Secular Christianity in America: Revealing true authority in the Book of Acts

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The book of Acts starts out with Peter and the Apostles. His authority was accepted by the Jews as it would have been accepted by them in their temple. As they had determined that their positions were meant for more important matters, the Apostles blessed into creation the minor positions of Deacons giving them the authority to handle lessor matters within the Church.
One interesting happening is how Ananais and his wife were both judged seperately by the apostles, having three hours seperate each occurence of judgement. This meant that both members in the marriage wore a responsible face of authority in the eyes of God meaning that their positions within a Christian Church would be different from their positions in the Jewish temple. This also meant that the temple no longer existed outside of that of a symbol with it becoming an inward reality within each lowly slave member within the Church.
Another interesting paradox happened when Deacon Stephen stood to give a sermon. Apparently types like Stephen were not allowed to express authority in the prior Jewish temple because the stir of hatred that occured from the congregation even before Stephen opened his mouth. The more Stephen preached, the greater their anger grew. This anger is perplexing because Stephen basically preached the same kind of sermon as Peter which was basically old testament scripture. The serious consequences of this violation in traditional authority led to Stephen being killed. Stephen wasn't a lion expressing authority but a lamb.
From the Deacon Stephen, another interesting paradox is revealed in Deacon Phillip. Phillip met up with a Eunoch who was so trusted that he was in charge of a great Queen's wealth. When approached by Phillip regarding verses in the bible, the Eunoch felt that he needed an authoritive brother to explain its meaning to him because of his born physical impairment. The Deacon Phillip proved this not to be the case.
Another paradox arose with the introduction of Saul. Saul did not want the highest position in God's Church, choosing instead to flee from being trained for such a responsibility. Saul would have been made to put himself under a simpleton for his transforming education. But God smited Saul blind and then led him to his Authoritive position where he became the chosen vessel Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul, the greatest of God's authority, then paradoxically declared himself to be an abortion from God.
So, God's authority went from the Apostle Peter, to the Deacon Stephen, to a useless Eunoch, to, finally, an abortion called the Apostle Paul.
It is indeed ironic that the Apostle Paul would be considered closer to God and Christ than even the Apostles who were with Christ when He was in the flesh.
I would cite all these verses but I really don't know that much about it. I just know that American politics is secular Christian and, so, is greatly effected by how authority is perceived in the Book of Acts.

[Truth Warrior]

The book of Acts starts out with Peter and the Apostles. His authority was accepted by the Jews as it would have been accepted by them in their temple. As they had determined that their positions were meant for more important matters, the Apostles blessed into creation the minor positions of Deacons giving them the authority to handle lessor matters within the Church.
One interesting happening is how Ananais and his wife were both judged seperately by the apostles, having three hours seperate each occurence of judgement. This meant that both members in the marriage wore a responsible face of authority in the eyes of God meaning that their positions within a Christian Church would be different from their positions in the Jewish temple. This also meant that the temple no longer existed outside of that of a symbol with it becoming an inward reality within each lowly slave member within the Church.
Another interesting paradox happened when Deacon Stephen stood to give a sermon. Apparently types like Stephen were not allowed to express authority in the prior Jewish temple because the stir of hatred that occured from the congregation even before Stephen opened his mouth. The more Stephen preached, the greater their anger grew. This anger is perplexing because Stephen basically preached the same kind of sermon as Peter which was basically old testament scripture. The serious consequences of this violation in traditional authority led to Stephen being killed. Stephen wasn't a lion expressing authority but a lamb.
From the Deacon Stephen, another interesting paradox is revealed in Deacon Phillip. Phillip met up with a Eunoch who was so trusted that he was in charge of a great Queen's wealth. When approached by Phillip regarding verses in the bible, the Eunoch felt that he needed an authoritive brother to explain its meaning to him because of his born physical impairment. The Deacon Phillip proved this not to be the case.
Another paradox arose with the introduction of Saul. Saul did not want the highest position in God's Church, choosing instead to flee from being trained for such a responsibility. Saul would have been made to put himself under a simpleton for his transforming education. But God smited Saul blind and then led him to his Authoritive position where he became the chosen vessel Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul, the greatest of God's authority, then paradoxically declared himself to be an abortion from God.
So, God's authority went from the Apostle Peter, to the Deacon Stephen, to a useless Eunoch, to, finally, an abortion called the Apostle Paul.
It is indeed ironic that the Apostle Paul would be considered closer to God and Christ than even the Apostles who were with Christ when He was in the flesh.
I would cite all these verses but I really don't know that much about it. I just know that American politics is secular Christian and, so, is greatly effected by how authority is perceived in the Book of Acts.

