a series of instructions and warnings. At some unspecified time in the future, the boy wrote, every Christian in Kara Kala would be in terrible danger. He foretold a time of unspeakable tragedy for the entire area, when hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children would be brutally murdered. The time would come, he warned, when everyone in the region must flee. They must go to a land across the sea. Although he had never seen a geography book, the Boy Prophet drew a map showing exactly where the fleeing Christians were to go. To the amazement of the adults, the body of water depicted so accurately in the drawing was not the nearby Black Sea, or the Caspian Sea, or even the farther-off Mediterranean, but the distant and unimaginable Atlantic Ocean! There was no doubt about it, nor about the identity of the land on the other side: the map plainly indicated the east coast of the United States of America.

But the refugees were not to settle down there, the prophecy continued. They were to continue traveling until they reached the west coast of the new land. There, the boy wrote, God would bless them and prosper them, and cause their seed to be a blessing to the nations. (…)

Well, many people in Kara Kala smiled at these romances of a little boy. Surely there must be some explanation of the ‘miraculous’ writing. Perhaps he had secretly taught himself to read and write, just in order to play this trick on the village.

Others however took to calling Efim the Boy Prophet and were not at all convinced that the message was not genuine. Every time news of fresh political troubles reached the tranquil hills around Ararat, they would get out the now-yellowed pages and read them again. Troubles between the Moslem Turks and the Christian Armenians did seem to be growing in intensity. In August, 1896 – four years before Grandfather butchered the blind steer – hadn’t a Turkish mob murdered more than six thousand Armenians on the streets of Constantinople?

But Constantinople was far away, and years had passed since the giving of the prophecy. True, prophecies in the Bible often came dozens, even hundreds of years before the event. But most people in Kara Kala, Grandfather among them, believed such genuine prophetic gifts had ceased with the completion of the Bible.

And then, a little after the turn of the century, Efim announced that the time was near for the fulfilment of the words he had written down nearly fifty years before. ‘We must flee to America. All who remain here will perish’.

Here and there in Kara Kala Pentecostal families packed up and left the holdings that had been their ancestral possessions time out of mind. Efim and his family were among the first to go. As each group of Pentecostals left Armenia, they were jeered by those who remained behind. Skeptical and disbelieving folk – including many Christians – refused to believe that God could issue pinpoint instructions for modern people in a modern age.

But the instructions proved correct. In 1914 a period of unimaginable horror arrived for Armenia. With remorseless efficiency the Turks began the bloody business of driving two-thirds of the population out into the Mesopotamian desert. Over a million men, women and children died in these death marches, including every inhabitant of Kara Kala. Another half a million were massacrated in their villages, in a pogrom that was later to provide Hitler his blueprint for the extermination of the Jews. ‘The world did not intervene when Turkey wiped out the Armenians’, he reminded his followers. ‘It will not intervene now’.

The few Armenians who managed to escape the besieged areas brought with them tales of great heroism. They reported that the Turks sometimes gave Christians an opportunity to deny their faith in exchange for their lives. The favorite procedure was to lock a group of Christians in a barn and set it afire: ‘If you are willing to accept Mohammed in place of Christ we’ll open the doors’. Time and again, the Christians chose to die, chanting hymns of praise as the flames engulfed them.

Those who had heeded the warning of the Boy Prophet and sought asylum in America, heard the news with dismay’.




If you got this far, rumor has it that the Armenian community in LA is on the move again...

http://www.futurerevealed.com/christian/modern/1852-secret-armenian-prophecy.htm

1 Thess 5:20-21
Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.

[awareness]

We all know of the bloopers, but there have been several cases where the prophet was correct, in the case below the prophecy was from a vision and not deduced from scripture:

A boy prophet prophesied the future massacre of Armenian Christians in Turkey in 1915 years before it happened. There's a huge community of Armenians in LA that believed his prophecy and left before it happened. Those that stayed got killed.

https://hewhohasearslethimhear.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/massacres-of-christians-foretold-and-fulfilled/



If you got this far, rumor has it that the Armenian community in LA is on the move again...

http://www.futurerevealed.com/christian/modern/1852-secret-armenian-prophecy.htm

1 Thess 5:20-21
Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.
That's really out there Bearbear. Wish you were there to witness and confirm this wild story.