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: 1880
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 (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: Starwind, noone222, innieway, IndieTX, christine. lodwick (#50)
(Edited)
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. 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
#70. To: BTP Holdings (#58)
Judeo-Christianity relies on the following three passages for its Scriptural basis for this doctrinal error: [Titus 3:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-15, Romans 13:1-7] Well, yes those passages are important, but Weiland conveniently ignores: Mat 22:21 [Jesus] said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Exo 22:28 "You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. Ecc 8:2-5 I say, "Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. (3) "Do not be in a hurry to leave him. Do not join in an evil matter, for he will do whatever he pleases." (4) Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?" (5) He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart knows the proper time and procedure. Weiland then begins to build a straw man argument against Romans 13:1 (emphasis mine): 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." The Greek word translated "every", unambiguously without exception or contingency, means "every": Strong's G3956 But even though the Bible clearly says "every", Weiland still asks: Every authority? Weiland's question is remeniscent of Gen 3:1 when the serpent plants doubt in Eve's mind by asking "Indeed, has God said "every"? Weiland cites several commentaries, sermons and speeches, and his selections fall into three categories: disobey government when government 1) is violent or tyrannical, 2) violates its own civil laws, 3) is contrary to God's law. Most of the quoted viewpoints (categories 1 & 2) advocate disobedience when government violates its own civil laws or is violent or tyrannical, and were drawn from John Wingate Thornton's "The Pulpit of the American Revolution Political Sermons of the Period of 1776" wherein the context was the British violence and tyranny against the American colonies. All of the quotes excerpted from Thornton's book were of this type. However, even though (as demonstrated below) the American Revolution from British rule was arguably Biblical disobedience (the colonists) of God's ordained governing authority (the British), Weiland's special interpretation for "limited submission" of Romans 13:1 is *not* needed to justify rebellion against violence and tyranny. And yet, Weiland himself, Blackstone and Thornton (himself) argue for disobeying government when government is contrary to God's law (category 3), but to make that unique, minority argument Weiland needs to reinterpret Romans 13:1. But if a Biblical basis for disobeying God's ordained governing authority already exists and was good enough for the American Revolutionists, why would Weiland bother with yet another argument, especially one that requires a new interpretation of Romans 13:1? Because Weiland's goal is not to Biblically defend a "just war" or "self-defense", rather Weiland's goal is to argue not paying taxes, and (as prevously pointed out numerous times) God's law says to pay taxes to God's ordained governing authority. Hence Weiland's need to justify "limited submission" on Weiland's terms. In all of Weiland's quotes there is not one iota of scripture that provides the "limited submission" strawman Weiland wants to erect. Not even one reference to: Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men, because that would just beg the question of 'Well, ok, what did God say to do for which Peter was to disobey men'? The answer obviously being God said to continue preaching about Jesus whereas men (Pharisees and Romans) said to stop. But in colonial America (and now) there never was any prohibition against preaching about Jesus and so Weiland can't grind his axe on this particular passage. In fact, to the contrary, it weakens Weiland's premise that a different interpretation is needed. Obviously Peter was quite clear on when to obey God and not men; the problem seems largely Weiland's. So, under the guise of American colonial pastors and patriots arguing to disobey violent British tyranny, towards the end of the article Weiland begins to construct his new interpretation: 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 ..." FWIW, the NASB translation I cited has "except" instead of "if not": NASB: Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except1508 from God, and those which exist are established by God. Strong's G1508: The word is a conjunction (denoting a conditional connection) and the translations "but", "except" or "if not" all convey the same meaning, that being conditioned on God having ordained or appointed that authority or power. Weiland is quibbling. Regardless, where Weiland goes astray is in his following reinterpretive conclusion: 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." Weiland's entire thesis is based on this false premise that any government not enforcing God's law is illegitimate and therefore lacks authority and therefore can be disobeyed by the Christian at will. But scripture does not provide an exemption to disobey merely because God's law is not enforced. For a government to be legitimate under Weiland's theory of authority being contingent on enforcement of God's law, such a government would, for all practical purposes, have to be like Old Testament Israel under Moses; everyone must worship only the God of Israel or Jesus Christ; it would be illegal to take God's or Jesus' name in vain; illegal on Saturday to attend sports events, drink in bars, buy gas or shop; and no homosexuality, no divorce, no pre/extramarital sex, etc. God's law should be enforced, right? Which of you tax protesters think you owe obedience only to that kind of government - lol. Contrast that with the elegance of the God-inspired US Constititution. Yes, God has laws He expects you to obey, but He's given you free-will to disobey them as you wish though you'll answer to God in eternity (separated on Jesus' left or His right) and maybe the government even sooner. Commesurately, the passage: Rom 13:1 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. actually says "those [governing authorities or higher powers] which exist are established by God." Thus, if the government exists, its very existance is defacto proof of it having been established by God. Bible believing Christians either accept God's absolute sovereignty or they don't. Note further, the passage (or any other) does not imply or say "upon failure to enforce God's law a government ceases to exist or becomes illegitimate". That is Weiland's false premise he slipped in under cover of arguing that translation of Strong's G1508 should be changed from "but" to "if not". Neither Jesus nor Paul nor Peter made any special exemption from subjection to Roman governing authority because of failure to enforce God's law: Weiland ignores clear biblical teaching that Jesus Himself said to "render to Caesar" taxes owed to Caesar, even though at no time did Rome enforce God's law. Not once, not ever. Yet Roman governing authority existed and was therefore established by God. Paul likewise remained in subjection to Roman governing authority (Act 22:25 relying on his Roman citizenship to seek due process and a hearing from Caesar Acts 25), even though Roman governing authority had already crucified Jesus Christ and was still not enforcing God's law, yet Paul nonetheless wrote to Timothy and Titus: 1Ti 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Tit 3:1-2 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, (2) to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. Further, God had sent Israel into exile under Nebuchadnezzar whose cruelty and pagan idolotry were the antithesis of enforcing God's law. And yet God told the Israelites to subject themselves to Nebuchadnezzar and not resist (Jer 27:6-8), and God even said those who served Nebuchadnezzar willingly would be allowed to live (Jer 27:11-12). Even a cruel and pagan governing authority is established by God and serves God's purpose (punishing Israel in this instance). Whether a cruel, pagan Babylonian governing authority that fails to enforce God's law, a Roman occupying governing authortity that fails to enforce God's law, or a modern democractic governing authority that still fails to enforce God's law, God established them all and their authority is under God's sovereignty, and scripture says the Christian is to be in subjection to them. Are there any circumstances under which God's established governing authority is to be disobeyed? Yes. As it seemingly pains you all to acknowledge I previously noted, and again Peter said: 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. Weiland notes about Daniel: 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. But does Wieland actually study his own example? No, he does not: Did Daniel et. al., disobey Nebuchadnezzar? Yes. But did they declare that Nebuchadnezzar no longer had authority? No, they did not. Did they advocate the overthrow of Nebuchadnezzar? No, they did not. Did they deny or resist the punishment for their disobedience consequently imposed by Nebuchadnezzar? No, they did not. Rather, they willingly stepped into the lions' den or the firery furnance, didn't they. That is what Christian faith looks like. "Faith is more than believing in spite of the evidence, it is obeying in spite of the consequences" - Chuck Missler When the founding fathers broke away from British rule, they didn't try to overthrow the British King. Here then is the case Wieland ponders; when in the midst of a revolution to which governing authority does a Christian submit? The obvious answer that seems to have escaped Wieland is, the governing authority which remains most Biblical. Be clear, merely imposing taxes is not unBiblical, nor per se is self- defense, capital punishment, war, etc. OTOH, violating not only God's law (10 Commandments, for example) but violating civil laws as well clearly becomes a tipping point. "War for the sake of war is sin, but war for the sake of defense is duty." - Martin Luther Biblically justifying war is a most serious subject, not to be taken lightly. Everyone should always study scripture for themselves and always seek God's guidance for themselves in every situation. The following obviously is not an exhaustive treatment and I am not qualified to give one, but more importantly every circumstance must be truthfully weighed in the light of Scripture and not every circumstance requires war or self-defense (certainly rarely or never as a first resort). See Looking At War From A Biblical Perspective for a fuller, yet brief, treatment and use the references therein to begin your own study. The following are some of the Bible passages which reflect on "just war" and "self-defense": Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. Exo 22:2-3 "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. (3) "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Lev 24:17 'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. Luk 22:35-37 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." (36) And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. (37) "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." [Note: this is a controversial passage and the point here (seemingly) is Jesus knew He was to be crucified in a few hours and He was sending His disciples out into the world to spread the gospel, but unlike their itinerant teaching of repentance journey (Mar 6:7-12, Luk 10:1-17) He was now telling them to be equipped for the longer, larger mission, and they were to have a knife or dirk (possibly a more accurate translation of the Greek "machaira", Strong's 3162, than "sword") ostensibly as a cutting tool and possibly for self-defense but not for them to protect Jesus from the pending arrest in Gethsemane.] Rom 13:4 for it [governing authority] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword [figuratively war] for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 1Ti 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. King George III was repeatedly in violation of British Law and the Magna Carta. Previously, in 1620 AD, the first American colonies were established (under the auspices of the Virginia Company's Mayflower voyage) by the Mayflower Compact, which specifically declared the colonist's intentions to establish a Christian colony under God (they had their own sincere, heartfelt convictions of being Biblical and lead by God) and due to their remoteness from English civil order to also establish their own civil laws for those colonies. They did not declare independence, but instead declared themselves still subjects of King James. They remaind both Christians under God and subject to their governing authority. For decades those colonists attempted to live peacibly under British rule and secure their commercial and religious liberty. But British rule over the colonies increasing became confiscatory and oppressive. It culminated in King George III's tax acts of 1764, '65 and '67, the Quartering Act, and the Anglican Churches encroachments to dictate religious practice. British troops always 'drew first blood' in every confrontation (Massacre of 1770, bombing of Boston in 1774, and Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775), and then colonists finally revolted. In Patrick Henry's "give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech of March 20 1775, he argued against many pacifists, noting: Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the instruments of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been so long forging. "And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to treaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. The colonists revolted as a last resort in self-defense of life, liberty, and property. God's law in part to governments (and people) is don't steal, murder, or covet. The American Revolution was arguably a Biblical Christian revolt because the colony was originally established under God's sovereignty, lawful and peaceful means had been exhausted, the governing authority was violating its own laws, and ultimately began killing its otherwise law abiding peaceful subjects. Here then, you have a very clear case of 'governing authority' violating God's law. But those violations weren't the imposition of taxes per se, which in and of itself raises few or no conflicting Biblical precepts (as repeatedly pointed out here, here, here, and here). Yes, the fruits confiscatory taxation motivated the British crown and parliment, but no, confiscatory taxation was not the moral basis on which the colonists stood. Rather, the moral Biblical basis on which the colonists stood was that they had been peaceable, law abiding Christians while King George III was unlawfully confiscating their property, quartering his troops in their homes, and then murdering them for objecting to his violations of his own British law. There are indeed parallels that can be drawn today. President Bush's administration is in clear violation of Constitutional restraints, is conducting unlawful foreign wars, employs 'dishonest weights and measures' in its fiscal and monetary policies, and seemingly erodes Biblical prohibitions on immorality. Certainly 'the blame' extends wider and earlier than the current presidency. I will even go so far as to stipulate there are cases where taxation has been confiscatory, seemingly outside the 'spirit' of the Constitution, and impoverished taxpayers natually enraged/despaired have taken their own lives or been harmed or killed in 'enforcement actions'. Another tipping point may indeed be near. But taxation per se, now as before, does not provide the Biblical basis for a revolution. There are bigger fish to fry that may warrant Biblical Christian disobedience. But even so, the path of Biblical 'civil disobedience' must be in accordance with God's will, as was seemingly true of the Mayflower Colonists, the American Revolutionists, and Daniel. Which brings us back to Daniel and Weiland's failure to actually study the Biblical example set by Daniel. Daniel was a Godly Israelite and yet Daniel was not 'excused' from God's punishment of Israel and Daniel was carried away into exile along with his countrymen. In captivity, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego continued to be faithful to God but simultaneously served the governing authority (Nebuchanezzar) until there was an actual conflict between what God had commanded and what Nebuchanezzar had commanded, at which point Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego did not attempt to overthrow or escape Nebudchadnezzar but willingly accepted punishment for their civil disobedience, and they trusted to God for deliverance from the lions' den and firery furnace - from which God delivered them and further exalted His sovereignty over Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel later served under Cyrus II the Great (who ended the 70-year exile) and Daniel was further used by God in several stunning prophecies including the coming of the Messiah. While Weiland notes that Daniel "drew the line", Weiland fails to note that "the line" Daniel drew did not include denying Nebuchadnezzar's authority (just disobedience of it) and did not include escaping or evading the consequent punishment for disobedience, all the while trusting in God instead of taking up arms or rewriting Nebuchadnezzar's decrees. Obedience to taxation under governing authority is Biblical. Get over it. Seeking to lawfully reduce taxes due or make existing law more fair is likewise Biblical. But simply declaring oneself to have 'Christian freedom' and exemption from taxation under flawed readings of the Bible or civil law has no Biblical basis. When a direct command from God (e.g. Jesus' command to preach the Gospel to all nations) is directly conflicted by the established governing authority, God's command is to be obeyed over the established governing authority. But God does not promise to deliver the Christian from the earthly consequences of civil disobedience, and God's purpose may well be to use those consequences to advance His plan, as when Paul and Peter were martyred and John was imprisoned on Patmos and Christians were scattered into the world like seeds in the wind, and especially Jesus' crucifixion. God has promised that He works all things for the good of those who love Him (reflect again on Daniel's faith and how God greatly used Daniel who was willing to serve wherever God put him), but we are to leave the judgement and vengeance of the established governing authority in God's control. We are not to take charge and 'help God'. For the Bible believing Christian, especially the most serious path of revolution must be within genuine Biblical constraints under Holy Spirit leading, but even so to the utmost of our ability to serve God's purposes and not human defiance and avarice. If Weiland can concoct a basis on which to disobey laws, then he really is no different than any other lawbreaker who argues moral relativism and situational ethics. In conclusion, if I may paraphrase Chesterton, your problem with obedience is not that Christian faith has been tried and found wanting; rather your problem is that Christian faith has been found difficult and thus not tried. 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. lol - There is the height of hypocrisy: Why would BTP Holding's take such a perverse view? Because he is scrambling to justify his failed tax-protestor theories and racism. Just who is Ted R. Weiland? You'll note about 170 hits, mostly of Weiland's involvement with the "Christian Identity movement" (a racist cult about which I've previously cautioned) and tax protesters, plus a few Stormfront links, and (surprise, surprise) our own BTP Holdings - A Return To Truth, Justice, And The American Way. Go figure.
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
KJV: Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but1508 of God:, the powers that be are ordained of God.
ei me
i may
From G1487 and G3361; if not: - but, except (that), if not, more than, save (only) that, saving, till.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#71. To: noone222. all (#69)
I've heard that only 3 - 10% of the colonists supported our revolution when it began.
I wonder if the revolutionaries of 18th century America were hindered by as much apathy as we are in the 21st.
a village is missing its idiot.
#72. To: Starwind (#70)
What about Jesus running the money changers out of the Temple Treasury with a whip ... (which is what actually led to his murder three days later) ? How do you square this with your twisted logic ? Don't the bots miss you at Free Republic ?
"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
#73. To: innieway, nolu_chan (#62) (Edited)
I said: But now you backpeddle with: Court: "Finally! A well research tax protest defense I haven't heard. Court orders the return of everything seized. Case dismissed. (bang!) Oh, and Baliff, erase those files" But, ummm, how is it you've researched a defense that relies upon essential details of what you don't have, but expect others to follow examples you can't give? We seem to be back to my original point that you "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)", essentially.
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)
You said: You can change your status from "slave" to "sovereign individual" - and live your life and conduct your business in accordance with Hale v. Henkel. Example:
And then I asked:
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. Might you have (or point me to) anything more substantial on this "example" set by Hargis, ... I'd like to see exactly what the warrant was for and what the outcome was.
[Note that a warrant ought to exist, Hargis himself ought to have a copy of it whether there was a trial or not. Why hasn't Hargis made available a copy of this warrant and copies of what Hargis argued in court? Or did space aliens erase Hargis' memory and personal files? The dog ate it?] 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. ... 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.
So your well researched tax freedom argument is to accuse taxpayers of making voluntary donations to the "heineous acts" of government, and when asked how one stops making such donations and essentially change their status from "slave" to "sovereign individual", you cite Hargis as an example, and when asked for details on how Hargis essentially did what you expect the rest of us to essentially do, you explain that it doesn't exist, we shouldn't expect it to exist, not even tax protestors like you have the essential information, but we're supposed to trust the courts DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW, and when we get to court, say essentially what? Defendant: "Your honor, some guy on the internet said it was a well researched legal defense, but I won't find a copy of it because it doesn't exist."
Is that how it works? Essentially?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#74. To: noone222 (#72)
lol - there's just no sport in this for me. Yeah, they missed me every time, and like you their aim never improved.
What about Jesus running the money changers out of the Temple Treasury with a whip ... (which is what actually led to his murder three days later) ? How do you square this with your twisted logic ?
Don't the bots miss you at Free Republic ?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#75. To: noone222, starwind, ALL (#72)
I'm closer to Weiland ["Identity"] than I am to the communist "bend-over-and- take-it" new world order crap they've tried to shove down my throat since I was a kid. B.F.Skinner could've developed the version of defeatist 'christianity' they teach today, which is "Obey TheStateInc. It is of God!" [BULLSHIT!]
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
#76. To: Starwind (#74) (Edited)
lol (unnecessary and unearned laugh ... must be a nervous laugh) - so just answer whether he was loving his neighbor or beating him in conflict with the obey all authorities standard you promote ??? [The temple treasury is where they collect the tax]. Yeah, they missed me every time, and like you their aim never improved. Your ability to "dodge" the question would account for their difficulty, so please just answer the question.
lol - there's just no sport in this for me.
"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
#77. To: noone222 (#76)
(sigh) Ok then, your original baseless taunt was: No, Jesus was crucified for being the King of the Jews, the "charge" He admitted to Pilate (the governing authority) was true. There was neither Hebrew nor Roman "law" that mandated money changers in the outer court of the Temple, the court of the Gentiles, nor the conversion rates they were charging. Jesus violated no laws running them out, certainly no tax laws. And Jesus ran no one out of "Temple Treasury", it was actually the outer court of the Gentiles. That (and not knowing what Jesus was charged with at His crucifixion) is just further ignorance on your part.
so just answer whether he was loving his neighbor or beating him in conflict with the obey all authorities standard you promote ???
What about Jesus running the money changers out of the Temple Treasury with a whip (which is what actually led to his murder three days later)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#78. To: Starwind (#77) (Edited)
cough, cough .... this is the question ... (above) Was beating the scoundrels actually loving them ... I see you're completely esconced in tax issues ... The act of whipping the money-changers was the act that actually led to his murder ... who's having a hard time reading ??? Led to doesn't determine the "charge" ... he was charged with a lot of things like sedition ... [Mat 27:13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? ] ... No, Jesus was crucified for being the King of the Jews, the "charge" He admitted to Pilate Spoken like an amateur persecutor (prosecutor no difference) ... Pilate told him he was accused of being King of Israel ... and He replied "thou sayest it" ... he never made an admission. Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it]. Mar 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. Mar 15:5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. That (and not knowing what Jesus was charged with at His crucifixion) is just further ignorance on your part. You could get a clue ... and cut the nervous lol ... it's unbecoming someone as self-impressed as you. Actually, you might try doing your own study and stop relying on the bullshit commentary you get at your 501(C)(3) State Church !
so just answer whether he was loving his neighbor or beating him in conflict with the obey all authorities standard you promote ???
"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
#79. To: noone222 (#78)
No, that wasn't the question. I copied the text of your original question precisely and answered it correctly. But you've demonstrated no willingness to read or do simple math, you're argumentative, and repetitiously at that. You're the one ensconced in temple tax issues, you don't even get the questions right and are oblivious to your mistakes. If you actually post an intelligent, factually correct question or argument to me in the future, I'll consider it then. Otherwise, there is nothing edifying in your "debate" and my patience with you is exhausted.
cough, cough .... this is the question ... (above) Was beating the scoundrels actually loving them ... I see you're completely esconced in tax issues ...
lol (unnecessary and unearned laugh ... must be a nervous laugh) - so just answer whether he was loving his neighbor or beating him in conflict with the obey all authorities standard you promote ??? [The temple treasury is where they collect the tax].
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#80. To: Starwind, (#79) (Edited)
Wanna eat the above words too you little twit ... the evidence has only been around for 2000 years !!! Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it]. Mar 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. Mar 15:5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. You hate being outed for the idiot you are ... but the shoe fits Cinderella ! False Testimony = perjury ... Your inability to admit a mistake points towards your need to be patted on the head.
No, Jesus was crucified for being the King of the Jews, the "charge" He admitted to Pilate
"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
#81. To: Starwind (#70)
Bye Bye BOZO!
"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
#82. To: Starwind (#73)
One last time..... From that long-winded sentence we have I've answered this several times. If I answer it again, will you make note of it? Hargis essentially did what I answered above. HE GOT OUT OF THE SS SYSTEM. Be careful of calling someone a "tax protester". I never claimed to be a tax protester, nor do any of the (intentionally unnamed) people to whom I have referred in my replies. I mentioned in an earlier reply that there is a LEGAL status called NON-TAXPAYER in the IRS codebook. The people in that status are not required to file, to pay, or to participate in any other way. They are NOT deemed "tax protesters", "tax evaders", or any other slanderous label. Attaining that status begins with opting out of the voluntary SS system as well as other contractual relationships you have with the state (driver's license, business license, bank accounts, insurance policies etc.) I have noticed several times in this thread that you have accused others of "taking things out of context" or "an inability to read what is written". This applies to you as well. I didn't say that we're supposed to trust that the "courts don't have all their ducks in a row". What I said was: 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 Again, if it's in court, it's in court because the ONE IN COURT DIDN'T HAVE ALL HIS DUCKS IN A ROW. If they did they wouldn't be in court. Essentially, if you still are in the system you say "GUILTY". Essentially, this whole thing is a waste of my time. You don't want out of the system. You WANT the promises and benefits that go along with SS. You WANT medicare and medicaid for your "retirement" years, because you know there's a good chance you'll need it. You WANT that monthly check coming in. You WANT a bank account. You WANT a stock market account. You WANT insurance on your house and car. You WANT a driver's license. You WANT credit. You WANT to participate in paper currencies. Since you think all I do is "rant" here's a rant for ya. He told us many times to follow His Statutes, Commandments, and Judgments. He also told us we are a hard-headed people. Americans violate about ¾th's of His 760 or so Statutes, Commandments, and Judgments... No wonder things are so fucked up. And what is the "root" cause of this nonsense? That RELIGIONS got ahold of the Bible!! RELIGIONS took a LAW BOOK and twisted it around to weasel their way out of following LAW!!! Talk about "protesters"!!! Religions are the biggest protesters of all - they protest GOD'S LAWS!!!
So your well researched tax freedom argument is to accuse taxpayers of making voluntary donations to the "heineous acts" of government, and when asked how one stops making such donations and essentially change their status from "slave" to "sovereign individual", you cite Hargis as an example, and when asked for details on how Hargis essentially did what you expect the rest of us to essentially do, you explain that it doesn't exist, we shouldn't expect it to exist, not even tax protestors like you have the essential information, but we're supposed to trust the courts DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW, and when we get to court, say essentially what?
when asked how one stops making such donations and essentially change their status from "slave" to "sovereign individual"
The answer is - GET OUT OF THE SS SYSTEM!!! This can be accomplished by using SS form 521, OR by writing to the SS administration with your "request". you cite Hargis as an example, and when asked for details on how Hargis essentially did what you expect the rest of us to essentially do, you explain that it doesn't exist, we shouldn't expect it to exist
I DON'T expect YOU to essentially do that however. In fact, you WON'T do that, because (as I mentioned before) you WANT the entitlements promised by the SS system. You also want/need the other "benefits" that go along with being in the program - things such as the ability to have a bank account, or stock market account.
As for "explaining that it doesn't exist, or we shouldn't expect it to exist", if you'll go back and read what I wrote you'll see that I said good tax protester arguments don't exist in court, and you shouldn't expect them to. I also explained that the reason they don't exist is because the "tax protester" in the court proceedings is still in the SS system along with a list of other factors the court may use as prima facia evidence against said protester. not even tax protestors like you have the essential information, but we're supposed to trust the courts DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW
when we get to court, say essentially what?
You WANT to eat pork chops and lobster tail as opposed to following the Creator's food and other health laws - which is why you WILL need medicare. You WANT someone else to bear the responsibility instead of following the Creator's strict liability laws - which is why you need insurance. You WANT to use paper currencies and accounts instead of using only just weights and measures as mandated by the Creator (gold, silver, wheat, oil etc) - because of convenience... You WANT credit instead of avoiding it as mandated by the Creator (it's not the credit that's banned, but the charging of or paying interest ON the credit that's banned by the Creator's laws) - because you like having the ability to purchase things which you don't have the "cash" to purchase. That's why I say to give up researching "tax protester" cases. You WANT to be in the system, so you NEED to pay your taxes. IN FACT, you'd BETTER pay your taxes. To do otherwise without recourse would mean making life changes that you DON'T WANT to make. Like I said, I don't want to interfere with your happiness and success!!!
Funny how people bitch and moan about the shape the world is in, but REFUSE to follow the Creator's laws. Maybe if we DID follow His laws, the world would be a little better off??? Think about it. Take following strict liability for instance as opposed to having insurance. Do ya think folks might start driving a little more carefully if the money to buy someone a new Lincoln Navigator to replace the one they totaled out when they ran the red light came out of their pocket? Wouldn't it be nice if the next time somebody was coming down with the flu they quarantined themselves (mandated in the Creator's health laws) instead of going to work anyhow and spreading it around? How would it feel to know that instead of America being in debt so huge we can never pay it off we were actually the other way around and had huge surpluses? Well, disobeying the Creator's financial laws and opting instead for paper (fiat) currencies is what has allowed the government to put us in this predicament. Since taking us off the gold standard, and going to FRNs we have gone from being the world's richest nation to being #1 in debt.
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
#83. To: noone222 (#80) (Edited)
lol - No I guess I gonna have to force feed those words to you. Here's a few more to chew on, beginning with my answer to your original question and your rebuttal: What about Jesus running the money changers out of the Temple Treasury with a whip (which is what actually led to his murder three days later) No, Jesus was crucified for being the King of the Jews, the "charge" He admitted to Pilate (the governing authority) was true. Led to doesn't determine the "charge" ... he was charged with a lot of things like sedition ... I've organized the explanation into 1) When was the plotting against Jesus 2) From where were the money changers run out 3) On what basis was Jesus "murdered". All my cites below are from the NASB, except where noted otherwise. 1) When was the plotting against Jesus? Early in Jesus' ministry, well before the money changers were run out, the plotting to kill Jesus had begun by the scribes, Pharisees and Herodians: Mat 12:13-14 Then He *said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. (14) But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. Mar 3:5-6 After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. (6) The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. Note, the "Herodians" were probably not the Sadducees, chief priests, or scribes. Luk 6:10-11 After looking around at them all, He said to him, "Stretch out your hand!" And he did so; and his hand was restored. (11) But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus. Joh 5:15-18 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. (16) For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. (17) But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." (18) For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Luk 13:31 Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, "Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You." Joh 7:1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. Joh 7:25-32 So some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, "Is this not the man whom they are seeking to kill? ... (30) So they were seeking to seize Him; and no man laid his hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come. (31) But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?" (32) The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize Him. Still before the money changers were run out, the day Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Pharisees and Sadducees"planned together to kill Him". See John 11:51 and 53 below: Joh 11:45-53 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. (46) But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. (47) Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. (48) "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (49) But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, (50) nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." (51) Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, (52) and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (53) So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. Days later, when Jesus ran the money changers out, regarding the chief priests and the scribes; Matthew does not mention any plotting, Luke records they were trying, and only Mark 11:18 gives the impression the plotting started consequent to running the money changers out: Mat 21:12-17 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. (13) And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN." (14) And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. (15) But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant (16) and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus *said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF'?" (17) And He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there. Luk 19:45-48 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling, (46) saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN." (47) And He was teaching daily in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him, (48) and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging on to every word He said. Mar 11:15-18 Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; (16) and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. (17) And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS'? But you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN." (18) The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching. Note here that only in Mark 11:18 does the translation give the impression that the plotting began as a consequence of running the money changers out. But "began" is a word inserted by the NASB translators, it is not present in the original Greek text. The Greek verb translated "began seeking" has in this case the ingressive imperfect tense which Greek uses for inceptive (i.e. beginning) or inchoate (partly in existence) action. As I mentioned, the NASB is a more literal translation and I'm sure "began seeking" accurately translates what Mark wrote, but I'm equally sure Mark did not mean to negate or ignore his own earlier account of the plotting to kill Jesus (Mar 3:6). Below is Mark 11:18 from the King James which you seem to favor, the New King James, Young's Literal Translation (YLT), and the NIV. Note "began" was not inserted in the KJV, NKJV, or YLT as those translations render more generally the imperfect verb tense which usually means continual or repeated action. Given the fact of the earlier plotting to kill Jesus (in all four gospels) the correct meaning is that it continued: KJV: And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. NKJV: And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching. YLT: And the scribes and the chief priests heard, and they were seeking how they shall destroy him, for they were afraid of him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching; NIV: The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. Note the NIV, while a 'dynamic' translation which attempts a modern English rendering, it also attempts a more accurate translation, hence like the NASB it uses "began looking" to reflect what Mark actually wrote in Greek. If you read only this verse in the NASB or NIV, ignoring the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke, and ignoring the initial accounts of plotting prior to Jesus running the money changers out, you might erroneously conclude the plotting started here. But since you do read the KJV, as you cited, there is nothing to give the impression the plotting began here, so I don't see where you got that idea. After Jesus ran the money changers out, the chief priests and the scribes continued to plot Jesus death: Mat 26:1-5 When Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples, (2) "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion." (3) Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; (4) and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him. (5) But they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people." Mar 14:1-2 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him; (2) for they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people." Luk 22:1-2 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. (2) The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people. In Mark 11:18 the NASB and NIV strive for accurate wording, and use "began seeking" or "began looking", whereas the KJV, NKJV and YLT strive for accurate meaning and use just "sought" or "seeking". This incidentally is the tradeoff Bible translators struggle with all the time: whether to convey the wording actually used or the meaning actually intended. Regardless, within the complete context of Mark's earlier accounts plus all the accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John, obviously the plotting to kill Jesus began long before and continued through running the money changers out and up to His crucifixion. It didn't begin immediately as the consequence of running the money changers out and hence was not "what actually led to his murder three days later" as you incorrectly presume. If any one event actually led to his murder it would be the betrayal by Judas, who (voluntarily on his own timing) approached the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus (Mat 26:14, Mar 14:10, Luk 22:4). There were numerous actions, teachings and miracles that had angered the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, etc., but even upon Jesus being betrayed into their hands by Judas, they still had no authority to put Him to death. The authority to execute was solely held by the Roman occupying government, i.e. by Pilate. To actually execute Jesus under some charge of law, it had to be a charge for which the Romans would apply execution. Sedition or insurrection of Roman rule was such a charge, but running money changers out of the temple, was not. 2) From where were the money changers run out? Jesus ran no one out of the Temple treasury. Neither the money changers, sellers of doves, nor Jesus were in the Temple treasury. They were all in the outer court. They (money changers, sellers of doves) were not collecting Temple taxes either. Rather they were selling sacrificial animals to Jews who had traveled to Jerusalem for Passover and had no sacrificial animals (or their animals had been declared unfit or blemished by corrupt priests). These people then had to purchase officially "unblemished" animals from the sellers (at exorbitant prices). But only Temple coins could be used in these transactions; Temple coins which had to be converted from secular money (again at an exorbitant exchange rate). So the Jewish people were paying exorbitant exchange rates to get Temple coins to purchase "unblemished" sacrificial animals, all taking place in the court of the Gentiles. These are the people whom Jesus ran out. 3) On what basis was Jesus "murdered"? To carry a penalty of death, the governing authority (Pilate) would not consider any charges brought under Jewish law, as those were religious matters in which he would not interfere. But people under Roman subjection (the Jews, including Herod) had no authority to "execute", the Romans having taken it away. Pilate would not execute Jesus for having run money changers out of the Temple: it wasn't insurrection, it wasn't against Roman law, and Pilate would not have executed Jesus on such a charge. To get Pilate to impose a conviction carrying a sentence of death, the chief priests, et. al., would have to accuse Jesus of inciting insurrection against Caesar; such as don't pay taxes to Rome and declaring himself king, which is what they did. Trial by Sanhedrin: Mat 26:63-66 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." (64) Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." (65) Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; (66) what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!" Mar 14:61-64 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" (62) And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." (63) Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? (64) "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Luk 22:70-71 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am." (71) Then they said, "What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth." So the charges settled on by the Sanhedrin were "blasphemy" for claiming to be the Son of God, and not for desecrating the Temple, running the money changers out, disrupting Temple treasury operations or Temple tax collections. Trial by Pilate: Luk 23:1-3 Then the whole body of them got up and brought Him before Pilate. (2) And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." (3) So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." Note above that only Luke's account specifies the exact charges against Jesus transmitted to Pilate: So, obviously the Jews know that Pilate will not execute Jesus for "blasphemy" and so they have padded the 'bill of indictment' with forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar and claiming to be king (ostensibly as a threat to Caesar). But Pilate ignores the accusations of misleading the nation or forbidding payment of taxes, and focuses on claims of kingship. Mat 27:11-13 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." (12) And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He did not answer. (13) Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" Note that it was the accusations from the chief priests and elders that Jesus did not answer. Jesus has answered Pilate's question affirmatively. Joh 18:33-40 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" (34) Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?" (35) Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?" (36) Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (37) Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." (38) Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him. (39) "But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?" (40) So they cried out again, saying, "Not this Man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a robber. John's account records a more exacting answer to Pilate's question where Jesus answers "You say correctly that I am a king". Pilate does not grasp the subtle distinctions in Jesus answer but regardless deems Jesus innocent of any seditious insurrection or threat against Caesar (and presumably innocent as well of forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, etc.), but none the less refers to Jesus by the title "King of the Jews", since it was the Jews who accused Jesus of claiming to be king and "King of the Jews" would be a logical inference for Pilate to make and obviously no one would have cared had Jesus claimed to be king of Gentiles, or Egyptians, etc. Mar 15:1-4 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. (2) Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him, "It is as you say." (3) The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. (4) Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, "Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!" I addressed your cited Mark 15 passages last, so they would be in context with all the others: Here is Thayer on Strong's 3004, translated as It is as you say lego Crucifixion: Mat 27:37 And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Mar 15:26 The inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." Luk 23:38 Now there was also an inscription above Him, "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Joh 19:19-22 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." (20) Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. (21) So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" (22) Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written." Note the chief priests wanted a qualification that the charge was merely a claim to be King of the Jews, and thus blasphemous, and not actually being King of the Jews. The chief priests abhorred the public relations disaster of "The King of the Jews" being crucified because he was charged and convicted of being "King of the Jews". But Pilate understood Jesus admission to being born a king, and king of the Jews specifically., which is exactly what bothered the chief priests. So in the context of all scripture and not just a couple cherry-picked verses, Jesus was crucified for being King of the Jews, not for running the money changers out of the "temple treasury" or "where they collect the tax".
Wanna eat the above words too you little twit ...
Pilate told him he was accused of being King of Israel ... and He replied "thou sayest it" ... he never made an admission.
Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it].
Mar 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
Mar 15:5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
1) to say, to speak
1a) affirm over, maintain
1b) to teach
1c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct
1d) to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say
1e) to call by name, to call, name
1f) to speak out, speak of, mention
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#84. To: christine (#83)
Appropo to my points about bible transaltions, in my above post: gives you an idea of the subtle differences in the main English translations. There are many others, but they're insignificant compared to not knowing anything. The key point is that if one plainly reads the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or NASB, or even YLT as written (and not spun by anyone's footnotes), you'll get the big important truths correctly. Later if you want to know why a footnote says what it does, or if one needs to dig deeper into various doctrines and why certain words were used, then comparing different translations (with commentaries or footnotes as found in study bibles), and interliner bibles and lexicons are very helpful. But if you've only read the Bible very little, any of the above is sufficient to start with. Bottom line, you could read a plain, no-footnote $6.00 paperback NIV, KJV or NASB, and still get the "big picture" correct.
In Mark 11:18 the NASB and NIV strive for accurate wording, and use "began seeking" or "began looking", whereas the KJV, NKJV and YLT strive for accurate meaning and use just "sought" or "seeking". This incidentally is the tradeoff Bible translators struggle with all the time: whether to convey the wording actually used or the meaning actually intended.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#85. To: Starwind (#83) (Edited)
Methinks thou protesteth too much ! This is what you said you double talking, long winded, convoluted windbag: No, Jesus was crucified for being the King of the Jews, the "charge" He admitted to Pilate (You are a glutton for correction). We weren't talking about the Sanhedrin or Mother Goose ... we were addressing what He told PILATE ... can't you stay on point. You should change your monniker from starwind ... to "Bag Of Wind" ... and then you should attempt to say something erudite... you should also get a real Bible too ... the tax examiner's version you quote is preposterous. The text you quote has italicized the info necessary to your point, and is not in the manuscript ... nonetheless, quotiong another portion of your longwinded diatribe attempting to garner a good head patting ... "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews"; How could God/Jesus honestly admit to being the King of the Jews when earlier (John 8:44) he had reminded the Pharisees (Sanhedrin Jew accusers) that they were not of his father, but of their father "THE DEVIL" ... Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. All I can think to say to you "Bag of Wind" ... is "get thee hence bozo" !
"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
#86. To: Starwind, Christine (#84)
In Mark 11:18 the NASB and NIV strive for accurate wording, and use "began seeking" or "began looking", whereas the KJV, NKJV and YLT strive for accurate meaning and use just "sought" or "seeking". This incidentally is the tradeoff Bible translators struggle with all the time: whether to convey the wording actually used or the meaning actually intended. gives you an idea of the subtle differences in the main English translations. There are many others, but they're insignificant compared to not knowing anything. The key point is that if one plainly reads the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or NASB, or even YLT as written (and not spun by anyone's footnotes), you'll get the big important truths correctly. Later if you want to know why a footnote says what it does, or if one needs to dig deeper into various doctrines and why certain words were used, then comparing different translations (with commentaries or footnotes as found in study bibles), and interliner bibles and lexicons are very helpful. But if you've only read the Bible very little, any of the above is sufficient to start with. NIV = New (try neo) International Version and NASB = New (neo) American Standard Bible ... These are incrementally "improved" Scofield biased brain drainers with a New World Order agenda at heart. Some of these attempt to be your Biblical Rush Limbaugh and tell you what you're supposed to think it says ... If Jesus taught submission to the authorities was so very important ... why were every apostle (but one) put to death by the authorities ... didn't kiss enough ass I suppose ! [Windbag] A Biblical gate-keeper amongst us ... "get thee hence bozo" !
Appropo to my points about bible transaltions, in my above post:
"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
#87. To: Neil McIver, Starwind, noone222 (#1)
Case 1:05-cv-01297-WMN - Document 74 - Filed 12/19/2006 - Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Civil No. WMN-05-1297 ORDER On November 29, 2006, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff summary judgment.On that same date, the Court also entered a permanent injunction order requiring Defendants to refrain from certain activities that interfere with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.In that permanent injunction order, the Court also required Defendants to take certain affirmative actions, including: posting the injunction order on their website, notifying their members of the outcome of this litigation, and providing the government with a listing of the "Save-A-Patriot Fellowship's" membership.Under the terms of the order, Defendants were to complete the requirements of the order by December 20, 2006, and to file a certification of said compliance by December 21, 2006.Defendants have filed the following three motions: Motion for New Trial, Paper No. 71; Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order, Paper No. 72; and a Motion for a Stay Pending Resolution of Motion for Modification of Permanent Injunction Order and for New Trial, Paper No. 73. Although the Court has not had the opportunity to fully Case 1:05-cv-01297-WMN - Document 74 - Filed 12/19/2006 - Page 2 of 3 consider the motion for new trial as it is not yet ripe, the Court can say with some certainty that it will be denied. Defendants raise the same arguments in that motion that were raised and fully considered in the cross motions for summary judgment.The motion for modification of the injunction order is also not yet ripe, and the government has yet to respond.This motion, however, might prove to have some merit, particularly as it relates to assisting Defendants in discerning what is protected political speech and what is prohibited false commercial speech. [1] Once that motion is fully briefed, the Court may find it necessary to hold a hearing to assure clarity as to what is prohibited under the injunction. In the meantime, it seems prudent to grant Defendants' request for a stay.While the harm to the government caused by Defendants' activities is not unsubstantial, the additional harm caused by a brief delay in the enforcement of the injunction is less than the potential immediate harm to Defendants once the injunction is in force.While Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the ultimate merits of their claims, they may be entitled to some minor modifications or clarifications of this Court's ---------------------- [1] That said, the Court notes that much of Defendants' "confusion" results from their own intentional ignorance and obfuscation. As noted in the memorandum resolving the cross motions for summary judgment, Defendants continue to tout their chimerical theories despite the consistent rejection of those theories by all courts to have considered them. Nov. 29, 2006 Memorandum Opinion at 12 ("just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid," quoting SAPF's Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 28 n.67). Case 1:05-cv-01297-WMN - Document 74 - Filed 12/19/2006 - Page 3 of 3 injunction. Accordingly, IT IS this 19th day of December, 2006, 1) That Defendants' Motion for a Stay, Paper No. 73, is 2) That the Clerk of Court shall mail or transmit copies of /s/
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
V.
JOHN BAPTIST KOTMAIR et al.
by the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED:
GRANTED; and
this Order to Mr. Kotmair and all counsel of record.
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge
#88. To: noone222 (#85)
Indeed what Jesus admitted to Pilate was that He was King of the Jews. I showed you what did not lead to the charges you incorrectly presumed, what lead to the actual charges, why those particular charges, how Jesus answers those charges, and the same final charges themselves fixed to the cross. Because one is either with Jesus or against Him, either of God the Father or of Satan the father of lies, and as long as specific individuals continue to lie, their father continues to be Satan. None of which changes that Jesus was born to be King, of the House of David to sit on David's throne, through Mary and Joseph's lineage: That is why Jesus said "it is as you say" when asked "Are you King of the Jews". Jesus is (He is still alive you know) King of the Jews, and all your semantic tap dancing and Christian Identity koolaid guzzling world view won't change it no matter how hard you kick at the goads.
No, Jesus was crucified for being the King of the Jews, the "charge" He admitted to Pilate (You are a glutton for correction). We weren't talking about the Sanhedrin or Mother Goose ... we were addressing what He told PILATE ... can't you stay on point.
How could God/Jesus honestly admit to being the King of the Jews when earlier (John 8:44) he had reminded the Pharisees (Sanhedrin Jew accusers) that they were not of his father, but of their father "THE DEVIL" ...
Luk 1:31-33 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. (32) "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; (33) and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."
