Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/20/2025 7:01:45 AM PDT by Rev M. Bresciani
“When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.” (Acts 7: 54) These words were transcribed and written by Luke, a follower of Jesus, who recounted in the New Testament Book of Acts the accusations against Stephen, and the stoning of Stephen. The “things” they heard were words sharply critical of the listeners who had heard Jesus preach but had rejected both Jesus’ preaching and Jesus himself.
David Guzik, in his commentary on the Holy Bible tells the readers, “Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people: God did great wonders and signs through the apostles; but also through others like Stephen, one of the servants chosen to help the widows. God used Stephen because he was full of faith and power.”
Similarly, Charlie Kirk was not an ordained minister of the Gospel, nor was he an elected official holding a national or even local office. Nevertheless, Kirk was able to challenge and put to shame voices in opposition to the conservative, Christian worldview in a unique, forceful, uncompromising, informed, logical, and good-humored way.
The key element in Charlie’s success is that he introduced a crucial spiritual dimension to the political discussion. The differences of opinion in the political arena were not only differences between Democrats and Republicans, between the “woke” and the “unwoke,” between the Left and the Right, between illegals and citizens, between the law abiding and the non-law abiding, between those who believed in the traditional family and those who advocated for alternative forms of “family” or for shacking up, between those who valued college education
and those who believed it was overrated and too expensive, and even between those who believed in God and those who did not.
(Excerpt) Read more at new.americanprophet.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Does anyone know if the phoenix event tomorrow is a funeral or memorial service or both? Who did the autopsy(s)?
I have thought this from the first that I heard of the assassination, but I was wondering why no one else seemed to see it; now I know I’m not alone in my recognizing Kirk as the modern day Stephen, and the reaction (the faithful bury him with great lamentation, and the opposition ramps up its violence against the people of faith).
John 12:23.......and CHARLIE died at 12:23.
Agree with this. Some have compared him to Paul. I consider him a Stephen.
Paul started as a persecutor before converting;Stephen is a more correct comparison to Charlie.
..between reason and irrationality, between truth and lies, between good and evil, between life and death.
Stephen and Charlie were both martyrs.
But Stephen was executed under the authority of the Sanhedrin in which some Biblical commentary suggest may have included Saul of Tarsus.
A formal execution in which Stephen was stoned to death by many.
Stephen’s execution occurred not long after the first coming of Christ.
Charlie’s execution occurred near the end of that period of the first coming of Christ and probably very close to the second coming of Christ.
Some might argue Charlie’s execution reflected an End Time event.
St. Stephen immediately came to my mind as well. I came across a few YouTube videos too setting our current cultural context in the Book of Acts...
Before every revival, there was a riot. It’s a pattern.
My pastor did a sermon on Stephen on Sunday.
Let’s pray Christianity spreads as a result of Kirks assassination.
I thought he was a Paul.
I’m getting confused.
I’m not looking at these events in support of any doctrines, but the name Charlie itself certainly is interesting in its time, worth the thread I posed about that.
But as for Stephen, a distinct correlation is that the members of the “court” had already decided what they thought of him. They already knew from whomever, or by whatever settled dogma he didn’t follow.
His speech fell on deaf ears, that is until they picked up that he was talking about them.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned in the commentaries (maybe it’s out there, but I haven’t run across it), is this perspective for *why* he was saying some really odd stuff, such as 75 souls went into Egypt, versus 70, or that Abraham’s purchase was in Shechem (place of Joseph’s tomb), when it’s in Hebron, sold to him by Ephron the Hittite.
Lots of stuff from the skepics though re this passage, about how the NT is obviously full of lies, as in what more evidence do you need type of thing. What brazen falsehoods, easily debunked.
If the court were paying the least bit of attention, somebody would have stopped him in his tracks, you think? Wut?! This guy’s a raving lunatic. ‘Nuf said..
Yet?
Seems to me like when a mother, say, wants to check that little Johnny is paying attention to her instructions about putting the casserole in the oven before she can get home from work...
“At 4 o’clock, set the oven to 350 degrees, then make sure to put the salad bowl in there when the oven is preheated, and set the timer for 6 hours.”
This is a fantastic article. Thanks for posting it. It clearly explains why the left assassinated him.
I saw many clips of Charlie engaging young people in debate and persuading them, but I never realized the Christian underpinnings of his life until after his assassination. I never appreciated that he was evangelizing as much as promoting a moral society.
That aspect of him was never really exposed to the casual observer like me. It was probably intentionally suppressed.
“When I heard the tragic news, I said, ‘I wonder who he was.’ And then all of a sudden, this overwhelming, this overwhelming sense of sorrow and kind of renewal.”“And I thought, I gotta learn about this guy. And the more I learned about him, I thought, this guy's a modern day Saint Paul. He was a missionary, he's an evangelist, he's a hero.”
“He's one that knew what Jesus meant when he said, the truth will set you free. And to do it, Now, I understand he was pretty blunt and he was pretty direct. He didn't try to avoid any controversy. He didn't even try to avoid confrontation. The difference is the way, the mode, the style that he did it, always with respect.”
Moses was a Jesus. But not to worry, so was Joseph, and Joshua, John the B.
I surrender!
Paul was sent to the gentiles, or what we might label as irreligous.
Steven was speaking to people steeped in religous practice.
Steven chastised the religous people for not believing a God they claimed to know.
Paul’s message was different. I know that in his epistles he wojld come down hard on his audience when he needed to. But that was because they were nit doing what they knew to be right.
I see Charlie more like I see Paul reaching out mercifully to the lost.
And Stephen’s death - murder/stoning as a martyr. Paul didn’t die young, AFAIK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.