The Lord ( who as you say ,is Christ) is referenced by the Constitution as being Christ who is The Lord of Human history . I will accept this as a concession that the Constitution of the United States was signed by men who 1. Call upon The Lord. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Rom 10:13 2. Date human history from the Lord's entry into history
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Tim 3:16
I wouldn't want a higher standard than that to describe a basic Christian attitude.
One may find nuances of doctrines among these Christian men. Just as you can among your hometown local fellowships of churches.
But I would take their attitude as a good starting place for a Christian legal system. They weren't perfect. Some lacked enuff faith.
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. Heb 4:2 Did you have in mind some other country with a better set of Christian founders?
Frank wrote: Lord, then they are referring to Christ....
As the ref was to the #Year of THAT Lord's reign And we know that Is the ref to the Birth of The Lord Jesus Christ, it would be dishonest to think Lord could refer to anyone else. As was clearly stated. To ignore that would be like cutting a reference to Christian so that it looks like you refer to Christ. (As I did in jest)
Anno Domini AD is scorned by pagan modernists and transformed to CE. That means CHRISTian era. Even the pagan refusal to translate the Latin year of our Lord is a concession that that Lord is Christ.
Given the reverential predilection to refer to Providence rather than God ( similar to orthodox refs to G-d ) it can cause some to miss the amount of times the Triune God of the Bible is cited by the founders.
Frank wrote: .... if the author thought this was a Christian nation, then why was the name of Christ excluded from any of the documents?
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.
"our Lordâ€ť refers to: Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
"in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty sevenâ€ť refers to: The birth of Jesus Christ.
Michael Hranek wrote: a. The Parable of 2 Little rats by Michael Hranek
b. Kind of like the level of spiritual discernment in modern day evangelical churches.
Michael a. You have worked it out that a writer of "fiction" such as Lewis (and yourself apparently) does not include "all truth" into his work of fiction. Haven't you? Do you complain about the lack of truth in his fiction???
b. Your complaint as to quote "spiritual discernment" and so called "evangelical" churches needs to be addressed to the Holy Spirit. After all that's His department: John 16:13 .... "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
John UK wrote: ask for more detail on this. Would the one elder be regarded as the teaching elder (pastor) and the deaconate in supportive spiritual roles? Or would the deacons be (what I've always been taught) more to do with the running of the ship?
Beware of what you do not know, as well as what you think you know.
"In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called â€śmodernismâ€ť or â€śliberalism.â€ť Both names are unsatisfactory; the latter, in particular, is question-begging. The movement designated as â€śliberalismâ€ť is regarded as â€śliberalâ€ť only by its friends; to its opponents it seems to involve a narrow ignoring of many relevant facts. And indeed the movement is so various in its manifestations that one may almost despair of finding any common name which will apply to all its forms. But manifold as are the forms in which the movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism − that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin of Christianity." (J.Gresham Machen)
"The preface of the NIV rightly points out that the ancient tongues (Hebrew & Greek) did not use a special form of the word "you" to address God. However, a cursory reading of the AV will soon clarify the fact that it is the *modern* translations which have attempted to keep "thee and thou" when addressing God and "you and you" when addressing mortals. That is NOT the case with the AV.
The AV usage is simply a reflection of the singular 2nd person pronouns used in the Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were originally written by the inspiration of God. However, in reading through the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures numerous times in my life, I have never found a *single instance* in which God is addressed using a 2nd person PLURAL pronoun. Not once!" (Richard Bacon)
Jim Lincoln wrote: I don't hate the AV, it's great literature, but a poor Bible, One that the translators fully expected to be replaced by later, better versions
Poor translators must be bitterly disappointed - or happy that God used them to record the true Word of God.
Later versions are clearly spoiled by heretical texts like Westcott and Hort devised and eclectic texts.
The KJV has a proven track record as the sword of the Spirit, building churches and nations for four centuries.
ESV(RSV), NIV, NASB et al are levelled at human reception without the Holy Spirit involved. These modern versions have been brought out at a time of doctrinal decline and confusion, which is revealed in the history of their production.
"We don't need a revival as much as we need to toss the tube."
Yes. Jesus is Truth, and we are a people of Lies.
TV is modern tyranny's way to enslave people without a whip or an armed sentry standing guard. It makes willing slaves of everyone, willing to eat the poisoned food, to believe the nicely packaged lies that make war and torture and murder of innocent people to be a good thing. It teaches that sex is everything, and children are a disposable burden, that it's good to work nonstop for a company in order to afford the trinkets that are dangled in front of us on TV.
TV tells us life revolves around Pepsi, McDonald's and the right clothes and hairdo. We let the TV images and flickers massage our brains and put us into a literal hypnotic trance where more subliminal messages can be fed straight into our subconscious by a media literally controlled at the very top by none other than Satanists.
TV makes the brain slow and lazy and dull from all that hypnotic massaging, turns people into programmed idiots.
When we read or listen to the radio, our brain must create pictures and focus and think. Not so with TV.