Voice of the Kingfisher speaks out …from a different perspective
by Elinor Montgomery
March 07, 2013
Perhaps one of the saddest things to watch is men and women of average or above average intelligence, as renowned media commentators, trying to fashion themselves as Bible experts. The list of names is endless, running the gamut all the way from the former anchor man, Peter Jennings, to Dr. Charles McVety of Canada Christian College – yes, even our college professors of theology who really have very little concept of the depths of the Book of which they profess to have expert knowledge.
The main thrust of the arguments of each and every one of them is based on a lack of understanding concerning the nature of religion, where it comes from, and the fact that God has zero tolerance for it. They will all claim that God is the God of their denomination of Christianity, no matter which one it is, while, in fact, God hates religion of all sorts. However, God will use religion in order to bring chastisement to His people who are called to be sons and daughters of the truth; for their Father is the God of truth, whereas Satan is the father of the lies of religion, the belief systems, and of liberalism from the truth of God.
Three times in the Bible, God is declared to be the God of truth (see Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 31:5 and Isaiah 65:16). Never, no, not once, does He declare Himself to be the God of religion, nor would Jesus ever call His church a Christian church. In fact, His first commandment requires that His people shall have no other gods before Him, including Allah, Mohammed, the Pope and all other religious potentates and symbols of religious worship, to which God attaches the label of idols. The religious, Judaic crew of Jesus’ day lay claim to God and the Scriptures, just as religious Christianity does today, yet Jesus declared of the Judaic Pharisees that their father was the devil (see John 8:44), and that they, themselves, were a brood of vipers (see Matthew 12:34; Matthew 23:33).
I wonder how He would describe our tolerant, compromising Christians today who willingly tolerate the legalized protection of homosexual special rights, abortion and the acceptance of all kinds of unions outside of marriage as a basis for family law. Perhaps, the worst tolerance of all is found in their willingness to join in the movement for ecumenicalism within the various, religious, church organizations, which leads to the unity of religions at the expense of Jesus and the cross.
One quickly discovers that this new tolerance will permeate all discussions of the Bible by the so-called, intellectually elite of religion and the self-established authorities on religion, treating the understanding of the Bible from a point of view, which is flawed by lack of understanding about who God really is as the God of truth and who man thinks He is as a God of religion. In fact, He called His people to separation from the religious nations, requiring them to have no part in the religions of this world. They belonged to the gentile nations, with Romanism coming straight from the Babylonian system of empires.
It is my strong advice to these religious men who step before the cameras to make their case for religion and a Jesus they call the Author of their Christian faith, to carefully study the book of Job. He was Elihu, a type of Jesus, who set the record straight for Job, and not his three critics. He led Job straight to the throne of God, where Job gained the understanding, which God wanted to impart to him. Eliphaz the Temanite felt it his duty to pray for Job, but God’s wrath was aroused against Job’s three critics; for they had not spoken that which was right concerning Job, and the nature of sin. He was Job, who needed to pray for them, the types of the three priesthoods claiming God – the Levitic, the Judaic and the Christian priesthood.
God’s first command in Genesis is with respect to the nature of marriage and the fruitfulness of it. How does Commentator, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, justify his stand on homosexual rights, something he calls equal rights, which, in fact, are nothing more than special rights for making this sin, outlined in the Bible, a protected act by law in a country under God? As the Word made flesh, Jesus would never support any notion whatsoever that homosexuality is an acceptable practice in God’s eyes, nor would He ever suggest that it is possible to have a marriage between two men, totally unable to be fruitful and multiply, as was God’s intention for the institution of marriage. They can call such a relationship whatever they will, but one thing is for sure – there will never be a marriage between two men.
The hand of God is over the womb; only He is able to open and close it at His choosing, whether within or outside of marriage, for the sake of serving His divine purposes. God’s second command is to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This leads to sin, which will allow the spiritual waters of religion that flow from Satan to flow back over the people, filling them with the spirit of death. It was God’s plan for truth to reign in the Garden, with man having the Spirit of life and truth breathed into him, making him a living being in the image of God. And so began the separation of God from man, now doomed to die in his own sin.
Was the first act of God at creation not to bring forth the Spirit of life in light (Jesus is the Light of the world and the truth and the life), and then move to His second act of creation, whereby He separated the waters from above from the water beneath, dividing the earth from the sea in order to create dust of the dry land, in which there was no spirit of any sort? With this substance, redemption began as His Spirit of life was breathed into the dust to create a living human being. Without the Spirit of life, there can be no man.
So, the creation of the firmament or heaven took place on the second day from which the Spirit of life flowed while, on the third day, the earth was created to provide the substance for food, good fruit and good, seed-bearing herbs, each according to its kind – the creative plan of separation of the good from the bad, the life-giving from the dead and the light from the darkness. In other words, creation began with redemption of that which had already fallen into a state of darkness. Creation was an act of redemption from the beginning, which began to take shape within three days.
My question to Mr. O’Reilly and to Dr. McVety is whether or not they have any understanding of this and whether or not they actually understand the difference between religion and truth and the very different sources for them. Do they base their arguments on religion or truth, for the two are not compatible? It is my firm belief that neither man knows the difference, or they would not remain within religious systems under Satan, calling themselves Christians, and at the same time claiming to know Jesus, who never applied such a term to His church. He would never leave it to the Babylonian system to give a name to His church, a mocking one at that, which came out of Antioch.
In O’Reilly’s forth-coming book, Killing Jesus, will he try to make Jesus into the Son of a god of religion? If he tags Jesus with the label of religion, he most certainly will reveal the folly of his thinking, which would be totally at odds with Scripture. My guess is it will be a shallow, flawed concept of what Scripture really has to say about Jesus, beginning back in Genesis and not with the New Testament. After all, if Jesus is the Word made flesh, does that deny or affirm the Word of God as given in the Old Testament long before the birth of Jesus or the cross, as the prophecy of things to come?
Does either O’Reilly or McVety truly understand the enormous amount of prophecy embedded in Scripture as they sit down before the cameras in the public eye to debate the pros and cons of the Bible? Without deep, biblical understanding, which only the Lord, Himself, and not men, can impart, then neither man is ever likely to be a voice for the truth of Jesus Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture. Interpretation can never be more shallow than when the Bible is viewed as just a collection of nice stories, meant to be good for the soul.
So, to O’Reilly, I say, “Be very careful of whom you call a liar, for it just might be possible that you, too, could be presenting lies in your book, Killing Jesus!” Is it possible O’Reilly will be caught in his own folly, like a goat on the left and not really one of the sheep on the right who knows and hears his Shepherd’s voice? Unless he knows His voice, he should think twice about telling others who Jesus really is and who they really were who killed Him. Pride goes before a fall, and it is most definitely possible that the spin stops right there – at the feet of pride.