See other Resistance Articles
Title: SAPF Update: Judge issues Stay in Enforcement of Injunction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 19, 2006
Author: SAPF
Post Date: 2006-12-19 15:21:21 by Neil McIver
Keywords: None
Views: 1823
Comments: 101
Judge Nickerson issued a stay against his own injunction order today. SAPF can disregard the order pending appeal. I'll write up a report more fully tonight.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-28) not displayed.
.
.
.
#29. To: noone222 (#27)
I use the NASB. It is a more literal translation than the KJV. No, Jesus is not giving or observing an order or command. He is contrasting the Ptolemaic "benefactors" who are deemed greatest because they are being served, with greatest in Christ's kingdom being deemed those who serve (or are humblest). Jesus' point is that greatness is not measured by authority but instead is measured by humility and servitude in spite of having authority. Your own KJV translation cite notes: "But ye [shall] not [be] so" wherein [shall] and [be] are inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. The NASB translation is: "But [it is] not this way with you" wherein [it is] are again inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. I apologize for having negelected to italicize or shade inserted words in my cites. So while there are those differences in the translations of those 6-7 words, taking the entire passages in context, Jesus is teaching that *unlike* the Gentiles and their "benefactors" who measure greatness by being served, Jesus measures greatness by serving - standing human tradition and thought on its head, as He often does. None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Ok then, in the KJV: Mat 17:24-25 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute1323 money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?1323 (25) He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented4399 him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom5056 or tribute?2778 of their own children, or of strangers? Using your own preferred KJV translation: Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free1658. In the context of not paying a tax, the Greek is more properly translated as "exempt" as opposed to being "free" in the non-applicable context of slavery or liberty: As demonstrated above, given you'll always read into a text like a tax protester, it doesn't really matter what translation you use. All exceed your willingness to accept facts.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Most interesting thread - thanks, all.
I had written two very long posts that got wiped out once because I inadvertantly clicked on a link you had posted while trying to copy it, and a second time because I walked away from my computer for a minute and when I returned I was asked to "sign in" ... when I hit "preview". (Oh well.) Maybe it's God's will. I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult. You're "IN THE WORLD" and have a "WORLD" friendly attitude. You think it's ok to pay for bombs, rockets, machine guns and tanks that kill little kids, I don't and won't. You think God gives blessings dependent upon how you manage your finances. You're delirious. Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail. Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND. I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones. I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants. When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please. And search your soul with this scripture: Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Mat 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And maybe this too: Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his (the man's) name. Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand, Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You might get away with your new wave nonsense if you were speaking to the ignorant CINO (Christian In Name Only) praise the Lord, pathetic, preacherized pagans. But that shit won't fly with me ! Peter and the boys (Apostles) got arrested for preaching and thrown into prison. The were told by the "AUTHORITIES" to cut it out, and quit preaching. Peter told the authorities to shove it, he would have to obey God's Laws, not man's, and would continue preaching. Then the apostles were beaten and released. In the Old Testament the story is the same. Check out Nehemiah 5 ... where Nehemiah drags a mob over to the authorities and demands they refund every bit of tax they had previously collected. Or recall when the Hebrew midwives were ordered to kill the Israelite male babies by the Pharaoah but refused, and were blessed for refusing. Submission to evil is not the Biblical message, is it Starwind ?
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
No doubt because you read my posts about as well as you read tax law or the bible. Agreed. My focus is directed towards people who fight stupidly using stupid arguments that have a track record of getting them ultimately tossed in jail, stupidly. But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are. Misery indeed loves company. I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that. As you just demonstrated again, and I said, the problem is in your reading my posts. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them. I have no doubt Jesus will deal justly with them for their sin. And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children. But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. The mote is always in the other guy's eye isn't it? I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And my taxes are not tithes (though you take every opportunity to continue your taunts), rather my tithes are in fact "first fruits" - 10% and greater of my gross, off-the-top before I pay any taxes.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
... Act 5:28-29 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I don't want to accuse you of having a reading disorder or writing disorder but ... what's this ? >>>>> are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire ....... hehehehehe !!! Sounds to me that you think God's law plays second fiddle to man's law. I dissent. Would you consider maiming and murdering children somewhat conflicting with the God's Laws or the teachings of Jesus, or not quite dire enough ? People without claiming spirituality make more sense than a wannabe/pretend CINO Christian trying prop up the most evil government on planet earth by implying that God wants it this way. Or better put, that God wishes for his children to participate. You just gotta be shittin me ! You can't serve two masters, I don't care how much you equivocate. The message regarding Babylon, which has now evolved into an international monetary beast, was to "come out of her my children" ... so that you avoid the wrath. Not join up and go kill babies, even by proxy.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
i agree.
I had posted in a different thread Hale vs Henkel which has never been overturned, and is still in effect today: If you look up entries like "14th Amendment," "U.S. citizen," and "person" in Black's Law Dictionary, and do some further research, you'll find that "person" - which includes a "corporation" - is a synonym for slave. You'll also find that one can have the status of "sovereign American," "state citizen," or "sovereign individual" - all more or less synonymous with the "individual" referred to in Hale v. Henkel. If you read the tax code, you'll find the terrocrats use the word "person" (slave). Nowhere will you find them saying that an "individual" is liable for income taxes. You'll find statutes, regulations, and court rulings saying the "taxpayer" must do this and that, but these don't apply to the "individual." And if you research common law, you'll find that there's been a centuries-old tradition of two classes of people: "freemen" and "slaves." The American Revolution broke the tradition and created a society of free and sovereign people - free individuals. However, since then the terrocrats have been spectacularly successful in gradually reestablishing the master-slave tradition. You can change your status from "slave" to "sovereign individual" - and live your life and conduct your business in accordance with Hale v. Henkel. I also showed that SS is voluntary. IT IS BEING IN THE SS SYSTEM THAT TIES YOU TO THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM... "THE SIGNATURE OF A PERSON IS THE PROOF OF HIS CONSENT THAT BINDS HIM UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT". Nexus is defined as a connection, tie, or link between individuals of a group. The signature of each person, given voluntarily, binds the U.S. citizenry together into a lifelong socialized contract with the government. Under the Social Security Act, the citizen is in a state of voluntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (13th Amendment), but voluntary servitude is constitutional (for every positive action there is a negative reaction). One has the absolute right to enter into a contract and bind himself to specific performance, submitting himself to the law of contracts and to the laws of the contract. Within the U.S., and any place subject to its jurisdiction, no one can force a citizen into a state of involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime whereas the party shall have been duly convicted (13th Amendment). No one can force a citizen into a contractual agreement. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government do not have that power. A tax judge will always remind a litigant that there are no constitutional protection (i.e., right of free speech, privacy) in a tax court (when under contractual obligations). But no judge can order a citizen to participate in the Social Security system. The system is 100% voluntary and whoever joins the system also volunteers into paying the income tax. The "law" cannot be invoked when a citizen is not numbered, receives no benefits, and does not enrich himself at the expense of another. Without the law, the court cannot offer a remedy. When a court cannot offer a remedy, the court lacks jurisdiction. The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facia evidence that: The following are excerpts relating to the Social Security Act. They are from the Social Security Laws, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., Committee Print through April 1, 1944: In all the above named cases, the evidence before the court was: The terms, "people," or "human being" are not to be found in the Internal Revenue Code and it fails to properly identify who is required to file. It cannot be found because it is not there. Partaking into the Social Security Act merely identifies one as a person "who is receiving benefits and therefore must meet the burden." Under the ancient concept of Lord Mansfield's maxim "that no man shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another," in the eyes of the court, that individual ought to pay the income tax. The common law of quasi contract (as if a contract) is now in full force and effect. Like I said, you can study tax protester cases until you're blue in the face, and you won't find ANY good arguments. Well, they may be good - BUT the courts will rule against them BECAUSE the defendants fall under the STATUS (according to the IRS Code) of TAXPAYER because they have a SS#. If they DON'T have the SS#, and DON'T participate in commercial activity (bank accounts etc), and DON'T have licenses (contracts with the state) - then they fall under the legal STATUS (according to the IRS Code) of NON TAXPAYER; and they won't be in the courts to begin with... Beyond what I have cited here (some of it for a second time), the only other proof I have of this being factual and truth is personal knowledge of people that have taken this route. When you haven't filed a tax return, paid in anything to the IRS, nor paid in anything to SS for 23 years without so much as a letter from them (let alone being in court over the matter) - I'd say that's proof enough. I don't remember Noone222, BTP Holdings, nor myself EVER ONCE claiming any tie to Christianity. I can't speak for anyone but myself, BUT I DON'T CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN.... Just because I quote and try my best to follow what is said in Scripture doesn't make me a Christian. Funny how Christians seem to think that if you're not part of some "religion" then the only other option is you're atheist. Now in the First Commandment we are told NOT to follow after other gods. Do other gods exist? Well, if they didn't would there have been a need for the first commandment? And who are these "other gods"? I submit that they can be any of numerous things - money, tv, or the State of California. That's right, find somewhere in Scripture where it's illegal to marry... The LEGAL definition of a license is "Permission granted by the state to do something which would otherwise be illegal, a tort, or a trespass". Yet the State of California demands you have a marriage license to get married. AGAIN, what is "illegal, a tort, or a trespass" about marriage???? NOTHING - well, not to the Creator of the Universe anyhow (provided it's not same-sex, nor to a different race). I contend that by getting that marriage license you have forsaken the Creator and made a "god" of the state of California. You don't have to agree with me on that, and frankly I don't care who does or does not agree. YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICES.... And as for advocating some "insurance-like" scheme - I'M NOT!!!!! I'm advocating getting out of the system... AGAIN, YOUR CHOICE!!! As for the constitutional convention thing, I see it as this mess is so far out of control as to require MORE than a "convention". The only thing that will effect a change at this point is a REVOLUTION... Happened once in this country to throw off living under a vile system of government.... See:>http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=41878&Disp=5#C5 No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
I want to make something clear without it being in response to one of your posts. I don't know you, I can't judge you, and I certainly don't want to just piss someone off that might really be searching for truth. I felt the same way as you about most things we've discussed on this thread at one time. I was wrong too. I repented and try to face eternity with a clear vision of right and wrong here in the finite, so I'll know how to behave myself there in the infinite. Maybe this debate has outlived its usefulness.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
This is passing the buck, it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. End of story ! Although a tough choice, it's yours to make. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them. You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value. It's none of my business but if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability. I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs. Who do you think Jesus was talking about when he said "you're all clean on the outside, but inside you're full of dead men's bones" ... he could have said you're full of dead babies bones, but that would have been too harsh wouldn't it ? He was talking to hypocrits. Self approving pretenders that rationalize their donations to continue the never ending murder of God's other children. Love thy neighbor ... buy war bonds !!! Gimme a break ! And finally, But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. Geez, I hadn't ever thought of that ... but since you brought it up maybe we should be democrapic and take a vote ! [This Starwind suggestion was brought you by the friendly people at the Department of Entrapment a subsidiary department of HOMO-LAND SECURITY and the Catholic Church].
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
P.S. I do not think you're as willfully stupid as those that deride you ... I think you are willfully complicit in killing children, as most of us have been. We were never stupid, we were blinded by a false sense of red, white and blue patriotism, misguided by fake preachers that twist scripture to fill their greedy collection plates and make people "Keep coming back for the feel good message", and lying politicians that are the same type of scum as the preachers ! It's time we all grow up and accept strict responsibility for our actions.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You have confused two separate incidents with two different places I worked which happened at least 3 years apart. When these IRS thugs get backed into a corner by presenting the facts and the law, they generally disappear. It's that simple. It does not always work that way when they get the levy ball rolling, but the way SAPF works, if you stay on point and are timely, you have the possibility of beating them at some point. Nothing is assured, of course, because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Some things never change. When Jesus was trying to explain love he used the best analogy available to himself and his followers by pointing out that love included loving your enemies, because even the publicans (scum of the earth tax collectors) love those that love them.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You may not have "said" that, but you KNOW good and well that your tax dollars are going towards that!!! NOW, be honest.... If you weren't afraid of going to jail, YOU WOULDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES!!!! Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail.... Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. You have a choice to make, and choosing to "pay your taxes" so BigBro has the means of continuing these "heinous acts" (whether that's YOUR intentions or not) puts the blood on your hands too. And who you "vote" for is of no consequence either. In fact, the very act of voting is in itself choosing someone to "lead" you, and again a violation of the First Commandment. You already HAVE a leader. But of course you knew that.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Two that I need help with are the admonitions to subject ourselves to our "rulers," and the others are to resist evil - much has been written about both subjects, and I just cannot get what is God's will/law/wish in this matter. Taxes and otherwise. Thanks for any clarification for those of us in the peanut gallery. Cheers.
Only those with nothing to say would post a reply like that. Begone shill.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
But I certainly do not give Kotmair a pass on what appears to be an incredibly dumb deal for anyone to pay into. My similar analysis of the SAPF was posted on May 16, 2005 here: http://216.133.76.156/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5362&Disp=20#C20
I believe the IRS describes these folks as illegal tax protesters ... and I'm having difficulty figuring out why everyone wouldn't protest a little about an illegal Tax.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
The first three letters are not all that reassuring...
And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children. This is passing the buck, (lol) Hardly: Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. ... You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value. Jesus voluntarily paid the Temple tax, and out of the collected Temple taxes came the 30 pieces of silver used to bribe Judas to betray Jesus. So, by your application then, you would likewise have Jesus "voting with His money" to betray the Son of God. And Jesus commanded that taxes owed to Caesar be paid to Caesar, even though Caesar declared himself a god and the Roman army was spreading "peace" all over the known world. So, again by your application, you would now have Jesus telling everyone else to "vote with their money" in support of idol worship and Roman soldiers murdering kids. ... if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability. You're going need some remedial math as well as remedial reading. I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs. No, you don't understand. You previously were, and still are, very mistaken about the Biblical basis for paying taxes: Applying your "voting with one's money" argument (in my examples above) to Jesus, demonstrates the fallacy that sins of the rulers are conferred upon the taxpayer. Jesus neither sinned nor caused 'renderers to Caesar' to sin, though obviously in both cases the taxes were put to sinful purposes. Taxpayers are not accountable for their rulers' immoral use of lawfully required taxes. Further, even in your recent posts, you were incorrect in that Jesus did not "dispute the notion that EVERYTHING belonged to Caesar " as you argued here, nor did Jesus teach that Christians "shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor", nor that the "birthright of the children wasn't taxable" as you first argued and then repeated here and here. And your continuing misunderstanding stems in part from reading into the text what you want it to say, and in part from not knowing what else the Bible does teach about Christians being submitted to authority and paying civil taxes, as I explained to you here and here and here. The Bible is quite clear and specific on requiring your submission to authority and rendering civil taxes: Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. Every person includes you, and your disobedience brings condemnation upon you. Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. You are to render all taxes that are due. 1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, And no, you don't get to pretend zero taxes are due because you allegedly withdrew from income taxation. You are to submit to every human institution, not just the ones you like. Rom 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." Rom 2:1-3 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (2) And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. (3) But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? And finally, deciding for yourself that they are "murdering thugs" is neither your judgment to make nor your vengeance to take, especially when vengeance is indiscriminately applied (because not all of them are "murdering thugs" and not all tax dollars result in "murder") and places additional burden on others (because their taxes make up for yours, while you still benefit directly or indirectly from public facilities and services). So, however much you misunderstood before, you still misunderstand most of it. Every Christian is to be submitted to governing authority, to all human institutions, and render all taxes due. But whatever semantic games you're about to respond with, know that God will not be mocked; not by your arguments, and not by our rulers' misuse of our taxes. Maybe this debate has outlived its usefulness. As far as you and I are concerned, it has. Here's a final thought: Mat 12:36-37 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. (37) "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
To whatever extent they were lawfully due, yes I would, because: Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. No, I won't, because: Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I'm somewhat familiar with HALE v. HENKEL as well as MCALISTER v. HENKEL but as relates to trusts. I'll review them again in the context of your SS argument. Might you have (or point me to) anything more substantial on this "example" set by Hargis, as what you've posted is largely tax protester lore, found only on a few tax protestor websites, but not in the online law libs. That may or may not be significant. I don't know until I see it. I'd like to see exactly what the warrant was for and what the outcome was. As already noted in the IRS raid of Kotmair/SAPF in 1993, Kotmair claimed victory when in fact most of the assets siezed (some $44k) were kept for back taxes, so perhaps you understand my wanting the facts (or not).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
A bunch of guys got together and wrote some manuscripts which said something about "Give to Ceasar what is his" and "Bend over and obey all human institutions because they are given authority by God," and "Be baptized or go to hell," "blood worshipping, etc." I have to sadly announce my public doubt at this time that I am one of them, if these are some of their "requirements." By the way, that would make the Minutemen and all infants Hellbound...LOL. Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ. Jews were about TheLaw. Jesus was not. Jesus obeyed the laws of the time to prove he was Man [and yet God] and to show that we could..and should... overcome those limitations [and the results of disobeying them] after his death. The LAW died on the cross! I guess the "apostles" who wrote the above forgot that? Christianity is not about obeying "laws," especially unjust ones. It is a direct contradiction to grace. It is also a moral contradiction. It's obvious I'm arguing with myself here, in part. Sorry about my cynical mood today. Perhaps I will pray for guidance and assurance that I am not Hellbound for blasphemy and doubt on this Saturnalia.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell R.I.P.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
Maybe an overview 'big picture' would help? You may find the entire thread interesting, even if not persuasive for you personally.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
that's the way i see it. who commissioned the writing of these various bibles and for what personal and political agenda? men, that's who. i don't know who they were. none of us do. what it ultimately comes down to is faith--your personal faith as to whether or not these individuals were truly inspired by God. then let's not forgot the various translations over thousands of years and how people interpret each bible verse differently as evidenced by this thread. having said that, i still find the discussion interesting and appreciate the time given by everyone here.
Many non-believing archeologists and secular scholars in fact know that books of the Bible accurately record historical events. The Bible is one of, if not the, primary source of ancient historical records used and increasingly confirmed by historians and archeologists as factual. That's true. But then even God's Signature of Authenticity is verifiable in the prophecies, if one cares to look. No, you don't have to believe it, but you can't honestly argue it's a coin toss as to it's being truthful. There are only about 6 main translations in English, and as English changes, the translations get updated. But the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek have not changed. If you could read them, you wouldn't have any translation complaints. And that people choose to ignore what is plainly written in front of them, is not the fault of the writer. You wouldn't criticize the Constitution or the framers for my interpretations, rather you criticize me, as you should. Likewise, don't criticze the Bible because many people are as stubborn about spinning it as they are about spinning everything else. Everyone has an agenda - why not bypass them, read the Bible (any of the main English translations) for yourself, and get to know God's agenda directly from Him.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, Starwind, you betray this nation clear back to its Christian roots and the teachings of the Founders and the preachers of the Revolutionary and colonial period. Your brand of Judeo-Christianity is an affront to all right thinking Christian Americans. You WILL burn in Hell for your treason against your fellow citizens. I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations.
I do indeed. I think the translation you have used is more casual
and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;]
#30. To: noone222 (#28)
(Edited)
As I said, two different taxes in two different verses, and no where does Jesus teach that civil taxes were deemed voluntary. Strong's G4399 means: prophthano
rather Jesus 'anticipated' what Peter was going to say and Jesus spoke first before Peter so as to teach His point to Peter, and then they paid the temple tax
prof-than'-o
From G4253 and G5348; to get an earlier start of, that is, anticipate: - prevent. G1323
Whereas the "tribute" in verse 25 is a poll-tax, in Greek:
didrachmon
did'-rakh-mon
From G1364 and G1406; a double drachma (didrachm): - tribute. G2778
kensos
kane'-sos
Of Latin origin; properly an enrolment ("census"), that is, (by implication) a tax: - tribute. G1658
Incidently, the above differences demonstrate the more literal (accurate and precise) translation of the NASB versus the KJV.
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability): - free (man, woman), at liberty. I'm sorry, but the translation you're using appears to have been written by a tax collector when using terms like 2 drachma tax, Poll Tax and "exempt".
#31. To: Everyone here (#30)
a village is missing its idiot.
#32. To: Starwind (#29)
None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).
#33. To: Starwind (#30)
submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly
#34. To: noone222 (#32)
I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants.
I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult.
Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail.
Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND.
I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones.
When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please.
#35. To: noone222 (#33)
Peter and the boys (Apostles) got arrested for preaching and thrown into prison. The were told by the "AUTHORITIES" to cut it out, and quit preaching. Peter told the authorities to shove it, he would have to obey God's Laws, not man's, and would continue preaching. Then the apostles were beaten and released.
I know. I pointed it out first. Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:
You really seem to have some kind of reading disorder.
#36. To: Starwind (#35)
Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:
#37. To: lodwick, Starwind, noone222, innieway, ALL (#31)
Most interesting thread - thanks, all.
#38. To: Starwind (#25)
You post rant after rant raging against the machine without once posting any proof of the legal basis that underlies your tax arguments you all claim to have researched so thoroughly (except for one SSA form)
There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Example:
In 1993 a gang of terrocrats from the IRS and Post Office raided the sovereign business (free-enterprise gold bank) of Anthony Hargis in Orange County, California. They seized records, files, computers, and money. Hargis indicated to them, essentially, that he was a state citizen (sovereign individual) and that they had no jurisdiction over him and his business. They backed down completely and returned everything they had seized. There are senior terrocrats who know that even in their own courts they would face a tough and very embarrassing ordeal, if confronted with a knowledgeable sovereign individual like Anthony Hargis.
1) The numbered citizen is a card-carrying and practicing member of socialism.
2) He has voluntarily waived his absolute right to:a) Personal Security
b) Personal Liberty
c) Personal Property
3) He can now qualify and expect to receive protection, security, old age benefits, minimum wages, food stamps, and welfare benefits from the government financed by the society at large.
4) He is now under public policy for the good of the whole and is allowed to keep only according to his needs after all his claims and deductions.
5) He is a "taxpayer" within the scope of the I.R. Code.
6) Some of his constitutional protection (Bill of Rights) no longer apply.
7) He has denounced his sovereign status of a "free person" and is administered through a regional district.
8) He is a taxpayer and a collector of his own tax, and can be labeled a tax cheater, a tax protester, and a tax evader if he does not file.
9) He subjects himself to the United States Congress and can be charged criminally for willful failure to file.
10) He has rejected the natural laws or common law, and he has exchanged his blessings of liberty for a mess of pottage. The organic laws of contract are now in force to compel him to abide by his hidden agreements, imposed by his participation in the Social Security system.
And yet you style yourselves 'Christian patriots' who advocate an "insurance-like" scheme which is legally indefensible and fiscally and actuarially unsound,
And to that end, I see ANYONE that's in agreement with the current situation to a point of allowing their fear to prevent them from joining a revolution as a traitor....
#39. To: Starwind (#35)
#40. To: Starwind (#34)
And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children.
#41. To: Starwind (#34)
(Edited)
But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are.
#42. To: Starwind (#26)
They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right?
#43. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind, innieway, all voyeurs remaining unnamed (#42)
because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.
#44. To: Starwind (#34)
I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that.
#45. To: All you smart people here (#44)
The Bible has many conflicting passages, imo.
a village is missing its idiot.
#46. To: Starwind (#25)
#47. To: Starwind (#11)
No, I don't have evidence of fraud and I didn't say I did. I was thinking of the fraudulent tax shelters when I wrote that.
#48. To: Starwind (#25)
But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large.
#49. To: nolu_chan (#47)
SAPF
a village is missing its idiot.
#50. To: noone222 (#40)
(Edited)
#51. To: innieway (#44)
NOW, be honest.... If you weren't afraid of going to jail, YOU WOULDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES!!!!
Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail....
Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
#52. To: innieway (#38)
I had posted in a different thread Hale vs Henkel which has never been overturned, and is still in effect today:
In 1993 a gang of terrocrats from the IRS and Post Office raided the sovereign business (free-enterprise gold bank) of Anthony Hargis in Orange County, California.
#53. To: noone222, innieway, zipporah, lodwick, ferret mike, i'm going to hell (#48)
(Edited)
I believe the IRS describes these folks as illegal tax protesters ... and I'm having difficulty figuring out why everyone wouldn't protest a little about an illegal Tax.
IMO, Christians have been deceived either in Scripture or its interpretation and/or, perhaps, its only partial veracity? It's the only explanation for the contradictions. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#54. To: Starwind (#50)
#55. To: IndieTX (#53)
Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ.
#56. To: IndieTX (#53)
A bunch of guys got together and wrote some manuscripts which said something about "Give to Ceasar what is his" and "Bend over and obey all human institutions because they are given authority by God," and "Be baptized or go to hell," "blood worshipping, etc."
#57. To: christine (#56)
who commissioned the writing of these various bibles and for what personal and political agenda? men, that's who. i don't know who they were. none of us do.
what it ultimately comes down to is faith--your personal faith as to whether or not these individuals were truly inspired by God.
then let's not forgot the various translations over thousands of years and how people interpret each bible verse differently as evidenced by this thread.
#58. To: Starwind, noone222, innieway, IndieTX, christine. lodwick (#50)
(Edited)
The Bible is quite clear and specific on requiring your submission to authority and rendering civil taxes:
Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Every person includes you, and your disobedience brings condemnation upon you.
You are to render all taxes that are due.
And no, you don't get to pretend zero taxes are due because you allegedly withdrew from income taxation. You are to submit to every human institution, not just the ones you like.
Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government
by Ted R. Weiland
Ted Weiland is a former rodeo bull rider, current evangelist, and writer who has permitted us to reprint excerpts from his book, "Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government." This book offers an alternative analysis (primarily) of Romans 13:1-7 which is so strong that his work should be studied by anyone who seriously supports or rejects the Religious Right's political activism. [Note: Mr. Weiland prefers to use the Hebrew translation "Yhshua" rather than the name "Jesus" used by most Americans. He also uses the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH" (God's name in the Old Testament name; pronounced "Yahweh"), wherever he believes "it has been incorrectly replaced with the words 'the LORD' or 'GOD'."]
The first seven verses of the 13th chapter of the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans are often abused and misused by today's average clergyman. This has resulted in one of the most destructive doctrines that has come out of "Judeo- Christianity" (that segment of Christendom that is heavily influenced by the Talmudic religion of Judaism) 52; the false teaching of total submission to all government authority. This theological mistake has probably contributed more to the loss of Christian dominion than any other false doctrine. Judeo- Christianity relies on the following three passages for its Scriptural basis for this doctrinal error:
Titus 3:1-2: Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to do every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
1 Peter 2:13-15: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him .... For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation .... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Much of Judeo-Christianity has interpreted these passages to mean that God sanctions all existing government authority and that we are therefore to submit completely to any authority that happens to rule over us. Further, they teach that resistance to civil authority is rebellion against God Himself (except in the rare instance when someone might be ordered by government to deny Yhshua the Christ) and that God will punish those who rebel.
In fact, the Bible does teach submission to government. However, it teaches a limited submission which is not rendered indiscriminately to any and all who rule. Support for this view can be found from a careful reevaluation of Romans 13:1-7 where we discover Scriptural justification for the type of authority to which Christians are and are not obliged to submit:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [governing authorities, New American Standard Version; NASV]. For there is no power [authority, NASV] but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)
This verse is currently interpreted by most clergymen and government officials to mean: "God has established every civil or government authority, and thus Christians are bound to submit totally to whichever government God has placed over them at any given time."
Every authority?
It is remarkable how the teachings of the majority of modem preachers contrast with the views many of our predecessors held concerning submission to government authority. In 1603, speaking before Parliament, even King James I recognized that a ruler's authority has limits: "A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws."1
In 1643 Pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex ( The Law and the Prince) in which he explained: "...God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a king above the law [of God]... 2
"When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without [outside of] law, in so far doing against his office, he is not a magistrate. Then, say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. None doth, then, resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in tyrannous acts.3
"Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of God .... So we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the king. If, then, any cast off the nature of a king, and become habitually a tyrant... he is not from God... If the office of a tyrant... be contrary to a king's office, it is not from God, and so neither is the power from God."4
The proper perspective on authority was also introduced by the English philosopher, John Locke: "Where-soever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority."5
Many of America's early preachers and founders concurred with Mr. Locke. In a message preached just thirty-six days prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Pastor Samuel West emphatically proclaimed: "In order . . . that we may form a right judgment of the duty enjoined in our text [Titus 3:1, supra], I shall consider the nature and design of civil government, and shall show that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally oblige us to resist tyranny; or that tyranny and magistracy are so opposed to each other that where the one begins the other ends."6
Pastor Samuel Cooke, preaching at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 30, 1770, declared: "Justice also requires of rulers, in their legislative capacity, that they attend to the operation of their own acts, and repeal whatever laws, upon an impartial review, they find to be inconsistent with the laws of God, the rights of men, and the general benefit to society. This the community hath a right to expect."7
In 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone put it similarly in his commentaries on English law: "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [God's Law]."8
In 1860, John Wingate Thornton developed this thought further: "We may very safely assert these two things in general without undermining government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful and glorious . . . All commands running counter to the declared will of [YHWH] the Supreme Legislator of heaven and earth are null and void, and therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime."9
The wrong-headed teaching of many of today's clergy is at odds not only with our founding fathers, but more importantly, with Scripture itself. Consider the words of the Prophet Hosea: "Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of YHWH because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law . . . They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not. (Hosea 8:14)
In this passage, disobedient Israelites are described as those who "rebelled against [God's] law;' and "set up kings, but not by [God]." Are we to believe that the omniscient sovereign God actually did not know what these rebellious Israelites were up to? Of course not! Hosea is simply telling us that these rulers were set in positions of authority without God's favor.
No government can exist without God allowing it to do so. However, we must understand that there are two different types of government for two different types of people. A people who have submitted themselves to YHWH's Word are blessed with just and righteous rulers. But those who have willfully rebelled against YHWH's Word are visited with an oppressive government for the purpose of bringing them back into submission to God. Hosea 11:5 provides a graphic example: "... the Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel] refused to return [to YHWH]."
While this is true for the wicked, in Romans 13 Paul is addressing a body of believers who have submitted themselves to Yhshua as King, and is instructing them in the concepts of a Christian civil body politic. John Milton, in his book Defense of the People of England, commented on Paul's intent:
"It being very certain that the doctrine of the gospel is neither contrary to reason nor the law of nations, man is truly subject to the higher powers who obey the laws and the magistrates so far as they govern according to law. So that St. Paul does not only command the people, but princes themselves, to be in subjection; who are not above the laws, but bound by them . . . but whatever power enables a man, or whatsoever magistrate takes upon him, to act contrary to what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is that power nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to such a magistrate no subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the people forbidden to resist such authority; for in so doing they do not resist the power nor the magistracy, as they are here excellently well described, but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an enemy."10
Theologian Adam Clarke expressed similar sentiments: "Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on [the ruler's] part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding . . . . This conduct justifies opposition to his government."11
Pastor West preached: "Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone . . . and to suppose that He has given to any particular set of men a power to require obedience to that which is unreasonable, cruel, and unjust is robbing the deity [YHWH] of His justice and goodness."12
In 1749 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew argued lucidly against unqualified compliance to civil authority:
"Children are commanded to obey their parents, and servants their masters, in as absolute and unlimited terms as subjects are here commanded to obey their civil rulers . . . . Thus, also wives are commanded to be obedient to their husbands . . . . In all these cases, submission is required in terms at least as absolute and universal as are ever used with respect to rulers and subjects. But who supposes that the apostle ever intended to teach that children, servants, and wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters, and husbands respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even although they should require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelessly make an attempt upon their lives? No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and unlimited.
"Why, then, should it be supposed that the apostle designed to teach universal obedience, whether active or passive to the higher powers, merely because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms? And if this be a good argument in one case, why is it not in others also? If it be said that resistance and disobedience to the higher powers is here said positively to be a sin, so also is the disobedience of children to parents, servants to masters, and wives to husbands, in other places of Scripture.
"But the question still remains, whether, in all these cases, there be not some exceptions. In the three latter it is allowed there are; and from hence it follows, that... the use of absolute expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases is a sin."13
Pastor Rutherford joined in demonstrating the foolishness of arguing that Christians are to blindly submit to authority under all circumstances: "It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is due to them because [they are] kings; but that is not the question. The question is, if subjection be due to them, when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David did, though he was a king, he did it not as king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted king David . . . . "14
David was a minister of God, and was beloved of God, but was he never to be resisted, simply because he was king? Of course not!
Pastor Cooke pointed out the relationship between those in authority and the laws of God: "Rulers of every degree... are, equally with others, under the restraints of the divine [YHWH's] law. The Almighty has not divested Himself of his own absolute authority by permitting subordinate government among men . . . without true fear of God, justice will be found to be but an empty name."15
Further, if Christians are required to submit to every authority 52; to which authority would God require them to submit in the midst of a revolution? At such times there would be two competing authorities, and Christians who attempted to conform to the present-day Judeo-Christian interpretation of Romans 13 would find themselves in an impossible position. Common sense tells us there must be something wrong with such a doctrine.
The second clause of Romans 13:1 reads: "For there is no power [authority, NASV] but of God." The literal translation of the original Greek words is not "but" 52; it's "if not."16 If we replace the word "but," as found in the KJV, with the literal translation, this verse would read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power if not of God . . . ."
In other words, any civil authority not set up and sanctioned by God and not enforcing His laws is not a legitimate authority, at least not over Christians who have submitted themselves to the Kingship of Yhshua. J.B. Rotherham arrived at the same conclusion in the Emphasized New Testament, when he translated verse 1: "for there is no authority save by God."
Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports under the heading "Messiah," that this was the understanding of the early Hebrews: "In the period of the Hebrew monarchy the thought that Yahweh is the divine king of Israel was associated with the conception that the human king reigned by right only if he reigns by commission or 'unction' from him [YHWH]."17
The latter part of Romans 13:1 reads: ". . . those [authorities] which exist are established by God." To put it another way: "Legitimate authorities are only those established by God." J.B. Phillips obviously understood this when he translated verse 1 in The New Testament in Modern English: "Everyone ought to obey civil authorities, for all legitimate authority is derived from God's authority."
Apparently our early American forefathers' interpretation of verse 1 was much more Scriptural than the one advanced in many churches today.
In his book, Mr. Weiland analyzes the other six verses (Romans 13:2-7), offers a Conclusion which includes the following excerpts:
We can be thankful that many of our early preachers and founding fathers were not encumbered by the false theology so widespread today. They properly understood the question of submission to government and preached and wrote extensively on the subject. Had they followed modern Judeo-Christian notions, the United States of America simply would not exist.
America's Christian forefathers and patriotic citizens were courageous and stood upon the Word of God. They knew they must not surrender to tyrants. In 1773 the following famous proclamation was heralded by the men of Marlborough, Connecticut: "Death is more eligible [at least for some] than slavery. A freeborn people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny. . . . [We] implore the ruler above the skies, that He would bare His arm in defense of His church and people, and let Israel go."60 Preachers like West, Cooke, and Mayhew accurately taught early Americans what the Apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. Consequently, they felt no inhibition for resisting ungodly authority and establishing in its stead an American civil body politic that more closely resembled God's design. Pastor Mayhew answered all of his previous questions with the following ringing declaration:
"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers. They are more properly 'The Messengers of Satan to buffet us.' No rulers are properly God's ministers, but such as are 'just, ruling in the fear of God.' When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution 52; when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare 52; they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen."61
"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that [Paul's] arguments to enforce submission are of such a nature as to conelude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants and public oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle."62
Christians can serve only one master. The consequence of Judeo- Christianity's ambivalence is clearly seen in the John 19:14-15 account of the trial and crucifixion of Yhshua: "and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."
This is a far cry from the disposition of the first-century Hebrew zealots and the eighteenth-century Christian patriots. The watchword of the zealots was: "No God but Yahweh, no tax but to the Temple ...!"63 The rallying cry of America's early Christian patriots was: "No king but King Jesus;"64
If Paul and Peter had lived what modern preachers say they wrote i.e., 52; unconditional submission to King Nero's government 52; then Nero would have never have put them to death. Instead, Paul and Peter would have been lauded and honored as loyal citizens. Caesar put them to death because they preached and lived unconditional submission to King Yhshua and taught disobedience to all antichrist authority. Consider the following unmistakable proof of Acts 17:6-8: "And when they [the Thessalonian Jews] found them [Paul and Silas] not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down [effecting a change in government by what they were preaching] are come hither also... and these all do [act, NASV] contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Yhshua."
Was Yhshua another current king? Yes, definitely! Were these first-century disciples preaching only a future king? If so, the rulers of their day would not have troubled themselves about Him. Christians looked to Yhshua as a reigning King who alone deserved their allegiance. . . .
It is any wonder that the authorities were disturbed in the Apostle Paul's day? They and their system of government were being toppled by this "new" King and by what first-century Christendom was preaching and practicing. Whether modern Christendom understands it or not, the Thessalonian authorities understood that proclaiming Yhshua as Lord and King required unconditional submission only to YHWH and His laws.
Modem Judeo- Christianity calls resistance to tyranny sin against God; whereas true Christianity understands that such resistance is obedience to God. Christians who understand the Apostle Paul's intent in Romans 13 are today's point men. They, as the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world," are once again "turning the world [order] upside down" for their Lord and King, Yhshua the Christ. May our banner forever be: Obedience To God Rather Than To Men!
[Editor's note: Wieland's fiery book ends with a more moderate "Epilogue" by Pastor James Bruggeman: ]
America has been enslaved economically if not (yet) militarily. The process of enslavement has been so gradual and so subtle that most Americans still have not recognized their bondage-captivity...
Recently, however, many more Americans are being awakened to the true state of affairs, namely their bondage .... But those who understand Romans 13 properly, along with understanding the whole counsel of God in relation to government, are confronted with a dilemma: At what point of government oppression is civil disobedience and/or resistance in order?
Since the possible scenarios are myriad, we cannot give any more than general guidelines. We must look to Scriptural examples. At what point did the Hebrew midwives practice civil disobedience? At what point did Daniel defy King Nebuchadnezzar? When did Daniel's three friends rebel against this same king? Upon reflection of these incidents, it becomes apparent that just because our present government may be increasingly oppressive, that does not give carte blanche to any and all citizens to refuse to obey whatever laws and regulations they choose.
To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world, but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to study this and other such Biblical examples.
In summary, while there may be some who are called to fight the present, ungodly system via court challenges, common law, the Constitution, etc., we do not believe nor expect that everyone who comes to the proper understanding of Romans 13 must therefore revoke his driver's license, marriage license, Social Security number, insurance policies, etc., and "fight the system." Each person must by much' prayer, Scripture study, counsel from others, and study of current conditions, come to the conclusion for himself concerning what God is calling him to do at this critical time in history. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Pastor Bruggeman's moderating Epilogue implies that even the Religious Right and Fundamentalist communities are reluctant to release the passions of faith into the body politic. The lessons of history 52; especially the first American Revolution 52; make it clear that an unbridled Christianity can be an awesome political force. Instead of calling for a revolution, author Weiland seems only to warn that if the principles of the Religious Right concerning issues like school prayer and abortion are not given enough political space to survive, another American revolution fueled by religion may in fact occur.
Footnotes:
1 King James I, quoted by John Wingate Thornton. The Pulpit of the American Revolution Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) p.74.
2 Pastor Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Originally printed in London for John Field, October 7, 1644) (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) p. 101.
3 Rutherford, p.103.
4 Rutherford, p.117.
5 John Locke, quoted by Thornton, supra p.74.
6 Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.270.
7 Pastor Samuel Cooke quoted by Thornton, supra p. 167.
8 Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries (Philadelphia: George W. Childs Publisher, 1870) Vol. l, p.41.
9 Thornton, supra p.86.
10 John Milton, quoted by Thornton, supra pp. 67- 68.
11 Adam Clarke, Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, New York: Abingdon Press, 1831 ) Vol. VI, p. 145.
12 Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.283.
13 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra pp.65-66.
14 Rutherford, p. 149.
15 Cooke, quoted by Thornton, p. 168.
16 Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1990) p.119.
17 "Messiah," Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-1911) Vol. 18, p.192.
60 The Men of Marlborough, Connecticut, quoted by George Bancroft, History of the United States (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1854) Vol. VI, p.442.
61 Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra, pp73-74.
62 Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, supra p.78.
63 Quoted by Abram Leon Sachar, A History of the Jews (Alfred A. Knopf, 1968) p.I 17.
64 Committees of Correspondence, quoted by Cushing Strout in The New Heavens and the New Earth (Harper & Row Publishers, 1974) p.59. l
More results for Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
#59. To: BTP Holdings (#58) (Edited)
Thank you for that article.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#60. To: IndieTX (#59)
Freaks like Starwind are under the impression that we must obey our servants in government under all circumstances. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. They are to serve us, not the other way around. Did Jefferson ask permission of his slaves to do any thing? Nor should we ask permission of our slaves in government top do any thing. We owe them only the duty to obey what they are lawfully entitled to regulate, nothing more. And we have set out the rules for that in our Constitutions. They have strayed and need to be reined in, with rope and lead if need be.
Thank you for that article.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
#61. To: BTP Holdings (#60)
Bingo.
We owe them only the duty to obey what they are lawfully entitled to regulate, nothing more. And we have set out the rules for that in our Constitutions. They have strayed and need to be reined in, with rope and lead if need be.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#62. To: Starwind (#51)
No, I won't, because: Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Yes, you will. You have a choice. You can opt out of the system. You don't have to donate to the killing of children. You CHOOSE TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT'S PROMISES AND BENEFITS. If you think for one second that Bush, or FDR, or Clinton, or Poppy Bush, or Nixon, or_______ is given to us by God, you're a total fool!!!! You can tell them by their works, remember??? The bottom line is the iniquity is on your hands too. Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. This teaching from the Messiah doesn't seem to bode well for a lot of Paul quotin do-gooders. Think what you want to think about Scripture or taxes. I don't give a shit. PLEASE don't think I want to interfere with your happiness and success!!! All I can personally testify to is that I know people that have withdrawn from the system and no longer pay in, and haven't for many years. What do those people all have in common - aside from still being free and walking around just like you? So go back to studying. Good luck finding some good argument. I've tried telling you IF IT'S IN COURT, IT'S THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW - and you won't find a "winner". If it's REALLY RIGHT, it never went to court to start with... THOSE EXIST (but court records on them don't - like Hargis. That's why you can't find a court case on it online - it doesn't exist - it never went to court. They only take things to court they think they can win). I've tried to show you court rulings, given logical reasonable arguments backed by Scripture, shown flaws in the "tax protester" arguments, and given you a truthful solution. You choose to ignore it, or try to find flaw in it. I can't help you anymore than that. Like I said - I don't give a shit what you "believe", your "beliefs" don't make a rat's ass (nor mine). The TRUTH exists independently of anyone's beliefs, and someday we'll all know the TRUTH.
Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail....
(1)They haven't had to go to court at all.
(2)They live good lives - healthy, happy, and at peace with themselves because they can HONESTLY claim that their name isn't on a bullet or some sanction that killed an innocent Iraqi kid.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#63. To: IndieTX (#53)
bump it, and amen.
Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ.
a village is missing its idiot.
#64. To: innieway (#62)
My point exactly! We're supposed to bend over and obey evil leaders according to the Bible. Sorry. I won't be taking part.
If you think for one second that Bush, or FDR, or Clinton, or Poppy Bush, or Nixon, or_______ is given to us by God, you're a total fool!!!!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#65. To: IndieTX, BTP Holdings (#61)
Bingo i second that emotion.
We owe them only the duty to obey what they are lawfully entitled to regulate, nothing more. And we have set out the rules for that in our Constitutions. They have strayed and need to be reined in, with rope and lead if need be.
#66. To: christine (#65)
This "is" an emotional time of year ... a good dose of zoloff will correct ze problem ... or a chip in duh knuckle-head ... or maybe a month or two at the indoctrination center, no matter "we're from the govt. and we're here to help" Let us Texans remember the Alamo ... and the North American Union's similarity.
i second that emotion.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"
noone222 12-17-06
#67. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind, innieway, IndieTX, christine, lodwick, all other lurkers (#58)
The very first chapter of the Book of Daniel is very telling. The time period is long after the "House of Israel" (10 Northern Tribes) had been taken captive to Assyria never to return to Jerusalem. There we are informed that the Judahites have been taken to Babylon and the most promising youth (royals) were to be trained in the [Talmudic] ways of the Babylonians by one "Ashpenaz" [Looks a little like "Ashkenaz" and I'd bet there is an ethnic relationship]. (I added the word Talmudic, but these are the traditions of men, or sometimes described as the traditions of the elders, which Jesus is said to have railed against because he said "your laws make my Father's laws of no effect". The Talmud is the codified version of these laws that were previously handed down orally. These "laws" were and are similar in many ways to the codes, statutes, case-law, regulations, rules and procedures etc., ad nauseum that permeate the complex system of ridiculous regulation managed and monitored by pettifogging perverts of truth in our country today. This is why many Bible believers think we're living in a virtual Babylon complete with the number of the beast, bowing to baal, etc., and the reason we are instructed by Scripture to "come out of her my children". The Judahites and their descendants that brought this belief (legal) system back with them to Jerusalem (and the 1st Synagogues too) we call JEWS. The 10 Tribes of Israel were never "JEWS" in the strictest sense of the word, never were taught Babylonian Talmudic philosophy, nor did they ever have a synagogue, only 2 Tribes Judahites and a very small portion of Benjamites can be called JEWS. Modern Christians focus their learning on the New Testament and the writings of Paul to the exclusion of the Old Testament and even to a degree the teachings of Christ. I have a hunch that the Old Testament Manuscripts/Transcripts had been around, reprinted, copied and read for so many centuries that the general knowledge of them was too well known for them to be changed much, but what we call the New Testament didn't exist at the time of Jesus, was developed as we know it by a Pagan named Constantine in 325 A.D. in my opinion to unify the Roman Empire. Most of the New Testament (75-80%) consists of Pauls writings, which Peter described as difficult (hard), and which neither Paul or Peter were around to verify their validity. Suffice it to say that many scholars find it difficult to justify the Old Testament and New Testament regarding consistencies, while others go so far as to claim two different Gods inspired the two Testaments. My point is not to argue these opinions but rather to ask that people have an open mind to the possibility that politics may have played a more significant part in establishing the content of the New Testament than the Old Testament. Many modern Churches and their leaders admit that the church as we know it might not even exist without the writings of Paul, and I agree. In many instances I think they should rename their faith as "Paulianity". A pattern or trend has developed especially concerning the support for government supremecy or blind obedience to so-called leaders that arises relative to scriptural support for it. This argument usually doesn't exist among the general "Christian Community" because they aren't studied enough to even develop the pertinent questions because they are casual in their faith and allow seminary trained theologians to instruct them without verifying what they're being taught. I know that one Scripture claims that God is not the author of confusion (then who is ?) but some confusion must be admitted. The word Babel means "confusion" and the word Babylon comes from the word Babel. [I believe that all of the major Empires were and are heavily influenced by Babylonian [Talmudic] philosophy, especially with respect to controlling the masses through legal codes, rhetoric, propaganda and disputations that keep the people from unifying in their own best interests.] I should note here that Jesus never had a good word for the lawyers of his day, only the "Woes" (woe unto you etc.), which was the equivalent of fuck you in His day, and was probably made to sound more civil by the English translators of Scripture. This forum has a lot of well informed and learned participants. Those that are students of history, laws, and Scriptural writings will have to admit at some point that every major Empire including the current NWO scum have the Babylonian fingerprint, and their M.O. seems to never change. The debate rages on this particular thread between knowledgeable people that are so far apart in their determinations of "right and wrong" that it's almost funny ... except that we will suffer the same destruction experienced by every former empire or culture unless we can unify against those ruling our people with total disregard for us, our children, them, whomever they choose to be our current enemy, their children, and even the earth itself. They rule through chaos and destruction, murder and mayhem ... the inherent characteristics of satan. Having differing views relative to Scriptural writings is nothing new, and I would admit that better minds than mine that have studied longer, harder and better than me, on any given issue can disagree. So, I think we can afford to have different opinions easy enough but we can't afford to be divided. This country, more than any of its predecessors, had a stubborn bunch involved in its beginnings that tried their best to put certain things above the reach of others present at the same time that wanted a new Roman Empire or New Atlantis ... or in other words a fascist state. And while they did their best, we (including our recent ancestors) have fallen asleep only to realize that fascists never sleep, have all the money, guns, laws, and toadies for terrorism. The pettiness of tax arguments, or religious opinions that really become ego contests serve no good purpose. We have a real fucking problem that can only be solved by sober adults ... not a bunch of self-absorbed ego-maniac brats. We can do better, and we should if only for our posterity. Jesus said to his apostles, "How can I teach you heavenly things when you can't even undertsand earthly things" ? I think we deserve that remark as much as they did if not more, and we should give it some serious consideration.
To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world, but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to study this and other such Biblical examples.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"
noone222 12-17-06
#68. To: noone222 (#67)
Excellent. The idea that we should do nothing but go to the camps and wait until we die for God to do something is BS.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#69. To: IndieTX (#68)
Irrespective of religious beliefs most people in the U.S. know things are happening that are counter to our cultural past. The insidious spy camera network, road blocks, internment camps, Homeland Security, high-level corruption in government, destruction or debauchery of the currency, unwieldy debt, outsourcing jobs and insourcing the unemployed, S.W.A.T. military styled goon units designed to attack civilian populations ... it all adds up to nothing good that most people are capable of noticing to some degree. Those that are keenly aware of the negatives and willing to openly discuss them are considered hyper-paranoid by others that are undergoing deep seated cognitive dissonance similar to that experienced by rape and incest victims unable to deal with the truth of their circumstance. The movie "V" for Vendetta demonstrates the only power we have, and that is us, "ALL" of us. If we are to have any ability to radically change the direction we're headed it will take a mass awareness/eductional program, and a willingness on the part of everyone to at least agree to remain free, or get free again depending on how one views our current situation. 25 years I have watched the so-called Patriot community approach unity only to let meaningless argument and stubbornness divide people. Getting past this obstacle may require "a catalyzing event" or the implementation of some law that everyone finds abhorrent ... Life without freedom doesn't appeal to me. I wonder if the revolutionaries of 18th century America were hindered by as much apathy as we are in the 21st.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"
noone222 12-17-06
.
.
.
Comments (70 - 101) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest