100 Days in Office, Obama Coronated Messiah

[nebula]

So who is proclaiming Obama as God.

The one who made him look like Jesus.

[Gauntlet]

right. the people who painted these pictures of obama are actually against him.

if that's what you'd like to believe, i guess you're entitled.

The people painting these pictures sure have managed to get YOU and others to rally against Obama on this thread....so maybe it IS mission accomplished.

Yes, mission accomplished.

The mission? Political theater at its most sublime.

[Guest yod]

There are 2 simple rules that everyone could live by

1. There is a God

2. You ain't "it"

It seems to me that anyone who doesn't want to cross the Owner of "Rule #1" as listed above, would reject all notions of it possibly being themselves and breaking "Rule #2" ???

[BlindSeeker]

You know I noticed the exact same thing. verses 1-23 places Acts 12 into context, and verses 11-18 puts Act 14 into context. Once again, the assumption is the people worshipped Herod and because he didnt say anything he was killed. That is not what the Word states no matter how many time you try to bold it. The word states that Herod did not give glory to God. In that case dont you find it strange that Herod was killed because he was worshipped (the interpretation here) but the people worshipping him (the interpretation here) were not. Why didn't the people get struck down too since they were "worshipping" him? Just that alone makes the interpretation far from clear, it actually makes it rather foggy. But then, I am twisting scripture to fit my view point. (BTW...that last comment is not something you said)

The verses need no other context. The only "context" in the earlier verses is that Herod persecuted the church. Verses 21 thru 23 do not need any other context to be understood. They don't need any "interpretation" to determine exactly what they mean. The verses are very clear and straight-forward.

Acts 12:21-23 21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

And you can talk about "context," and "that's really not what it means" all you want. The fact is, the text itself says Herod was killed because the people worshipped him and he did not give the glory to God. So the problem is not a wrong interpretation. There is no way to wrongly interpret those verses unless one goes out of their way to do so. As to why God did not kill the people that worshipped Herod, you will have to ask Him that question, because the text doesn't say why.

Perhaps that is the problem and we just don't know it . . . maybe Obama really is giving praise to God that people do recognize his voice "is the voice of a god, not of a man."

.

[BlindSeeker]

And you can talk about "context," and "that's really not what it means" all you want. The fact is, the text itself says Herod was killed because the people worshipped him and he did not give the glory to God. So the problem is not a wrong interpretation. There is no way to wrongly interpret those verses unless one goes out of their way to do so. As to why God did not kill the people that worshipped Herod, you will have to ask Him that question, because the text doesn't say why.

Once again that is not what the text states. That is your interpretation of what the text states. You are right, the scripture is straight foward. It states Herod was killed because he didn't give glory to God. The error comes in saying because the people worshipped him. As to your last statement, it should also be applied to the interpetation. The text doesn't say that he was killed because the people worshipped him.

Then can you explain why the word immediately is there? If it is not in reference to what the people said, there is no reason for the word to be there. It isn't just dangling there not connected to anything.

Why do you figure it hinges on what the people said and not what Herod said.

Nice answer . . . .

Oh wait, that was a question . . . never mind.

[angels4u]

DID ANYBODY SEE "The Obama deception? (documentery)

[nebula]

Why do you figure it hinges on what the people said and not what Herod said.

It was both.

The people worshiped Herod as a god (or as God).

Herod soaked it in, said nothing, whatever you want to believe happened . . . the point is he did nothing to stop it. That much is for sure.

So the Lord put an end to it.

[nebula]

Hallelujah!

the artist cancelled the showing - thanks to the thousand-plus respondants objecting to the painting.

Read it here

[BlindSeeker]

And you can talk about "context," and "that's really not what it means" all you want. The fact is, the text itself says Herod was killed because the people worshipped him and he did not give the glory to God. So the problem is not a wrong interpretation. There is no way to wrongly interpret those verses unless one goes out of their way to do so. As to why God did not kill the people that worshipped Herod, you will have to ask Him that question, because the text doesn't say why.

Once again that is not what the text states. That is your interpretation of what the text states. You are right, the scripture is straight foward. It states Herod was killed because he didn't give glory to God. The error comes in saying because the people worshipped him. As to your last statement, it should also be applied to the interpetation. The text doesn't say that he was killed because the people worshipped him.

Then can you explain why the word immediately is there? If it is not in reference to what the people said, there is no reason for the word to be there. It isn't just dangling there not connected to anything.

Why do you figure it hinges on what the people said and not what Herod said.

Nice answer . . . .

Oh wait, that was a question . . . never mind.

Ok...it was a question. Was I suppose to present a statement. Can you answer, I want to understand why it is viewed as such.

Viewed as what, a question or a statement? If you mean as a question, because you started with "why."

[MorningGlory]

Its there to speak of the suddennes of God's reaction. As I stated before there is context. Lets go back. We see that Herod hated the Church. We also see Herod and his embarrasment at Peter's escape. Then we also see two countries basically sucking up because there were being fed by Herod. Then we see another thing. Herod on that set day, dressed in his fineset, gives a wonderful speech to the people. So much so that the people stated that a speech like that came from the voice of a god.

Now it may on the surface look as if Herod was judged because what the people said but I dont believe that is the case. Herod was judged because he as already puffed up. We don't know the words of his speech, but they must have been something aweful in the ears of our Father. I don't ingnore what the people said, but what they said cant be considered the problem. It what Herod said that was the problem, and in what he said he glorfied not God, but himself...hence he was judged. Just my take.

if the words of herod's speech were bad enough for God to kill him because of them, do you not think God would have let us know what they were? when in the Bible has God smote someone and "hidden" the reasons why?

It's not hidden, I said we dont know the words, but what we do know is Herod didn't give glory to God. I would go further to say that Herods speech is a main factor in that...since it was his speech the that people said something about.

I say that you and Charitow ought to enter the soapbox. You both present strong arguments that are well put. I have to agree with your last statement above though. Of course, since we don't know what Herod said exactly, we have to go with what is most likely.