Must Christians Follow The Teachings Of Jesus? (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/commandments.html)

[Kraig]

Secular christian = christian who follows the writings of Paul/Saul over or alongside the the words of Jesus Christ?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Secular christian = christian who follows the writings of Paul/Saul over or alongside the the words of Jesus Christ?

Yes, the Gospels were at best only questionable biographies about Christ. But Christ had four of them written about him. In comparison, the messages written as letters to the Churches by the Apostle Paul dealt more with the history that pertained to Christ's death and resurrection.
As astounding as it might seem, the Gospel wasn't documented by educated historians but hidden the hearts of uneducated slaves and delivered by them to the present in the oral tradition. It wasn't until 40 to 65 years after the death of Christ that such spoken words were finally written down. During this time, the Apostle Paul just wrote about what could be determined to be certain.

Secular seperates Chuch and state into religion and culture. While an atheist might not worship the religion, he and she would still share in the culture created by the religion.

[Kraig]

Well that makes sense, and nearly all of the Christians I have met are secular Christians!

[Truth Warrior]

Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well that makes sense, and nearly all of the Christians I have met are secular Christians!

The early Christians who embodied Christ were unique. First off, they were tresspassers in that they were mostly slaves who could not own property so that they could meet together. To solve this problem, the earliest members of the cult called "The Way" met under overturned fishing vessels. That is why a lot of Churches still take on the interior appearance of an overturned fishing vessel. As these slaves met together to worship Christ, watchmen had to be posted outside as guards. This protection was needed because any Christian caught worshipping Christ was sentenced by Roman law to suffer the same fate as the false prophet they worshipped -- in this case, Jesus Christ.
The second unique aspect about the Christian Founders was how they kept the history of Christ in their hearts. It was against Jewish law for Christ or His disciples to write down anything discussed not pertaining to the old testament. This is why Christ was allowed to speak His Gospel so freely to the lowly Gentiles.
Ironically, the first individuals Christ appeared to after his resurrection were the seven lowly women in whom He preached to in the flesh (If one believes the Book of Revelation). These women were then sent out by Christ to gather up the apostles, the disciples who were now scattered about as Christ's lost sheep, to reestablish them as their head.
So, the history of Christ was kept not by rich, intelligent scholars but by poor, unintelligent slaves.
As Saul had to be trained to rule from a high position in the Jewish temple, he later as the Aposlte Paul had to be transformed to rule from a lowly position in the Church.

[tnvoter]

Let's not be condescending at all about someone's personal faith and beliefs while discussing them K?

At least follow the Golden Rule if you don't have the decency to be respectful. Thanks

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Must Christians Follow The Teachings Of Jesus? (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/commandments.html)

One calls a member a Christian when they worship Christ's authority in faith; while, one calls a member a Catholic when they choose to continue to religiously worship the Pope's authority. One of the failures in the "religion versus science / atheist" argument is the failure of those who side with science / atheism to differentiate between what is the Catholic religion, those who still follow the legal-precedent rituals established by the authority of the Pope and the Vatican, and the protestant faith, those who instead follow the Civil-Purpose established by the authority of Christ in the Holy scripture.

[Truth Warrior]

One calls a member a Christian when they worship Christ's authority in faith; while, one calls a member a Catholic when they choose to continue to religiously worship the Pope's authority. One of the failures in the "religion versus science / atheist" argument is the failure of those who side with science / atheism to differentiate between what is the Catholic religion, those who still follow the legal-precedent rituals established by the authority of the Pope and the Vatican, and the protestant faith, those who instead follow the Civil-Purpose established by the authority of Christ in the Holy scripture. I'll just take that as an answer of "NO", from you too.

Thanks!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'll just take that as an answer of "NO", from you too.

Thanks!

Whether Americans claim to be Christian or atheist, they are still secularized as Christian in their culture. The only way to rebel against behaving and acting out the part of ones existing culture is to religiously follow rituals that counter it much like the atheist Constantine did when he created a new religion in oder so that he could avoid stooping to convert into the existing faith already held by lowly Christian scum and slaves.