You remeber don't you, sit on David's throne and reign over the house of Jacob (that would be all twelve tribes) forever. That's what the "King of the Jews" does.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#89. To: noone222 (#86)
You really do have a reading disorder. I said Bottom line, you could read a plain, no-footnote $6.00 paperback NIV, KJV or NASB, and still get the "big picture" correct That would include without Scofield's footnotes. But no doubt noone222, that great Christian Identity theologian, will now show us verses from the NIV, NASB and KJV side-by-side without footnotes and highlight for us all the Scofield influences - lol.
NIV = New (try neo) International Version and NASB = New (neo) American Standard Bible ... These are incrementally "improved" Scofield biased brain drainers with a New World Order agenda at heart.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#90. To: Starwind (#89) (Edited)
I read your small minded attack, but ignored it. I'm not a Christian Identity person or a British Israelite person ... I'm a Bible student. However, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the British Israel or Christian Identity philosophy is on point and more accurately defines and better explains important elements of scripture. I'm sure your preacher has instructed you in the wiles of Christian identity's message ... and I would warn anyone against bigotry when God created everyone, and determined it was very good. Something happened though that caused Christ to admonish the Pharisees, call them the "seed" of satan, and further to instruct us to be "like righteous Able, and not like Cain, who was of that wicked one ... I know it's all spiritual at your church ... OK, so be it, Jesus was more politician than God, and He was spouting rhetoric and hyperbole. The Christian Identity slur is about as used up as the anti-semite slur ... c'mon, surely you can come up with better than that !
I said Bottom line, you could read a plain, no-footnote $6.00 paperback NIV, KJV or NASB, and still get the "big picture" correct That would include without Scofield's footnotes.
"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
#91. To: noone222 (#90)
Your problem is you're not a Bible learner. You "study" it only to show your prejudices approved by Chistian Identity ideologists. No, your Christian Identity philosophy explains nothing (other than your distorted bible viewpoint) and gets most everything wrong, as repeatedly demonstrated from your lost, discredited, and fact-free 'Jesus was not a Jew' and 'Christians can disobey authority and evade taxes' rants on this thread and others.
... I'm a Bible student.
Much of the British Israel or Christian Identity philosophy is on point and more accurately defines and better explains important elements of scripture.
Case in point.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#92. To: Starwind (#91)
You make very articulate rants and stoop to nasty little tripe to obfuscate and cover your brainwashed concepts of Christianity. Zionism, preys upon Christian ignorance and makes them two-fold the child of hell, causing them to finance worldwide mass murder in God's name, cheering all the while like the Jews that killed Christ, calling for the blood of innocents. May their blood be on you and your children's children ... as it always has been.
No, your Christian Identity philosophy explains nothing (other than your distorted bible viewpoint) and gets most everything wrong, as repeatedly demonstrated from your lost, discredited, and fact-free 'Jesus was not a Jew' and 'Christians can disobey authority and evade taxes' rants on this thread and others.
"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
#93. To: Starwind (#88)
Just like Bush, with him or against him ... hahahahahaha !!! Many people are with Bush, are they his children ? None of which changes that Jesus was born to be King, of the House of David to sit on David's throne, through Mary and Joseph's lineage: Was King David a Jew ? Was Abraham a Jew ? Was Isaac a Jew ? Was Jacob a Jew ? None of the above were Jews. You have proven yourself to be a non-thinker un-aided by even the smallest tid- bit of spirituality ... get thee hence bozo !
Because one is either with Jesus or against Him, either of God the Father or of Satan the father of lies, and as long as specific individuals continue to lie, their father continues to be Satan.
"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
#94. To: noone222 (#92) (Edited)
lol - all I do is post all the Bible verses that you ignore or cut short. If you actually read all Bible verses (not just those you like) and read them fully, and stopped playing semantic games with them, you might actually learn what Christianity is. Do you think Jesus is not watching what you post? Do you think He does not know what is in your heart about what you're trying to prove? In your efforts to ignore the scriptural texts you've been shown, do you think pretending that you're right either fools or pleases Jesus? There will come a day when Jesus will look at you with those piercing blazing eyes and ask "Noone222, what were you thinking?" But where will you be standing when He asks?
You make very articulate rants and stoop to nasty little tripe to obfuscate and cover your brainwashed concepts of Christianity.
Was King David a Jew ? Was Abraham a Jew ? Was Isaac a Jew ? Was Jacob a Jew ? None of the above were Jews.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#95. To: Starwind (#94)
Well, you could simply answer the question instead of running your trap and saying nothing. Do you ignore Rev 2:9 and 3:9 ??? There will come a day when Jesus will look at you with those piercing blazing eyes and ask "Noone222, what were you thinking?" I would be standing there saying ... "Lord, I gave it some thought and remembered that you said a tree could be known by its fruit ... and right then and there I decided you couldn't ever be a Jew ! That simple !
Was King David a Jew ? Was Abraham a Jew ? Was Isaac a Jew ? Was Jacob a Jew ? None of the above were Jews.
"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
#96. To: noone222 (#95)
Why? You don't read scripture to begin with on your own and sure don't read it when posted to you. No, you have quite enough pearls. I sincerely urge you to reconsider your defiance for your own sake. Your posts are now between Him and you. I'm out.
Well, you could simply answer the question instead of running your trap and saying nothing.
I would be standing there saying ... "Lord, I gave it some thought and remembered that you said a tree could be known by its fruit ... and right then and there I decided you couldn't ever be a Jew !
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#97. To: Starwind, Bill D Berger, Neil McIver, noone222, innieway, IndieTx, BTP Holdings (#96) (Edited)
I found Bill's post on LP regarding Romans 13. I agree with his conclusion. Romans 13. Q. I have separated from the beast system, but I am having a little struggle with Romans Chapter 13 and obeying the "Higher Authorities." A. Yes, we are to obey the "Higher Authorities." However, the first question that must be resolved is "Who are the Higher Authorities"? According to the scripture, Jesus is the Highest Authority. He is "far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." (See Ephesians 1:20-21) Romans 13 is hard to understand because thieves and robbers have forced their way into high places. They educate us and our children, teaching us that they are the higher authorities. They make laws and demand that we obey them. If we do not obey, they confiscate our property and lock us up in their jails. They place attorneys into every organization, including the church, to make sure that everyone submits to man. Those who set up "governments" without Christ are not the Higher Authorities. They are lower authorities and we owe them no allegiance. "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." Hosea 8:4 Bill D Berger posted on 2006-12-29
#98. To: christine (#97)
Thanks for that. I've seen too much not to know that Bill D Berger is spot on.
"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
.
.
.
Comments (99 - 101) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest