Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: What Separation of Church and State?
Source: Various
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 22, 2006
Author: richard9151
Post Date: 2006-09-22 15:34:42 by richard9151
Keywords: Christian
Views: 1407
Comments: 31

What Separation of Church and State

Good day. My name is Richard, and I am a Christian. I am about fifty years old, and I was raised in Montana, where I spent roughly the first forty-one years of my life. I have been in Mexico for nearly nine years now, and I like it here, a lot. I like the people, the language, and the food.

Please, I ask of you that if you are angry about something that I write, please be specific about the perceived problem. Most of what I send out will be based on facts, laws, statutes, legal definitions, government documents and the like. Just because you do not like something does not mean that it is incorrect, so if you have a problem with something, quote me chapter and verse detailing why I am wrong. And I have been wrong, and blessings to the people who helped me to learn and correct my errors!

The Separation of Church and State within the United States is an illusion. And no one says anything about it. Ever wonder why? (For reference, see Fascism.)

1) Nearly 99% of the so-called Christian churches are corporations, which places them in commerce. This is required by the hierarchy of such churches (not by the congregations).

2) More than 99% of the ministers serving in such churches are licensed by the government. This is required by the hierarchy of such churches (not by the congregations). In Black’s Law Dictionary, License; a personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein,….. The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal… Privilege; A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, …..

In other words, by working with the government (see Fascism), and accepting licensing for their so-called ministers and by incorporating, the various churches have attained a monopoly on the Word of God. I don’t think so! Of course, you may learn even more by looking up the other words contained in this definition, IN A LEGAL DICTIONARY. Also, you should note the difference between a RIGHT and a privilege; a RIGHT exists, and a privilege is created by man. And no one can create a privilege without having first taken some RIGHT from another man. If you are confused about the issue of RIGHTS, please refer to the Declaration of Independence.

3) 100% of all marriages performed in corporate churches using licensed ministers are marriages performed with a marriage licensed issued by the government. The ‘licensed’ ministers are not permitted to perform marriages without the state issued marriage licenses, and such marriages are solemnized thus: by the authority granted me by the State of New York (or whatever State), I now pronounce you man and wife. Stop and think, does that sound like a Christian marriage!?

Marriage License; page 973, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry,…..

Intermarriage; page 815, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, See Miscegenation.

Miscegenation; page 999, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Mixture of races.

(I am going to say this only one time; do not write a response to this post claiming that the marriage license now means something different! The above is the legal definition currently in use within the courts of the United States. NO OTHER DEFINITION CAN DEFEAT THIS DEFINITION WITHIN THOSE COURTS.)

A marriage license is signed by the parties to the marriage, i.e., the man, the woman, and an agent for the state, and thus is attested to and becomes a three-party contract. This gives the state the same rights within the marriage as the husband and wife, including to the issue (children) of the marriage, and the wealth accumulated within the marriage. Have any more questions about taxation? Or, about excluding homosexuals from a marriage solemnized under a marriage license?

Marriage Certificate; page 973, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, An instrument which certifies a marriage and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.

Marriage certificates are what are used in actual Christian churches, and I have seen such upheld in many situations. Including military personal who present such as evidence of marriage to obtain benefits from the military for their wife. It is accepted throughout the United States. Just the fact that it is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is enough to understand that it is acceptable. Then why do the corporate churches only perform marriages with a marriage license? It is important to note that marriage certificates are not designed to be signed by the man and wife, thus it is not a contract within the legal definitions of man, which certainly puts it into a completely different Lawful context.

After having watched quite a few of the Separation of Church and State groups for some time, I am amazed at how little information comes across them, and if there is information sent out to these groups, it is always about something to sell or with something supposedly bad about Christians, or something bad about the Bible, or both! And yet, how many of those writing such have ever read the Bible, much less studied it? And how many of those complaining about Christians have any idea as to exactly what a Christian actually is?

A Christian should, as all men should, follow a very good rule about men; a man is known by his actions, and not by his words, as all men are liars. It is a prime rule of life, and works very well with another rule; follow the money.

When a harlot appears on TV, fishing for money, i.e., donations, and says that he is a Christian, what would lead someone to believe that? Because the harlot said it? Does that make any sense? How many such must be exposed before people begin to catch on? Observe the actions of such men, as this is how they are always exposed, and I am sure you can remember any number of such exposures. But such men have stolen millions of dollars through their TV empires, and as soon as they are gone, another arises to take their place, and the entire charade begins again. Of course, there are many more such harlots operating within the incorporated churches and who style themselves, and their churches, as Christian as well.

Don’t you ever wonder why such men, and their incorporated churches, never have problems with the IRS and the government? Perhaps the following may give you some insight into what is going on. As you read this, please be sure to remember that there will be a post on Fascism coming soon.

How the IRS controls Christian Churches;

http://www.texemarrs.com/121998/35.htm

Does the IRS hate the Gospel and despise Bible-believing Christians? Has the IRS become a police-state agency that regularly persecutes churches, pastors, and ministries that still believe in old-fashioned patriotism? Listed below are 35 things the IRS contends are prohibited of churches and ministries. A pastor or ministry leader who violates the guidelines of the IRS on these 35 prohibitions can have his church or group's tax exemption revoked and be dealt with harshly by the IRS.

These 35 prohibitions on churches and ministries demonstrate how the IRS and the federal government now control churches and insure politically and religiously "correct" behavior. Liberal Christian churches and false religions such as Hunduism, Witchcraft, and Scientology are not affected by these rules--only Bible-believing, Christian ministries and churches. Also, keep in mind: These 35 things are not prohibited by law nor by the Constitution. The IRS considers itself above the law and the Constitution.

According to the IRS, Christian churches, ministries, and organizations may not:

1. Expose conspiracies.

2. Criticize the New World Order.

3. Say or publish anything negative about any politician, Republican or Democrat.

4. Criticize government agencies and bureaus--the IRS, FBI, BATF, CIA, EPA, DEA, OSHA, DOJ, etc.

5. Criticize an institution of government such as the White House, the Congress, the Federal Reserve Board, or the Supreme Court.

6. Encourage citizens to call or write their congressman, senator, governor, mayor, or other public official.

7. Criticize any proposed or pending bill or legislation that would take away the rights and freedoms of the people.

8. Make disparaging remarks about, or criticize, any other faith group, cult, or religion.

9. Expose or criticize the New Age Movement.

10. Support or encourage a law-abiding citizen's militia.

11. Support or encourage the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

12. Discourage young women from getting an abortion, or endorse the pro-life movement.

13. Teach that abortion, especially partial birth abortion, is murder and is the killing of innocent babies.

14. Identify homosexuality as a sin and an abomination to God.

15. Express an opinion on any subject or issue.

16. Appeal to peoples' emotions by employing an evangelization method (such as "fire and brimstone" preaching) not considered a "reasoned approach" by the IRS.

17. Discuss or identify threats to Christianity.

18. Discuss subjects or topics the IRS deems "sensationalist."

19. Criticize well-known public figures or institutions the IRS deems "worthy", such as the super-rich elite, international bankers, the Hollywood movie industry, etc.

20. Publish or broadcast information on any topic without giving credence to the opposing viewpoints of Christ's enemies.

21. Publish and offer books, tapes, or products that expose the elitist plot against humanity and God.

22. Criticize the Pope or the Vatican, or contrast the New Catholic Catechism with the truths found in the Holy Bible. (Note: only liberal churches are permitted by the IRS to criticize the Catholic Church).

23. Criticize the United Nations or such globalist groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission.

24. Criticize the Masonic Lodge, the Order of Skull & Bones, or other Secret societies.

25. Highlight or otherwise bring attention to immorality of public officials or corruption in government.

26. Complain of government wrongdoing or injustice, such as happened at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and elsewhere.

27. Criticize the Jewish ADL or other Jewish lobby groups.

28. Say anything positive about the "religious right" or the "patriot movement."

29. Support home schooling, home churches, or unregistered churches.

30. Spend money on missionary projects or charitable causes not approved by the IRS.

31. Promote or encourage alternative healthcare (herbs, vitamins, etc.).

32. Expose false teachings of any kind by anyone.

33. Support or encourage persecuted Christians suffering under anti-Christian regimes in Red China, Cuba, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and elsewhere.

34. Ordain a pastor whose training or qualifications are not approved by the IRS.

35. Advocate or teach any Bible doctrine that is politically or religiously incorrect, or is inconsistent with any "public policy" (abortion, feminism, gay rights, etc.) currently being enforced by the IRS.

Interesting, isn´t it. When you read the information on this page of the Texe Marrs site, remember that it is true. However, because I have used this information from this site to illustrate a point does not mean that I endorse the Texe Marrs ministry, or that much else that is talked about on this site is true. To verify this information, you can type BIBLE AND THE IRS into any Internet search engine (I used dogpile), and you will be led to quite a number of similar sites with more or less identical information. And, you can find a number of sites, which detail how churches have been stripped of their real estate by the IRS, and it is always for violating the rules posted above. Generally, the IRS will claim that the church in question had not paid their taxes, but that was because they had their tax-exempt status removed for violating these rules.

There are a number of interesting considerations to make note of here. First off, a man of God does not seek a tax exemption from the government: to make such a request is actually requesting to enter into commerce, and places the man and his ministry directly under control of the government. So what Texe Marrs is complaining of here makes no sense. If a so-called church wishes to engage in commerce, then it is properly under the control of the government, in whatever form of control the government wishes to exert. And given that a tax exemption was requested, then the proper agency of control is the IRS. After all, the church directly requested such control.

That being said, please note the form of the control, and read the 35 prohibited actions very carefully, for those 35 prohibitions reveal very thoroughly the intentions of the government behind the IRS. Actually, you will, if you read and study this Post carefully, have an insight into the thoughts and actions of the Internationalists who control the United States government, and a beginning understanding as to how to identify those who claim to be Christians, and are not. Understanding is the first step necessary in correcting evil, and if you are confused as to what you see going on around you, then you are not capable of making informed decisions. Neither are you capable, when you are in a state of confusion, in correctly deciding who you should be associating with, donating to, or generally supporting.

“ministries that still believe in old-fashioned patriotism?” This is a quote from this page of the Texe Marrs site, and makes one wonder as to just how important is the Bible to such men? I have to conclude, after reading this site, that the Bible is simply another tool to be used in generating donations. In the Bible, we are told that the governments of man are raised up by God to punish evil does, unbelievers, and the wicked. And any study of history will show that this is absolutely true.

The problem with men such as Texe Marrs is that they have no real understanding of the Constitution and the United States government, and instead of listening to the Bible, they follow the traditions of men. This is condemned in the Bible.

We are told not to oppose the governments of men, because they have been raised up by God for His purposes…. to punish evil does, unbelievers, and the wicked. Why are we not to oppose such governments? Because of isometrics.

Isometric exercises teach us that opposition builds strength. If you wish the government that you think is evil or in error to grow in strength, simply oppose it. Evil men have understood this principle for thousands of years, and have used it endlessly in order to cement their own positions of power into place. They do this by simply creating a backlash against their control by a minority of the people, or, much more effectively, creating a situation where the people rush, supposedly, to the defense of the nation.

Two recent examples of this, leading to new draconian laws, were the Reichstag fire in Germany, which finalized Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, and the Oklahoma City bombing and 911 within the United States, which lead to the so-called Patriot Act. History has revealed that it was Hitler, or at least his ‘friends’, who were behind the Reichstag fire. No one has produced iron clad proof concerning the two events within the United States, but there has certainly been enough good questions raised for which there appear to be no answers to raise serious doubts about the official versions about either the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Twin Towers attack. (Of course, as we all understand, the proof of the twin towers attack is now available in most all locations – but this post was written more than two years ago.)

There is nothing in the Bible that instructs a Christian in patriotism to a creation of man, such as a government. There is also nothing within the Bible, which instructs a Christian about participating within the governments of man. In fact, nearly 60% of the Bible is instruction on God’s government on earth, which is alive and quite well, thank you. And I assure you, there is no preaching permitted from this part of the Bible within the corporation churches of the state!

Frankly, I do not care what the United States government does. It has no effect on me. I do not eat the garbage sold as food within the United States (coming soon, a post on what constitutes food), I do not participate in Social Security (coming soon, a post on Social Security), and my friends do not send their children to so-called public schools. We do not serve in the military (we would if a direct attack was made upon America), and we certainly do not vote!

God’s government on earth is based on the family. If you understand this, then the continual attacks against the family by the United States government over the last sixty years begins to make sense. The Republic of America was based on this government of God, but that was a far different system than what is taught in the government controlled schools of today, and far, far different from what Americans think they know about what constitutes a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, today. Stay tuned for more, and do not be afraid to ask questions! God Bless, Richard

The following was sent to me after the first limited posting of ''What Separation of Church and State''. The information came from Brother Gregory, and covers much that I missed. It is certainly interesting, and you should wonder how this ties into Fascism, and how the state uses the churches to cement its control of the nation. Richard

“Churches have not only bound themselves unnecessarily, they have neglected the daily ministration of the people and delivered them back into the snares and bondage of rulers and despots which Abraham, Moses and Jesus led men out of.

Churches regularly fill out (a form) 1023 and apply for a status with the government called 501C3. Lawyers tell them they have to do this despite that the Internal Revenue states that, "The following organizations will be considered tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) even if they do not file Form 1023: (a) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,...".

Where do they state this? In the instructions of course: "Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code," under "Purpose of Form," section "2. Organizations not Required to file Form 1023. -Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.

This of course is not the only place that Churches are told that they do not have to apply.

Many have told me that if you are not a 501(c)(3) church you cannot deduct your contributions. For those who believe that to be true you should know that, in the Department of the Treasury, I.R.S., Pub. 557 Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, Chap. 3, Page 14, we find; "Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions, such an organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption." (This is exactly what I was speaking of before; in essence, the churches have requested to enter into commerce. – Richard)

So, contributions are deductible if you do not file. Yet many churches do file. Why? What are the advantages that they may find under a 501(c)(3) status?

"Advantages and Disadvantages of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3)." "The main advantage to classification under .501(c)(3) is that the organization is generally spared federal taxation of its income." according to the Detailed Analysis, Tax Management Inc. a subsidiary of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 464-2nd, A -1

The use of the words 'generally spared' should make it clear that any 'organization' granted or permitted exemption under 501(c)(3) is spared not because of its nature or right but because of its 'classification.' Probably the most important word to note is the word 'under.'

Again if we look at the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Instructions for form 1023, section 2, we see; "Even if these organizations are not required to file form 1023 to be tax-exempt, they may wish to file form 1023 and receive a determination letter of IRS recognition of their section 501(c)(3) status to obtain certain incidental benefits such as public recognition of their tax exempt status; exemptions from certain state taxes; advance assurance to donors of deductibility of contributions; from certain Federal excise taxes; nonprofit mailing privileges, etc."

How is it an advantage to exchange a God given mandatory exemption as Christ's Holy Church for a classification as an organization, which is only generally spared taxation?

So, what are the disadvantages?

According to the same Detailed Analysis, "The disadvantages of exemption under 501(c)(3) stem from the strict operational restrictions." A church or a religion is exempt, in the sense that it is not taxed or regulated, because the government has no power, granted by the document that created it, to make rules to the contrary. Do you want to be merely spared a tax although your operations will be strictly restricted under the administrative rule of 501(c)(3) regulations and authority?

There is far more to all this including a look at incorporation by the state of a Church which is really the waiver of rights of the Church granted by Christ in exchange for commercial benefits offered by the state. . See The Body of Christ Vs. The Body of the State and other links concerning the formation of a free Church. Http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/bvb.htm

Peace on your house Gregory@hisholychurch.net Join the Kingdom News List http://www.hisholychurch.net/subscribe.html Discussion and News lists including the Kingdom News. http://www.hisholychurch.net/emaillst.asp

I have always understood that it was not necessary to register a church to make that church tax deductible; in fact, I have always understood that the very act of registering such a church would end it’s RIGHT to be tax deductible, and instead make that church depend upon a PRIVILEGE. But I did not have the details available that Brother Gregory was so gracious to share with us.

There is another aspect to this, and it is one of supreme importance… at least, it is to me. If you are a Christian, and I realize that many on these lists are not, then you understand the same as I do, and you know that there will come a day when you stand before God for Judgment. You are required by His Law to seek out the Truth, and you are required to change accordingly when you discover what it is that you are required to do.

If you are attending a 501(c)(3) church, accepting marriage with a state issued marriage license, and listening to a state licensed minister preach the Word of God, then you are the one who will have to face judgment for that sin. You are compounding this sin when you donate money to such an organization, cherish the tax deduction, and teach your children and all others you know, by your example, to do the same as you.

I was raised as a Catholic. I got over it, and so can you. And if you actually accept God, then you must get over practicing religion (a work of man), or risk having your name stricken from His Book. This is your responsibility, just as it was mine. Now, it matters not to me how you accept this responsibility. It causes me no harm if you refute everything in your own mind, for the responsibility is yours. MY responsibility was to see to it that you have access to the CORRECT information. Once you have this information, what you do with it becomes much more important, TO YOU, from that day on. The Bible is REAL big on personal responsibility. God Bless, Richard

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: richard9151 (#0)

"Of course not Sister. Everyone knows Moses was the greatest man who ever lived. But business is business!"


I hate it when they ain't been shaved.

Tauzero  posted on  2006-09-22   15:48:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: richard9151 (#0)

I was raised as a Catholic. I got over it, and so can you. And if you actually accept God, then you must get over practicing religion (a work of man), or risk having your name stricken from His Book.

The basic doctrine of the Catholic church is the same as most of the Protestant denominations. The important tenets are believed by Catholics and Protestants alike: that Christ is God Incarnate, the existence of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, and the virgin birth.

That organized religion has its problems is obvious.

Not sure what your point is about the marriage license.

Maybe churches should pay taxes, like a corporation; well except most corporations don't pay any tax.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-22   15:52:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: richard9151 (#0)

Also, you should note the difference between a RIGHT and a privilege; a RIGHT exists, and a privilege is created by man. And no one can create a privilege without having first taken some RIGHT from another man. If you are confused about the issue of RIGHTS, please refer to the Declaration of Independence.

There is no difference between a Right and a Privilege.

Everyone of the "rights" we supposedly have are "privileges" when putsch comes to shove, my friend. Even the right to breath.

the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2006-09-22   16:32:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: richard9151 (#0)

According to the IRS, Christian churches, ministries, and organizations may not:

Discourage young women from getting an abortion, or endorse the pro-life movement.

Teach that abortion, especially partial birth abortion, is murder and is the killing of innocent babies.

14. Identify homosexuality as a sin and an abomination to God.

22. Criticize the Pope or the Vatican, or contrast the New Catholic Catechism with the truths found in the Holy Bible. (Note: only liberal churches are permitted by the IRS to criticize the Catholic Church).

24. Criticize the Masonic Lodge, the Order of Skull & Bones, or other Secret societies.

25. Highlight or otherwise bring attention to immorality of public officials or corruption in government.

The claims you make are just plain incorrect and have no basis in fact. You are spouting crap and hope people will swallow it without noticing the smell. Thanks but no thanks.

How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments. Benjamin Franklin

Fibr Dog  posted on  2006-09-22   16:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: robin (#2)

basic doctrine of the Catholic church is the same as most of the Protestant denominations

Robin; you need to read Revelations, and pay close attention to the Whore who sits on seven hills and her spiritual daughters;

The “Harlot” of Revelation http://www.cog21.org/j12.htm (You can find similiar info in many locations on the web)

The Apostle John says, “And the ten horns are ten kings [who will] receive their power and authority for one hour as kings with the BEAST. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority [in a “federal” system] to the BEAST…. The waters which you saw, where the HARLOT sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues. And the ten horns which you saw on the BEAST, these will [eventually] hate the HARLOT, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For GOD has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the BEAST, until the words of God are fulfilled. And the WOMAN whom you saw is that GREAT CITY [Rome]” (Rev. 17:12-18).

What will happen to the Head of this religious organization, a “UNIVERSAL CHURCH”? And what will happen to the political LEADER, the “man,” who will be the Head of the political organization, which is also called the “BEAST”? John tells us that the “ten kings” will give their power and authority unto this MAN (the “BEAST”), and that their “armies” will war against Christ at His Coming (Rev. 19:11-19). “And the BEAST was captured, and with him the FALSE PROPHET who worked signs [“miracles” KJV] in his presence…. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the [“white”] horse” (vv. 20-21). The outcome of that battle is described in much greater detail in Zechariah 14:1-15!

Biblical prophecy reveals that the global power of the “LITTLE HORN” (the Papacy, Daniel 7), will be exercised by the Head of the Universal Church, the “WOMAN” of Revelation 17, who will sit astride the “BEAST” controlling the wild Beast she is riding, the seventh head of the revived Roman Empire. That Beast will make its final bid to rule the entire world! All of this will bring about World War III, which will devastate many nations, and will culminate in the destruction of the power of the English-speaking nations and the democracies of Northwest Europe.

After you read this, I suggest you look up the post I made titled Simon Magus, who was the real founder of the Roman Catholic (catholic simply means universal) church. This is kind of an important subject. Richard

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   19:22:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: bluedogtxn (#3)

Of course yu are correct; howsoever, I was speaking in a legal sense, as in laws and Constitutions and such. People are still under the illusion that the law matters within the United States.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   19:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: richard9151 (#5)

"Only the Father knows the hour"

I'm not going to speculate how to interpret the Book of Revelation.

Since all Christians were once a part of the Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox splitting off before the Protestants, it means all our spiritual forefathers Catholic. Yes, there have been disagreements. Too bad they weren't handled w/o the divisions.

I don't buy into the Catholic church is evil doctrine. I'll bet there are Zionists who would just love to sell that idea.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-22   19:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: robin (#7) (Edited)

I don't buy into the Catholic church is evil doctrine.

Before Vat II, the Catholic church was a prime target for the Bolskies due to the command and control structure...

“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"

Eoghan  posted on  2006-09-22   19:42:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Eoghan (#8)

And my Baptists were waylaid too by the same bunch, as the Scofield translation (especially the notes) demonstrates. But that doesn't make the entire religious organization evil.

I'm sure the Vatican has problems. So what's new? The church survived the Borgias, it will survive this too.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-22   19:49:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Fibr Dog (#4)

The claims you make are just plain incorrect and have no basis in fact.

Here are some sites that you may wish to visit and check out what I have to say.

http://www.texemarrs.com/111998/35.htm

http://indianamilitia.homestead.com/30_Ways_IRS.html

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37371

href="http://members.tripod.com/sword_of_the_spirit/id83.htm"> http://members.tripod.com/sword_of_the_spirit/id83.htm

href="http://www.remnantofgod.org/nm_temp_16fcff8.htm">http:// www.remnantofgod.org/nm_temp_16fcff8.htm

href="http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/Christian/PastorsOrdByIRS- ">http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/Christian/PastorsOrdByIRS- 021116.htm

Now, this may not be enough.... so just ask and I will send on another 8 or 12 or more, just so you can enjoy.

Oh, and speaking of posting crap... you say, in every post you make, the celebration of Christ´s birth...... I assume you mean December 25th. Well, that is fine, but.... no where in Scripture are we told of the day of the birth of Jesus Christ, but it is not important. Why? Because we are also taught in the Bible that conception is the beginning of life. In fact, to celebrate birth days is an abomination.

BUT:::::: to Whom is December 25th important? http://www.angelfire.co m/la/prophet1/worldr2.html Who Was Really Born On December 25? When Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, died, Semiramis told the people that her husband's spirit had taken possession of the sun. She encouraged the people to pay homage to her husband by worshipping the sun. Thus began the evil practice of sun worship. Later on when Semiramis gave birth to a son by the name of Tammuz, she hid her licentious form of living by lying to the people. She told them that she was miraculously overshadowed by the spirit of her dead husband, Nimrod, and it was in this way she was able to bring forth this so-called "son of god." Semiramis also declared that her son, Tammuz, was in actuality the return or rebirth of her husband, Nimrod. Hence through this teaching the doctrine of reincarnation was born. And since Tammuz was born on the day corresponding to December 25, this day was highly honored and recognized by Nimrod's supporters. Note, therefore, that this date (December 25) was observed in honor of the birth of Tammuz long before Christianity existed, and that it was not until many centuries later this pagan custom was "Christianized" as being the birthday of Christ (or Christmas day).

Now, I can show you the same info for Easter (named for Istar - whose worship for fertility included rabbits and eggs) and for every other so-called Christian Holy Day celebrated in the so-called protestant (spiritual daughters of Rome) churches. So do not ever tell me I post crap, because I can back it up. Oh, and by the way, if you must understand Benjamin Franklin, he was first and foremost, a Mason. And if you do not understand that, oh, well.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   19:51:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: robin (#9)

The church survived the Borgias, it will survive this too.

It did, but I don't attend anymore. I seen enough Judaism from the altar to fill a Fox News segment. I'm done with them...I can read and think for me self. ;)

“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"

Eoghan  posted on  2006-09-22   19:55:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: robin, richard9151 (#2)

This, I believe, is where Richard is going with the marriage licence issue and 50lc 3 churches.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far- reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.)

This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.

http://www.mercyseat.net)

christine  posted on  2006-09-22   19:59:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: robin (#7)

Since all Christians were once a part of the Catholic church,

Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute!!! Not even hardly! Robin, you need to do some reading! You are confused because you have only been exposed to history as recorded by those under the power of Rome! There was a whole great big world outside of the Roman lake known as the Med. For instance, what is the oldest Christian nation on the face of the earth? Oh, right, Palenstine, where Christ began His preaching, and the Apostles moved east and north from there, to find the other Tribes of Israel who had been taken into captivity. I will post the info on those Tribes tomorrow.

Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from the first post I did here, titled Simon Magus;

More About Simon Magus; THE FALSE religious system began very early -- almost with Pentecost in 31 A.D. Even in the earliest of Paul’s epistles, he informs us that "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (II Thess. 2:7). Paul wrote this in 50 or 51 A.D. The plot to supplant the Truth had already begun. In the later epistles of Paul and in those of the other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable momentum. However, even though the Apostles discuss the diabolical system which was arising, THEY NOWHERE MENTION HOW IT STARTED. They had no need in mentioning its beginning -- that had already been done!

The book of Acts is the KEY to the understanding of Christian beginnings. Not only does it show the commencement of the TRUE Church, but it equally reveals the origins of the False Church masquerading as Christianity. Indeed, you would think it odd if the book of Acts did not discuss this vital subject. ...

Simon Magus was the name of the man who founded the Roman Church called Universal (Catholic). IT WAS NOT PETER!!! He would never have been associated with such an abomination! I suggest that you read that post and follow the links within the post. PLEASE! Because please believe me, the Roman church is the very heart of evil in this world. You should also find the book, Two Babylons. Very informative. And if you do not do these things, you will never understand why so many things do not make sense!

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   20:05:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Eoghan (#11)

I seen enough Judaism from the altar

Et Tu, Brutus? Well said, and very, very true. But, since the holy book of the so-called Jews is the Babylonian Talmud, and since the roots of the Roman church is in the Mystery Religion of Babylon.... we should not be surprised at all.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   20:09:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: christine (#12)

I wouldn't want a church deciding the division of property in the case of a divorce. They are often messy enough w/o some entity that is clueless about the concept of civil law. And can you imagine how they would decide about any children? No objectivity, or at least, not enough.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-22   20:10:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: christine (#12)

Very, very good! Please, may I ask you to put this into a general post with whatever other info you may find that fits it and post to the general site? Thank you again! Richard

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   20:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: richard9151 (#6)

People are still under the illusion that the law matters within the United States.

not me. i know better. incidentally, i get your distinction between a right and a privilege.

we are born with unalienable rights bestowed by our Creator which cannot be taken from us. a privilege is granted by man as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage of one person or group over another.

christine  posted on  2006-09-22   20:17:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: richard9151 (#13)

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus said, "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Peter and Paul are all over the Book of Acts.

Sorry, I don't buy any of this history. I won't argue that the church has some problems, they ALL have problems.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-22   20:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: robin (#18)

and on this rock I will build my church

Robin, you should have already seen enough of my info to understand that I have some idea of what I am saying. The above refers to Jesus Christ; THAT is the rock! And this theme, that Jesus Christ is the Rock, is continued throughout Scripture;

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4).

For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, "Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:33)

Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.

To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,

Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He ispreciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-8)

This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)

There is an excellent explanation here;

http://members.aol.com/twarren 11/rock.html

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-22   20:42:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: richard9151 (#19)

Christ gave Simon the name Peter, "rock", in that moment.

What Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

A play on words.

If Christ was referring to Himself why would he start off with "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Why would He choose a name that means rock?

Yes, Christ is the cornerstone.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-22   20:50:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: richard9151 (#10)

I'm not in the market for snake oil, so I won't be buying today, thank you very much. You cannot produce any law backing the bilge you originally posted, nor can you produce news stories proving the claims you have made, nor can you show where anyone has been arrested or harrassed for doing the things you say Churches are not allowed to do. With one exception, the sites you produced do nothing more than restate your original post. As a matter of fact, with the exception of your beginning comments, your original post was really nothing more than a cut and paste from the sites you linked to. Although heavy on hyperbole, none of it proves your accusations. Giving me multiple sites making the same claim does not equate to proof that you know what you are talking about or that your claims are true. As for the other site, it does nothing more than list a new story that some cult wrote to the IRS to ask permission to pray for el Jorge. This must have something to do with Jorge being "sent by God" to save the United States, being that we are the new chosen ones and all (/sarcasm). How this proves anything on your list of hyperbole I have no idea.

As to your so-called theology, I am uninterested in what you or the fifty year old cult you belong to have to say about the Bible, as your truth is no more valid than any other of the 38000 plus Protestant denominations found throughout the world, each claiming to have the truth and each claiming the other is going to hell.

You worship in your way and I'll worship in mine and we'll find out who's right at the time of our death.

How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments. Benjamin Franklin

Fibr Dog  posted on  2006-09-22   21:27:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: richard9151 (#19)

I saw this explained at http://cuttingedge.org a few years back. Can't find the original, here's a version from an article sure to raise some hackles.

"...Catholic theologians teach that the Four Gospels were written originally in Aramaic, and only later in Greek. This argument would make Aramaic the original -- hence, more authoritative -- language. Thus, when you read Matthew 16:13-19 in Aramaic, the distinctions between the two different types of "rock" to which Jesus refers disappears. According to Catholic doctrine, Jesus established His Church upon the rock of Peter, thus making him the first pope.

However, the Greek language will not allow this interpretation. Let us quickly review this passage.

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Matt 16:15-18]

The word "Peter" in the Greek is Strong's # 4074, meaning "a rock or a stone" - "Petros". However, Jesus said He would build His Church upon a different rock, Strong's # 4073, "petra", a much larger rock. Thus, Jesus is basing His Church upon the huge boulder of Peter's confession that He was the prophesied Messiah!

of http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS /n1893.cfm as retrieved on Sep 1, 2006

Hold everything! I just found it, but the article is sure to raise even MORE hackles:

"........The only scripture Rome has to support her supposed "foundation of the papacy" is Matthew 16:13-20. Let’s take a closer look at these verses.

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I THE SON OF MAN AM? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But WHOM SAY YE THAT I AM? And Simon Peter answered and said, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

It is Catholic doctrine, that at this time, our Lord Jesus Christ, by changing Simon’s name to Peter, was making him the first pope and head of the Roman Catholic church as well as establishing apostolic succession. Catholic popes would be given these keys of Peter to reign as "Pontifex Maximus" in Rome, a title held by the Caesars of Rome as well.

Of course, this is a far stretch of the imagination. Peter, in Greek, is "petros" (masculine - a piece of a rock, a stone, a pebble); but the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 is "petra" (feminine-mass rock).

Thus, in modern English, Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, a stone, and upon this massive rock I will build My church and the gates of Hell shall not stand against it."

Peter just confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. It was upon this truthful confession that Jesus planned to build his church. I Cor.10:4 tells us that Christ is that "rock" (petra, massive rock). I Cor.3:11says: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Catholic apologists, in an attempt to deceive the people, say that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and Matthew was written in Aramaic. They say this because in the Aramaic language, there is only one word for stone or rock, the word "cephas". Therefore, Jesus would have said "Thou art Cephas, and upon Cephas I will build my church". They feel this better supports their case. However, there is not one shred of proof that Matthew was written in Aramaic. We do have proof it was written in Greek, and that the author did indeed use two different Greek words that changed the gender from "Peter" (masculine stone) to "rock" (feminine, massive), denoting a change in subject as well.

While it is true that "Cephas" can mean "rock or stone", God settled the argument once and for all when He gives us Greek and Aramaic together in John 1:42: "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called CEPHAS [Aramaic], WHICH IS BY INTERPRETATION, A STONE [petros, small stone]." (John.1:42) Jesus, in His All Knowledge, knew the time would come when men would lie about Peter and twist the meaning in this most important Scripture. Therefore, Jesus gave us the bold, clear translation Himself.

It may jolt most Catholics to read that the "great fathers" of the "church" saw no connection between Mt.16:18 and apostolic succession. Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anyone other than Peter. For Catholic Fathers Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine etc., it was Peter's faith in the Lord that is called the Rock.

"All the Councils from Nicea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests. Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an 'inheritance'. There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office" (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side Of The Papacy, Peter De Rosa, 24).

Papal power was gradually developed by deceit and forgeries. The Donation of Constantine, a proven forgery, was used by the papacy to establish its base in Rome. The pseudo Isidorian Decretals (of French origin) consisted of 115 documents, purportedly written by early bishops of Rome, beginning with Clement (88-97) along with the pseudo-Clementine letters and homilies (invented by a heretic in the second century...professed to be from the hand of Clemens Romanus, who writes to James after the death of Peter, "...appointing the writer his successor....") were instrumental in convincing the people they were the true successors of Peter. Tertullian repeated the story that Clement was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter. In the Secrets of Romanism, by former priest Zachello, page 46, we read:

"The bishop of Manchester is of the opinion that the only early persuasion of St. Peter's Roman episcopate was due to the acceptance in the third and following centuries of the Clementine fiction as genuine history."

The truth is that there is only ONE ROCK (1Cor.10:4), the HEAD of the true church, Jesus Christ Himself, (Eph.1:22-23, Col.1:18) and Rome with all her lies cannot change that truth! ............."

TITLE: "THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM"

of http://www.cuttingedge.org/ articles/rc129.htm as retrieved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 7:24 Therefore 3767 whosoever 3956 3748 heareth 191 these 5128 sayings 3056 of mine 3450, and 2532 doeth 4160 them 846, I will liken 3666 him 846 unto a wise 5429 man 435, which 3748 built 3618 his 846 house 3614 upon 1909 a rock 4073:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 7:25 And 2532 the rain 1028 descended 2597 , and 2532 the floods 4215 came 2064 , and 2532 the winds 417 blew 4154 , and 2532 beat upon 4363 that 1565 house 3614; and 2532 it fell 4098 not 3756: for 1063 it was founded 2311 upon 1909 a rock 4073.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 16:18 And 1161 I say 3004 also 2504 unto thee 4671, That 3754 thou 4771 art 1488 Peter 4074, and 2532 upon 1909 this 5026 rock 4073 I will build 3618 my 3450 church 1577; and 2532 the gates 4439 of hell 86 shall 2729 0 not 3756 prevail against 2729 it 846.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 1:42 And 2532 he brought 71 him 846 to 4314 Jesus 2424. And 1161 when Jesus 2424 beheld 1689 him 846, he said 2036 , Thou 4771 art 1488 Simon 4613 the son 5207 of Jona 2495: thou 4771 shalt be called 2564 Cephas 2786, which 3739 is by interpretation 2059 , A stone 4074.

-----------------------

This one settles it for me:

For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)

There is only ONE foundation stone. If Christ is it, then Peter ain't.

The rebels have another "rock". Have you heard of the "Stone of Destiny" or "Lia Fail"?

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2006-09-25   17:09:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#22)

Please see my post #20:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=35404&Disp=20#C20

There's no trick. The spoken language at the time was Aramaic. There is no dispute about that.

Which language the NT was first written in, whether Greek or Aramaic does not change the interesting play on words Christ made with Simon Peter's new name, "rock".

Especially intriguing because it was Peter who denied Christ 3 times before the cock crowed, as foretold by Christ. Not very rock-like material to work with, but then none of us are. And Peter was especially impetuous.

But now Peter is to become a rock, as we all should.

There is only one cornerstone, that is Christ.

I'm puzzled why this is such a problem. Peter is all over the the Book of Acts, it's obvious he was very busy building the church. My aunt, a legalistic Baptist understood this verse this way. That the Catholics have taken Peter's role a step further is interesting, but I don't see any reason to change the meaning of the verse.

It works in the Greek as well, IMO. And since the Protestant churches came out of the Catholic church, just as the Greek/Eastern church did (although, they claim they are the original, and the Roman Catholics departed), what's the problem with taking the verse at it's face value?

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Christ did not say, "You are Peter, and on your confession of faith, I will build my Church".

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-25   17:39:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: robin (#20)

You are Peter,

Robin, please understand how English is constructed. You are Peter and you are THE rock upon which etc.etc. And you must learn how Scripture is complete and never changing. There can not be two rocks in Scripture, and if Peter were to be that rock, then the rest of Scripture as I quoted before, is wrong. And thus the Bible is in err. I gave you a link where you could read the explanation in its complete form; to understand completely, that is what you must do.

The Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims, and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-25   20:24:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: richard9151 (#24)

There can not be two rocks in Scripture

what?

There is one cornerstone, yes.

Why do you insist on reading more into the verse than is there?

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-25   20:28:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#22)

Thank you, very much. I have not seen a better explanation anywhere, and I have copied it to read and study later.

And it is interesting how Robin views it. When the Roman church gets done with people, they really can not see nor hear. Brings a whole new meaning to Scripture where it talks of Jesus Christ making the blind see and the deaf hear.

Anyway, thanks again!

The Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims, and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-25   20:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: robin (#23)

The spoken language at the time was Aramaic.

Sorry, Robin, just ain´t true. http://www.oldandsold.com/articles27n/life-christ-6.shtml It was written in the language of three different peoples; in Hebrew, the tongue spoken by the Jews; in Latin, the language of the Romans; and in Greek, the language spoken by all in that part of the world who were not Jews.

This is talking about the sign that was placed at the top of the cross upon which the Christ was murdered.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html The Language of New Testament Times

Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) conquered the Middle East in about 332 B.C. or over 300 years before the time of Jesus Christ, so the common language of the conquered peoples inherited by the Latin speaking Romans was the "koine" form of Greek, as we read in ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (vol. 1, p. 576, 1973):

"Alexander's short reign marks a decisive moment in the history of Europe and Asia ... it spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Near East and created, if not politically, at least economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Gibraltar to the Punjab, open to trade and social intercourse and with a considerable overlay of common civilization and the Greek "koine" as a lingua franca. It is not untrue to say that the Roman Empire, the spread of Christianity as a world religion, and the long centuries of Byzantium were all in some degree the fruits of Alexander's achievement." This led to the translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek (as opposed to classical Greek of the philosophers) in the Septuagint (LXX) in Alexandria in the middle of the third century B.C. This is affirmed in the Interpreter's DICTIONARY of the BIBLE (Vol. R-Z, p. 277, Abington:1962):

"NT Koine is not simply the everyday Greek of an Eastern people in the first Christian Century; its religious vocabulary derives ultimately, not from the Greek world, but from the Hebrew world of the OT through the medium of LXX Greek." The situation in NT times was similar to what we have today, but with different languages. The Jews used the ancient Hebrew when reading their prayers and scrolls in the synagogue, but needed a modern Koine Greek translation to understand what they were reading. Most quotations in the NT from the OT are from the Greek LXX which explains some of the differences in wording between the Hebrew and the Greek in our present day translations.

I have and use a Septuagint Bible. There is no question as to what the lan. were in the time of The Christ. It is just that the Roman church twists things to suit themselves and what they want.

The Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims, and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-25   20:47:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: richard9151 (#27)

The spoken language at the time was Aramaic.

Sorry, Robin, just ain´t true.

SPOKEN LANGUAGE

Which is an undisputed fact among scholars of all faiths. And then I went on to say it that the NT may have first been written in Greek, that this is what most people believe.

It was written in the language And then you go on to talk about what it was written in.

I'm sorry, but if you continue to distort what I have just posted I really cannot debate with you. I had enough of that on LP and FR. It is dishonest.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-25   20:53:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: richard9151 (#26)

And it is interesting how Robin views it. When the Roman church gets done with people

It's polite to ping people you post about.

I'm a Baptist, I come from a long line of Baptists since before 1787. They founded many Baptist churches from VA to CA and all stops inbetweeen.

I don't like it when people insist on reading more into a verse than is there. I find it suspicious.

As I posted earlier, whether or not Christ referred to Peter as a "rock" or a "little rock", Aramaic or Greek (the primary language of the time was Aramaic, and it is generally believed the NT was written in Greek), it doesn't matter. Because, the verse does not say anywhere that Christ said He would build His church on Peter's confession of faith. It says quite plainly "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...".

The sort of hassling over a verse because you are afraid it means that the Catholic Church may have grounds for making Peter the first Pope (that is the underlying reason for you searching for another meaning is it not?), is tiresome.

What do you think all our Christian ancestors were before they were Protestants? Hindus? NO! They were Roman Catholics. Unless you are Russian. And even then, before they were Eastern Orthodox they were part of the same Catholic church.

GET OVER IT!

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-25   21:14:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: robin (#28)

SPOKEN LANGUAGE

Robin, this is not a debate; it is a search for the truth. Read ALL of what I posted, and do not stop when you get upset;

... the Jews used the ancient Hebrew when reading their prayers and scrolls in the synagogue, but needed a modern Koine Greek translation to understand what they were reading

It was a ritual using Hebrew, because they no longer understood Hebrew. So it does not matter what was used for speaking; what matters is what was used for written communications, and I should not have to explain that to you.

As an example, you can speak in pig latin, but you are writing to me using English, and the pig latin matters not one whit to me. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE SENSE AND INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS.

Now, did MOST people use Aramaic? The commeners, perhaps. Certainly not the Romans (Latin), nor others not of the Israeli race. Basically, wide spread communications by and between numerous people of the period demanded the use of a language that was wide spread, and the only language which fit that criteria was Greek. ="

" href="http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_aramaic_in_the_new_testament.htm">http:// www.learnthebible.org/q_a_aramaic_in_the_new_testament.htm

.... However, there is another teaching behind this claim. Some teach that the books of the Bible were originally written in Aramaic and then had to be translated into Greek. The only problem is that there is no proof of this. Both Matthew and Hebrews have been taught to have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. And, although, it is possible that they might have been written in Hebrew, the evidence is lacking. This is conjecture at its best--or worst. To use this shot in the dark to prove anything about Bible translation is less than weak; it is foolish.

Now, can you find sites which claim that Aramaic was used to write the Bible? You sure can! But, ALL accepted Biblical authorities agree that it just ain´t so, except for those who have an ax to grind. Such as the Roman church, and I am sorry if you do not agree with that, but it is so.

Is the spoken lan. of the period important? Not really, UNLESS YOU ARE IN COMMUNICATION WITH SOMEONE STILL ALIVE AND WHO LIVED IN THAT ERA. If the answer to this statement is yes, then, I apologize. Richard

The Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims, and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.

richard9151  posted on  2006-09-27   14:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: richard9151, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#30)

I'll try one more time.

The SPOKEN language of the time was primarily Aramaic. That is a fact that I have not read a single scholar dispute. My point was that Jesus spoke to Peter, when he said "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church...".
As I posted more than once, the NT was probably first written in Greek. The word for Peter is a play on word for rock in either language. Which language is not really important.

If one is building something upon a person then what that person believes is what is being built upon. So Peter's confession of faith is important, but should not lead to the exclusion of Christ's own words in the verse.

I want to address why you are trying to exclude the simple meaning of the verse. BTW, the Greek Orthodox Church likes this interpretation too, so, you are not the first, not by about 1,000 years.
From your other postings, you have expressed an agenda that is what I would describe as anti-Catholic. As I stated, I am suspicious of people changing the simple, obvious meaning of a verse in order to make it fit their agenda or view of history.
The Greek Orthodox church has a similar agenda, they broke away and did not want to recognize the authority of the pope.
At least they had a better reason than King Henry VIII, who changed the religion of England, so he could ignore the pope's authority in order to get rid of his wife and marry another. A coworker once told me he considered that as good a reason as any to start a religion. He was a proud iconoclast.

Regarding the Catholic church: The basic doctrine of the Catholic church is entirely Christian and acceptable to Protestants. 1. Christ is God Incarnate. 2. The belief in the Holy Trinity, 3. the virgin birth.

There are many differences regarding less important traditions and interpretations, such as the end times and whether we are saved by Grace or works: the verse in James 2:18 Yes, a man will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
As a Baptist I put grace above works, Catholics believe in grace too, but place perhaps more importance on works. Maybe Protestants should too, Catholics have a better record on charitable works.

These sorts of discussions can be worthwhile. But trying to erase the contributions of the Roman Catholic Church to Christianity is neither reasonable nor worthwhile. Not to me. And that is how I read some of your other threads.

Yes the Catholic church has had its problems over the centuries, so have the historically recent Protestant churches. But don't limit or alter the meaning of a verse to fit your notion of church history. I don't have a problem with Peter being the first pope. My christian ancestors were once all Catholics. I do not view the pope as an authority over me, but I'm not going to rewrite history and alter verses to make it so.

And although I do not recognize the Pope's authority over me or my religion, I appreciate that there is a Christian religion trying to keep a standard that is not allowed to be changed on a whim.

For example, when we travel my husband can attend mass at any Catholic church and he knows the teachings will be what he believes.

I cannot do the same. I must ask to read the church's doctrinal statement. I must ask if they believe in talking in tongues, if they believe in a second baptism (these are two rather new fads among evangelicals that I do not agree with).

The Catholic church is unwielding to change. Is that good or bad? All depends.

I think we should seek commonground in our Christian faith where possible. That we should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

- Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers

robin  posted on  2006-09-27   16:07:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest