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: 1799
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
#1. To: All, Starwind (#0)
From SAPF: ****COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST SAPF*** December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court. Therefore, there is no injunction order in effect against the Fellowship at the present time. The Fellowship will keep its members apprised of any new developments, and members will be more fully informed in the next Liberty Tree. For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
Thanks for the heads up. I was tracking this. Kotmair filed on Dec 13th: Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and for a New Trial and filed on the 14th a Motion to Stay, and on the 15th a motion with the 4th Appellate #06-2314, but the contents of that motion has not yet been published. As far as it goes, the announcement is correct. What it did not disclose (from Judge Nickerson's order to stay): Do you not find it troubling that Kotmair is not more forthcoming with the facts on these rulings? Except they haven't actually updated anything as of this post - nothing since Sept 11th.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Westminster man told to stop running tax scheme
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I have no knowledge of this particular issue, but the real scam is the legal
system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched,
constitutional argument.
Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical. It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
In general, I'm in total agreement with you. Again I’m way out of my league but tax arguments, regardless of merit, will never be allowed to advance IMO. To do so would be akin to the system committing suicide. Call me a cynic, but this beast won’t allow itself to be starved to death.
It would be nice to know what this is about, ie, what is the issue? What is SAPF? What is the complaint? etc.... Otherwise, I have no reason to follow whatever this is about.
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. — George W. Bush, June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. EDT
I don't want to give an in depth reply as I want to spend the time composing a
summary of the events for my own mailing list to bring everyone up to date in
general layman terms. SAPF's webmaster is a volunteer who works for free so
we can't be picky with the updates to the site, but as of this writing it has
motions posted dating up to 12/19. No I'm not troubled with Kotmair not being
forthcoming. I must point out your question on that point was loaded, as it
presumes Kotmair has not been forthcoming. I disagree. But what isn't
mentioned in any motion yet posted (we don't yet have that to post) was an
Emergency Supervisor writ to the 4th circuit "against" Judge Nickerson. I'm not
certain of the formal name of the writ, and I understand it's very rarely used,
but we do believe that this stay was issued by Nickerson as result of that writ,
and that that may account for Nickerson's biased wording of the stay, suggesting
that it's granting was little more than a formality that will just briefly delay
the inevitable. I frankly didn't think the stay would be issued so I'm happy
for the good guys today.
If you are contemplating accusing Kotmair of being a fraud, then you better post evidence of it star, or you really cross the line with me.
Mighty bold talk from a one-eyed fat man. ;0) BTW, the Fellowship has an audio CD of a talk given at the headquarters by an ex-IRS revenue agent (his name escapes me just now). He outlines his progress to where he came to the point that he finally quit his job because he found out how the government is defrauding everyone, including many of the agents themselves. He told of how there are training sessions set up where 50 agents are brought together and told A, B and C about the tax code, etc., and the training ends there. But if they had gone a step further told the agents D, it would have invalidated everything they were told previously. These lying scum who are directing this fraud (some of your lawyer buddies perhaps?) are even deceiving their own people. They deserve a rope, and nothing more. They train all of the professional CPAs, accountants, controllers, tax attorneys and everyone else involved in this system of plunder. Is it any wonder that the judges go along with it all when the fraud is so pervasive? Besides, they know they would end up out in the cold if they oppose the bankers, so they go along with it. They have betrayed the rest of us and one day soon the other shoe will drop. Just be careful you do not end up under that boot when it does. Have you ever studied any of the positions of the Fellowship? I assure you it is based in factual reading of the law. And shows the misapplications of law by the IRS thugs and government attorneys. I have not met Kotmair in person, but have had the pleasure of speaking to him on the phone a couple of times. I find him to be one of the most principled, honest and forthright men I've ever come in contact with. It helps, of course, to know his personal background, which I do. John has been fighting corruption for a very long time, even since before he started the Fellowship. Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger. Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.
"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
Ok, so why not just say they'll be updated when possible instead of asserting they've been done? I expected the stay to be approved for exactly the reasons given. To weigh the merits of clarifying/amending the injunction language. There is nothing new in Kotmair's argument. There is no new reason for a new trial, there is only need for time for the government to submit their view of Kotmair's motion to modify the injunction (and new trial) and so the stay was expected. Kotmair will not likely prevail getting Nickerson recused. Kotmair had "his day in court" and chose to obstruct discovery and left himself open to summary judgement. During trial Nickerson granted some of Kotmair's motions against the government (and rejected some of the governments more harsh motions), but the trial is over and on the court record there is (probably) little to which an appeals court would object. Nickerson does not have to start from scratch with every one of Kotmair's motions, just because Kotmair thinks so. That is not the way courts work. That is the point of Nickerson citing Kotmair's foolish expectation that "just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid", because in fact when most or all courts do follow a course of conduct, that does make it valid. That is what courts are supposed to do. Establish a valid course of conduct and follow it. Courts do not reopen and retry every argument just because the defendant/plaintiff think it's new or wrong. Evidence that it is new or wrong must be submitted (or evidence that courts have been inconsistent), but Kotmair obstructed discovery and short-circuited his trial, and so if he had such evidence he failed to introduce it. No, I don't have evidence of fraud and I didn't say I did. I was thinking of the fraudulent tax shelters when I wrote that. But I certainly do not give Kotmair a pass on what appears to be an incredibly dumb deal for anyone to pay into. So, essentially, SAPF claims to have developed "successful legal defenses", which in fact the courts have held against SAPF, Kotmair and his son, are not valid and are not legally successful. Regardless, SAPF members enter into an "agreement" whereby they pay $99/year every year to Kotmair/SAPF for the ability to "claim" a loss after an "illegal" IRS seizure or confiscation of real or personal property (specifically excludes paper assets or bank accounts), but they can only submit that claim after confiscation or incarceration (i.e. after the legal defense didn't work). Interesting catch-22 here is if the IRS seizure is "legal" (i.e. upheld by the courts) then the claim (resulting from following SAPF legal defenses and resisting the IRS at every step) would be disallowed. Regardless, members are not legally bound to pay their share of the claimant's assessments (even though SAPF/Kotmair has in advance already received everyone's $99 annual fees under the agreement), and claimant has absolutely no assurance of his loss being covered, while he sits in jail or his home is held. Taking a hypothetical estimate of SAPF's membership at 800+ clients, if every client paid in their assessed $10 that gives the claimant $8,000 which obviously won't make a dent in the losses of a siezed house (ignoring seized or frozen bank accounts and other paper assets) and won't make a dent in the legal defense costs which mount exponentially after indictment, seizure and/or incarceration, the only point at which SAPF claims may be filed. Now the agreement prologue gives examples using 50,000 and 100,000 clients in SAPF's membership, whereby the benefit is estimated at $500K and implied to be $1M (respectively) to compensate for a loss due to confiscation/seizure of a house valued at say $300,000, for a $200K-700K profit (which you can bet the IRS will tax) depending on the size of membership. Another example actually portrays a hypothetical member claiming a $9,000 loss, receiving a $20,000 payout (from a hypothetical 2,000 members) for a "profit" of $11,000. But these examples ignore the agreement provisions which put a maximum of $150,000 per civil claim and $25,000/year per criminal claim, and further, that proof of value of seized property be submitted and verified. What do you suppose is the point of excess-of-loss payout examples that the agreement language actually precludes? But sticking with the 800+ membership, if the IRS further brings suit against just 10 more SAPF members, the assessment for claims on every member is now $100/year above and beyond the required annual "participation" renewal fee, and their SAPF membership costs will have doubled, all without any appreciable benefit in the claim awards. Each member's cost will have gone up 100% if the IRS sues 1.25% of SAPF members. What happens if the IRS sues 10% of the membership? 25% of the membership? And yet the $99 x 800 = $79,200 annual "participation fees" are collected by SAPF/Kotmair. So SAPF members pay $99/year to Kotmair/SAPF in exchange for which they receive discredited and failed legal defense material, after using which their homes and cars are seized and after they themselves are indicted and maybe incarcerated, then they get to submit a claim for actual and limited losses (without any "profit") but for which there is no binding agreement to pay any benefit, and if the IRS sues more SAPF members the assessments increase almost exponentially for all members (assuming they stay in the fellowship and keep paying). But you don't see a problem with this non-binding "insurance-like" arrangement? Would you recommend that your mother, grandmother, youngest sister, whomever, pay into SAPF and rely upon its tax research for their filings and legal defense?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Why is it you never have anything other than insults and unverifiable personal assurances as your argument? Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you? BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you? Kept you out of court have they? Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice. I assist executives of computer-tech companies perform due diligence on mergers and technology acquisitions. I also evaluate companies in which I might want to invest, or simply follow the arguments of companies suing each other (like IBM v SCO) or being sued by the SEC. All of which makes looking at public court records of company principals, patent suits, contract disputes, etc useful, and for a free PACER account at 8 pennies a page, it beats driving down to the court house and waiting in line to do the same thing with their computers. But then, as experienced as you are, you knew all that didn't you... you were just testing me weren't you.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Allow me to relate to you a personal incident of mine from about 6 years ago. When I came here to Missouri, the first place I got a job driving a truck was a small outfit with maybe 7 trucks. I told them when I applied that I would not provide a SSN and that they would not have to take any withholdings from me nor would they have to pay in their share of taxes. To this end I provided the proper documents to fulfill the requirements under the Code for them requesting a number and not receiving one. At that time, employers were only required to request a number. They did not actually have to get one, and there is a procedure to follow with affidavits of transmittal to the Director of Internal Revenue (in Philadelphia) so that all of the requirements of the Code are followed. I got thos documents made up and paid for them myself, and I told the boss if ever there was a problem I would back him up on it, But, I told him to follow the instructions exactly. His daughter was doing the bookkeeping and she sent the affidavit and other paperwork to the regional office in KC. That was a mistake since it sent up a red flag with those know-nothing idiots. The jerk agent kept calling and harrassing the daughter and sending her IRS publications and other literature (which is NOT the law) and making threats over the phone. When the boss told me of this, I told him the forms I gave him should have been sent to Philly, not KC. The main office in Philly handles international (between the several states and the USG) issues. The regional offices do not. This is where the problem arose. The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it. I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared. Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers. This response is time consuming enough right now. Suffice it to say that the agent was shut down because he was hit with the truth, the facts and the law. I just do not have this stuff on the tip of my tongue like others might. But, when I have the chance to discuss thigns with someone who knows these issues, I am able to carry on an intelligent conversation well enough. If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine. And this was all done with help from SAPF staff, and the Nationsl Worker's Rights Committee. All of what they are doing is based on the facts and the law. And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me. That is conversion and theft, in case you didn't guess. So you wonder why I am such a pissed off motherfucker? I'm tired of being raped and sent to the poor house by a corrupt system and the lackeys who support it, for whatever reason. You're all fair game from where I sit. Fine up to now. Everything I have done so far has worked without bringing anything to court. But, we are cooking up some things which are sure to give our insolent and disobedient servants in government ulcers and sleepless nights. I have a case here now which was filed in Virgina which is going to be the template for what we are doing regarding private property rights issues. And, yes, our labor property is private until we contact it away. And we have a right to a return of that labor for something of value. It's just that those nasty FRNs are having less and less value all of the time. Would you like to buy some Liberty Dollars? LOL Didn't think so. ;0) Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice. Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer. I found out about Pacer when I got an info packet from the federal court earlier this year. It would not be worthwhile for me to mess with it since I have nothing to keep up with, as you seem to for your gig. Eight cents per page view would only be good if it didn't amount to much. I'm taking donations if the Lord moves you. ;0) Life is a test. Test, 1, 2, test. Just like the sound check at the concerts. Watch out for Pyro Pete. He has got some awesome boomers and you need to stay clear when they do the pyro check. ROTFLOL! "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
this is probably one of the several former agents (including Joe Bannister) who appeared in Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
Not sure if it is, but I know for a fact that there are more as time goes by who are coming over to our side.
"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
Aww c'mon Jim, quit holding back. Tell this boot-licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie exactly how MILLIONS OF US FEEL !!!!
"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
"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
Where's the toadie ???
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
The former IRS agent who appeared at SAPF was John Turner, and yes, I believe he also appeared in F2F. I met Turner and a bunch of us had dinner with him at a restaurant during that convention.
yes, he did.
That's it. He did a great talk on what is happening on the inside and his own personal awakening. Everyone who has any doubts about how corrupt the system is only needs to listen to that audio of John Turner.
"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
lol - I'm crushed. And I had such high expectations for your reply. Why am I not surprised. At least you didn't pretend the dog ate it. The issue is not my doubting you, but rather your hypocrisy to criticise the facts posted by others while providing none yourself. But then there's not much else you can do, is there. I admit I doubted anyone actually paid for your tax advice, so I assumed it was given. Well it would seem you are a taxpayer, however unfair you might think it. Let me know when $5,000,000 in taxes is stolen from you. Then we'll talk.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Sorry, but you have no idea what I am dealing with over here. I simply do not have the time to dig out that material and find the proper references and post them here. You are lucky to get any reply at all. You should really be on the filter, but I at least give you a pass for now. :p The fact remains that ALL of the research has been done and shown numerous times and is also available in material which may be obtained from Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact. You filing a return signifies that you are returning a portion of your earnings as an employment tax on a privelege. This would be significant if only to show that the tax is being grievously misapplied. But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered. Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)
"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
THAT'S the point!!! But they won't "unvolunteer" because they WANT the privileges they get from volunteering. They WANT to gamble in the stock market, and they want to work for General Motors, and they WANT to have Medicare and that monthly check to count on in their retirement years. No, there is NOT a smidgen of hope there. By his own admission he "researches companies he might want to invest in". He wants to find a way to participate in the commercial system, to make investments hoping for capital gains - AND at the same time find a way to NOT have to participate in the tax scheme... Problem is IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY... As long as he insists on keeping that SS#, bank account, stock market account, various investments in businesses, ANY type of license, etc - he just needs to quit worrying about keeping up with any "tax protester court arguments" looking for a good one that he can use because they don't exist. Noone222 pointed out to him in another thread that his tagline reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news"; and yet he doesn't believe or practice that... If he did he might pay attention to the words of the Messiah in Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so Either he doesn't actually believe his own tagline, or he isn't smart enough to figure out that in the SS system, the government is called the benefactor, and he is the beneficiary - or both. People like that allow FEAR to make their decisions, and are of no use to true patriots. If the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Framers of the Constitution had allowed fear to control them instead of their conscience - this once-great nation would have never achieved what it did. And unless a hell of a lot more people find that same courage our Founding Fathers had, all their efforts were in vain... I believe it was you that used the word traitor to describe him... You're right. Traitor to his country, AND traitor to GOD.
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
This oft repeated canard that paying taxes and abiding by tax laws is somehow unbiblical or lacking faith needs to be addressed (FYI *Bereans* for the scripture cites). So, what does the Bible actually say in comparison with the claims of noone222 and innieway? Noone222 pointed out to him in another thread that his tagline reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news"; and yet he doesn't believe or practice that... If he did he might pay attention to the words of the Messiah in Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=25#C25 I noticed your tagline and thought you should be more aware of the number one tax protester to ever walk the earth ! (Of course they crucified him ... and they're still at it 2000 years later. What did Jesus tell Peter at the house after they had passed through the gate at Capernum. [You'll recall he had Peter go get a coin out of a fishes mouth to pay the "tribute" collector, so as not to piss him off. But when Peter and Jesus arrived at the house, Jesus prevented Peter at the door, and asked him "Peter, from whom do the kings of nations collect tribute, the "children" or the "STRANGER" ... to which Peter replied, ahh yes Lord the stranger.] Taxes are in fact a penalty applied to those receiving a government "PRIVILEGE" , and the reason for Jesus admonition to Peter was to remind him that the birthright of the children wasn't taxable while the privilege of citizenship to the stranger subjected them to taxation. Check out Luke 22:25 where Jesus states that you shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor ... exactly what SS does to you ... it makes the govt. your benefactor ... so who you gonna believe, Jesus or Uncle Sambo ??? http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=26#C26 I'm mystified when someone has a tagline that implies faith in Christ's truth but when it comes down to the nut cuttin that person shit cans Christ and resorts to lawyers and weasel worded statutory fraud. Hypocrisy ! http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=29#C29 When Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ... Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to him, and Jesus was disputing that notion, much like today, when the government would have us believe that every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed. So, here is Luke 22:25-27, full passages in context: Luk 22:24-27 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. (25) And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'G2110 (26) "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. (27) "For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. Strong's G2110: The disciples were frequently engaged in petty arguments over which of them was greatest in heaven: This last time (Luk 22) Jesus drew a contrast between His kingdom and that of Gentiles, specifically those Ptolemaic kings who were known as "Euergetes" or 'Benefactor'. Note above that 'Benefactor' is translated from the Greek "euergetes" (Strongs G2110) in Luke 22:25.: ... king of Egypt, son of Ptolemy II ... succeeded Ptolemy II ... as the Benefactor Gods ... usually known as Euergetes ("Beneficient"). He is commonly distinguished today as Euergetes II or as Physcon. The epithet Euergetes ("Benefactor"), which he shared with and probably modelled on Ptolemy III Jesus contrasts the Gentile "Benefactors" (i.e., Ptolemaic rulers) who were greatest and held authority over others who served them, with the reverse concept in Christ's kingdom that the greatest are those who serve and are under authority, and Jesus cites himself as serving though (implicitly) having all authority: This is the same "lesson" He taught in the other disputes about whom would be greatest: Jesus was not teaching that earthly Christians (His disciples) were not obligated to "Benefactors". Rather, Jesus was teaching that those who would be greatest in His kingdom were least on earth and served under authority. Regarding paying the "tribute", here is Mat 17:27 complete and in context: Mat 17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two- drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two- drachma tax?" (25) He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" (26) When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. (27) "However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." Note carefully there are two different taxes being discussed: Jesus' point to Peter is that because they are not strangers to the temple but are the sons of God, they hence are exempt from the temple tax as asked, but regardless they do pay it so as to not offend. But it is this ecclesiastical temple tax which Jesus voluntarily pays. Jesus does *not* teach in any manner that a civil tax is likewise voluntary or that Christians ought not to pay civil taxes. And the oft misconstrued "render to Caesar" teaching: Mat 22:17-21 "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" (18) But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? (19) "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. (20) And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" (21) They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Jesus specifically distinguishes between that which is Caesar's and that which is God's. Jesus said to pay both Caesar's tax (in Roman coins) and tithes and offerings (in temple coins). No where does the Bible or historical record imply that "Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to [Caesar]", that is a false premise, and no where does Jesus dispute paying taxes to Rome. Further, if today "every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed", there'd be no "loop holes", no "non- profits", no deductions, exemptions, gradations, and a vastly smaller and simpler tax code. In fact, much (but not all) of the complexity and unfairness of the existing tax code is due to the myriad exemptions from taxation. And what does the Bible actually teach about Christians being subject to civil authority? 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. Mat 5:25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Luk 7:8-9 "For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it." (9) Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." Note, the point here is Jesus did not rebuke the soldier for being under and having Roman military authority, rather Jesus commended him for acknowledging and having faith in (and not requiring proof of) Jesus' authority, unlike the Jews to whom Jesus was spreading His message. i.e. a Roman authoritarian had more understanding of Jesus authority than did Jesus' country men. 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. 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. 1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, (14) or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 1Pe 2:18-19 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (19) For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire: Ecc 10:4,20 (4) If the ruler's temper rises against you, do not abandon your position, because composure allays great offenses. (20) Furthermore, in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms do not curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound and the winged creature will make the matter known. 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. Paul suffered numerous beatings. Stephen allowed himself to be stoned. When civil authority is unjust (such as under many of the Old Testament kings, Gentile kings, etc.) the Christian is to willingly bear the unjust treatment and trust in God for deliverance and leave all vengeance up to God, as did Daniel in the lion's den, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego who were cast into the fiery furnace, David who was pursued by Saul, Job, Joseph, etc. But that does not mean that Christians can not lawfully, peacefully work for better laws or rely upon the law, as did Paul when he declared his Roman citizenship (Act 22:25) to seek due process and a hearing from Caesar (Acts 25). By his own admission he "researches companies he might want to invest in". He wants to find a way to participate in the commercial system, to make investments hoping for capital gains - AND at the same time find a way to NOT have to participate in the tax scheme... Indeed, the Bible even instructs Christians to be wise stewards of whatever God has entrusted to us: Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. We are to know what the worldly and schemers know without being worldly and scheming in return. Mat 25:14-30 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. (15) "To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. (16) "Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. (17) "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. (18) "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. (19) "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. (20) "The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.' (21) "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' (22) "Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.' (23) "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' (24) "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. (25) 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.' (26) "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. (27) 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. (28) 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.' (29) "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. (30) "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The parable of the talents is not specifically about investment per se, but is about generic stewardship of whatever has been entrusted to us. Each of us have giftings and responsibilities in commensurate measure. A person given the gifting to steward two talents could not handle the responsibility of stewarding five talents, but they can learn and be faithful with the two. A person who is irresponsible and fails to steward what has been entrusted (even one talent) is faithless. Some of us are entrusted with wealth and expected to faithfully steward it and apply it to kingdom purposes. Some are entrusted with administration skills, teaching skills, etc. Whatever skills/gifts we have been given are to be stewarded to their fullest in accordance with God's kingdom purposes. That includes managing wealth and using it as tithes and offerings to fund 'kingdom projects', like building churches, giving bibles, sending missionaries, feeding the poor and homeless, funding hospitals, etc. It can also include managing the assets and budgets of Christian institutions like churches, foundations, colleges, broadcasters, etc. But to manage and distribute (steward) wealth, one must of necessity understand the tax laws at a minimum, how to safeguard assets while not being spent, and how to operate lawfully. Luk 16:8-13 "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. (9) "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings. (10) "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (11) "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? (12) "And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? (13) "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Jesus is not praising unrighteous manager for being unrighteous, but is citing his shrewdness as an example of that manager's "thinking outside the box" to form useful relationships. Jesus advocates that we Christians ought to likewise learn to "think outside the box" to use the wealth of the unrighteous to bring people to the Lord so that they may be a treasure laid up in heaven and will welcome us when we meet them in eternity. The lesson is to be sharp-witted Christian managers (who are just as savvy if not more so than their unrighteous counterparts) who lawfully redirect wealth into righteous kingdom purposes, e.g., trading/investing and then tithing/offering the profit to a Christian church to be used in mission work or church plants, or to quietly demonstrate and set a Christian example for the world to observe of honest lawful investing (i.e. walk the walk). But only to the extent that "talents" (gifts and responsibilities) have been entrusted from God, i.e. a "calling". The Christian serves God and wealth is a tool that serves the Christian, no different than any other tool employed to achieve God's purposes. The Bible does not teach that paying taxes is wrong, or taxation authority is to be disobeyed, or that investing is wrong. Only by ignoring what the text of the Bible plainly and repeatedly says can one argue otherwise. Problem is IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY... As long as he insists on keeping that SS#, bank account, stock market account, various investments in businesses, ANY type of license, etc - he just needs to quit worrying about keeping up with any "tax protester court arguments" looking for a good one that he can use because they don't exist. What I insist on regarding taxes is being lawful, accurate, and honest. No more, no less. It behooves any Christian who wants to be "as wise as serpents", faithful in the use of whatever has been entrusted to them, obedient under every human institution and governing authority, and avoid creating opponents at law, to investigate and know the facts of these matters whether promulgated by the IRS, accountants, lawyers, tax protesters, tax shelters, banks, brokers, companies, legislatures and courts, to evaluate and integrate their varying interpretations and ultimately know the truth of the matter as best it can be ascertained. There may not be any good tax protester arguments, but one wouldn't know that until having looked at the published arguments and any court rulings. Subsequently, one can learn how the courts and government cope with differing arguments; studying how favorable rulings were argued through the court system and how frivolous arguments are dispatched. Learning what to do and what not to do. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Worse, those who repeat the same failed arguments yet always expect different results, defy rationality and demonstrate a troubling dysfunction (see Irwin Schiff's transcript). But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large. You ignore history, context, facts, and plain meanings that everyone else understands. You position yourselves for defeat because of your insistence to impute into a text what you want it to mean instead of reading out of a text what it actually says, whether that text is in the Constitution, the law, or the Bible. And when I point that out, you label me; for proposing a lawful constitutional convention as provided by the framers, a "traitor"; for knowing and citing the law in opposition to your vapid legal scholarship, a "shill" and "pettifogger"; and "boot- licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie" who ought to be hung by a rope , and taunts like "You cling to fraud like bubble gum to a shoe !" Your responses are long on handwaving, short on fact, but mainly just personal insults. Such juvenile antics would be laughable if the subject weren't so serious. And yet you style yourselves 'Christian patriots' who advocate an "insurance-like" scheme which is legally indefensible and fiscally and actuarially unsound, and when that fails, you expect to further play Russian Roulette with the courts and treat the inevitable consequent IRS summons as an act of war to be met with armed resistance. 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), but when pressed for the factual details that underly your otherwise unsubstantiated legal theories, we're told: Good grief, no one in their right mind would participate in your self-destructive tantrums and get caught-up in your crossfire. You blame the media, the courts, the sheeple, employers, bankers, Jews, Christians, ad nauseum; you blame everyone except yourselves for stepping alone in front of the train that repeatedly runs you down. Take a long hard look at yourselves. You ought to be embarrassed.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well, based on your statements here alone, he either didn't believe in the legality of your non-withholding, or he in fact withheld improperly. Either way, if your non-withholding theory is legal and correct (as you repeatedly claim) the law is on your side right? Why not have the IRS refund what should never have been withheld? After all, you were bold and confident earlier: They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right? They'll probably write you a check and then just plain disappear again. 'Course depositing it without a bank account could be tricky, but maybe you could endorse it over to a check-cashing outlet for a factor. I do have a rough idea of what you are dealing with 'there', and so you have the last word, unless you want me to debate it (I'm willing to take this as far as you want).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Luk 22:(25) And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors. [King James Version] Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. [Your submission of Biblical Text] (26) "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. [King James Version] Luk 22:26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations. I think the translation you have used is more casual and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;] I'll have to go back to your original post to continue:
"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
Mat 17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two- drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two- drachma tax?" (25) He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" (26) When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. I think there's something lost in your translation: Here's the King James: Mat 17:24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute [money] came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. I'm sorry, but the translation you're using appears to have been written by a tax collector when using terms like 2 drachma tax, Poll Tax and "exempt". I believe that the children being free is more relevant than a tax exemption. I also think some emphasis is lost when your translation speaks of their sons rather than stating "from their own children". (But that's just my opinion). I want to address some more of your post but I'll have to continue after posting this:
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
I use the NASB. It is a more literal translation than the KJV. No, Jesus is not giving or observing an order or command. He is contrasting the Ptolemaic "benefactors" who are deemed greatest because they are being served, with greatest in Christ's kingdom being deemed those who serve (or are humblest). Jesus' point is that greatness is not measured by authority but instead is measured by humility and servitude in spite of having authority. Your own KJV translation cite notes: "But ye [shall] not [be] so" wherein [shall] and [be] are inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. The NASB translation is: "But [it is] not this way with you" wherein [it is] are again inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. I apologize for having negelected to italicize or shade inserted words in my cites. So while there are those differences in the translations of those 6-7 words, taking the entire passages in context, Jesus is teaching that *unlike* the Gentiles and their "benefactors" who measure greatness by being served, Jesus measures greatness by serving - standing human tradition and thought on its head, as He often does. None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Ok then, in the KJV: Mat 17:24-25 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute1323 money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?1323 (25) He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented4399 him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom5056 or tribute?2778 of their own children, or of strangers? Using your own preferred KJV translation: Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free1658. In the context of not paying a tax, the Greek is more properly translated as "exempt" as opposed to being "free" in the non-applicable context of slavery or liberty: As demonstrated above, given you'll always read into a text like a tax protester, it doesn't really matter what translation you use. All exceed your willingness to accept facts.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Most interesting thread - thanks, all.
I had written two very long posts that got wiped out once because I inadvertantly clicked on a link you had posted while trying to copy it, and a second time because I walked away from my computer for a minute and when I returned I was asked to "sign in" ... when I hit "preview". (Oh well.) Maybe it's God's will. I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult. You're "IN THE WORLD" and have a "WORLD" friendly attitude. You think it's ok to pay for bombs, rockets, machine guns and tanks that kill little kids, I don't and won't. You think God gives blessings dependent upon how you manage your finances. You're delirious. Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail. Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND. I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones. I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants. When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please. And search your soul with this scripture: Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Mat 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And maybe this too: Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his (the man's) name. Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand, Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You might get away with your new wave nonsense if you were speaking to the ignorant CINO (Christian In Name Only) praise the Lord, pathetic, preacherized pagans. But that shit won't fly with me ! Peter and the boys (Apostles) got arrested for preaching and thrown into prison. The were told by the "AUTHORITIES" to cut it out, and quit preaching. Peter told the authorities to shove it, he would have to obey God's Laws, not man's, and would continue preaching. Then the apostles were beaten and released. In the Old Testament the story is the same. Check out Nehemiah 5 ... where Nehemiah drags a mob over to the authorities and demands they refund every bit of tax they had previously collected. Or recall when the Hebrew midwives were ordered to kill the Israelite male babies by the Pharaoah but refused, and were blessed for refusing. Submission to evil is not the Biblical message, is it Starwind ?
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
No doubt because you read my posts about as well as you read tax law or the bible. Agreed. My focus is directed towards people who fight stupidly using stupid arguments that have a track record of getting them ultimately tossed in jail, stupidly. But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are. Misery indeed loves company. I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that. As you just demonstrated again, and I said, the problem is in your reading my posts. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them. I have no doubt Jesus will deal justly with them for their sin. And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children. But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. The mote is always in the other guy's eye isn't it? I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And my taxes are not tithes (though you take every opportunity to continue your taunts), rather my tithes are in fact "first fruits" - 10% and greater of my gross, off-the-top before I pay any taxes.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
... Act 5:28-29 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I don't want to accuse you of having a reading disorder or writing disorder but ... what's this ? >>>>> are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire ....... hehehehehe !!! Sounds to me that you think God's law plays second fiddle to man's law. I dissent. Would you consider maiming and murdering children somewhat conflicting with the God's Laws or the teachings of Jesus, or not quite dire enough ? People without claiming spirituality make more sense than a wannabe/pretend CINO Christian trying prop up the most evil government on planet earth by implying that God wants it this way. Or better put, that God wishes for his children to participate. You just gotta be shittin me ! You can't serve two masters, I don't care how much you equivocate. The message regarding Babylon, which has now evolved into an international monetary beast, was to "come out of her my children" ... so that you avoid the wrath. Not join up and go kill babies, even by proxy.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
i agree.
I had posted in a different thread Hale vs Henkel which has never been overturned, and is still in effect today: If you look up entries like "14th Amendment," "U.S. citizen," and "person" in Black's Law Dictionary, and do some further research, you'll find that "person" - which includes a "corporation" - is a synonym for slave. You'll also find that one can have the status of "sovereign American," "state citizen," or "sovereign individual" - all more or less synonymous with the "individual" referred to in Hale v. Henkel. If you read the tax code, you'll find the terrocrats use the word "person" (slave). Nowhere will you find them saying that an "individual" is liable for income taxes. You'll find statutes, regulations, and court rulings saying the "taxpayer" must do this and that, but these don't apply to the "individual." And if you research common law, you'll find that there's been a centuries-old tradition of two classes of people: "freemen" and "slaves." The American Revolution broke the tradition and created a society of free and sovereign people - free individuals. However, since then the terrocrats have been spectacularly successful in gradually reestablishing the master-slave tradition. You can change your status from "slave" to "sovereign individual" - and live your life and conduct your business in accordance with Hale v. Henkel. I also showed that SS is voluntary. IT IS BEING IN THE SS SYSTEM THAT TIES YOU TO THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM... "THE SIGNATURE OF A PERSON IS THE PROOF OF HIS CONSENT THAT BINDS HIM UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT". Nexus is defined as a connection, tie, or link between individuals of a group. The signature of each person, given voluntarily, binds the U.S. citizenry together into a lifelong socialized contract with the government. Under the Social Security Act, the citizen is in a state of voluntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (13th Amendment), but voluntary servitude is constitutional (for every positive action there is a negative reaction). One has the absolute right to enter into a contract and bind himself to specific performance, submitting himself to the law of contracts and to the laws of the contract. Within the U.S., and any place subject to its jurisdiction, no one can force a citizen into a state of involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime whereas the party shall have been duly convicted (13th Amendment). No one can force a citizen into a contractual agreement. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government do not have that power. A tax judge will always remind a litigant that there are no constitutional protection (i.e., right of free speech, privacy) in a tax court (when under contractual obligations). But no judge can order a citizen to participate in the Social Security system. The system is 100% voluntary and whoever joins the system also volunteers into paying the income tax. The "law" cannot be invoked when a citizen is not numbered, receives no benefits, and does not enrich himself at the expense of another. Without the law, the court cannot offer a remedy. When a court cannot offer a remedy, the court lacks jurisdiction. The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facia evidence that: The following are excerpts relating to the Social Security Act. They are from the Social Security Laws, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., Committee Print through April 1, 1944: In all the above named cases, the evidence before the court was: The terms, "people," or "human being" are not to be found in the Internal Revenue Code and it fails to properly identify who is required to file. It cannot be found because it is not there. Partaking into the Social Security Act merely identifies one as a person "who is receiving benefits and therefore must meet the burden." Under the ancient concept of Lord Mansfield's maxim "that no man shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another," in the eyes of the court, that individual ought to pay the income tax. The common law of quasi contract (as if a contract) is now in full force and effect. Like I said, you can study tax protester cases until you're blue in the face, and you won't find ANY good arguments. Well, they may be good - BUT the courts will rule against them BECAUSE the defendants fall under the STATUS (according to the IRS Code) of TAXPAYER because they have a SS#. If they DON'T have the SS#, and DON'T participate in commercial activity (bank accounts etc), and DON'T have licenses (contracts with the state) - then they fall under the legal STATUS (according to the IRS Code) of NON TAXPAYER; and they won't be in the courts to begin with... Beyond what I have cited here (some of it for a second time), the only other proof I have of this being factual and truth is personal knowledge of people that have taken this route. When you haven't filed a tax return, paid in anything to the IRS, nor paid in anything to SS for 23 years without so much as a letter from them (let alone being in court over the matter) - I'd say that's proof enough. I don't remember Noone222, BTP Holdings, nor myself EVER ONCE claiming any tie to Christianity. I can't speak for anyone but myself, BUT I DON'T CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN.... Just because I quote and try my best to follow what is said in Scripture doesn't make me a Christian. Funny how Christians seem to think that if you're not part of some "religion" then the only other option is you're atheist. Now in the First Commandment we are told NOT to follow after other gods. Do other gods exist? Well, if they didn't would there have been a need for the first commandment? And who are these "other gods"? I submit that they can be any of numerous things - money, tv, or the State of California. That's right, find somewhere in Scripture where it's illegal to marry... The LEGAL definition of a license is "Permission granted by the state to do something which would otherwise be illegal, a tort, or a trespass". Yet the State of California demands you have a marriage license to get married. AGAIN, what is "illegal, a tort, or a trespass" about marriage???? NOTHING - well, not to the Creator of the Universe anyhow (provided it's not same-sex, nor to a different race). I contend that by getting that marriage license you have forsaken the Creator and made a "god" of the state of California. You don't have to agree with me on that, and frankly I don't care who does or does not agree. YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICES.... And as for advocating some "insurance-like" scheme - I'M NOT!!!!! I'm advocating getting out of the system... AGAIN, YOUR CHOICE!!! As for the constitutional convention thing, I see it as this mess is so far out of control as to require MORE than a "convention". The only thing that will effect a change at this point is a REVOLUTION... Happened once in this country to throw off living under a vile system of government.... See:>http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=41878&Disp=5#C5 No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
I want to make something clear without it being in response to one of your posts. I don't know you, I can't judge you, and I certainly don't want to just piss someone off that might really be searching for truth. I felt the same way as you about most things we've discussed on this thread at one time. I was wrong too. I repented and try to face eternity with a clear vision of right and wrong here in the finite, so I'll know how to behave myself there in the infinite. Maybe this debate has outlived its usefulness.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
This is passing the buck, it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. End of story ! Although a tough choice, it's yours to make. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them. You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value. It's none of my business but if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability. I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs. Who do you think Jesus was talking about when he said "you're all clean on the outside, but inside you're full of dead men's bones" ... he could have said you're full of dead babies bones, but that would have been too harsh wouldn't it ? He was talking to hypocrits. Self approving pretenders that rationalize their donations to continue the never ending murder of God's other children. Love thy neighbor ... buy war bonds !!! Gimme a break ! And finally, But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. Geez, I hadn't ever thought of that ... but since you brought it up maybe we should be democrapic and take a vote ! [This Starwind suggestion was brought you by the friendly people at the Department of Entrapment a subsidiary department of HOMO-LAND SECURITY and the Catholic Church].
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
P.S. I do not think you're as willfully stupid as those that deride you ... I think you are willfully complicit in killing children, as most of us have been. We were never stupid, we were blinded by a false sense of red, white and blue patriotism, misguided by fake preachers that twist scripture to fill their greedy collection plates and make people "Keep coming back for the feel good message", and lying politicians that are the same type of scum as the preachers ! It's time we all grow up and accept strict responsibility for our actions.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You have confused two separate incidents with two different places I worked which happened at least 3 years apart. When these IRS thugs get backed into a corner by presenting the facts and the law, they generally disappear. It's that simple. It does not always work that way when they get the levy ball rolling, but the way SAPF works, if you stay on point and are timely, you have the possibility of beating them at some point. Nothing is assured, of course, because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Some things never change. When Jesus was trying to explain love he used the best analogy available to himself and his followers by pointing out that love included loving your enemies, because even the publicans (scum of the earth tax collectors) love those that love them.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
You may not have "said" that, but you KNOW good and well that your tax dollars are going towards that!!! NOW, be honest.... If you weren't afraid of going to jail, YOU WOULDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES!!!! Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail.... Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. You have a choice to make, and choosing to "pay your taxes" so BigBro has the means of continuing these "heinous acts" (whether that's YOUR intentions or not) puts the blood on your hands too. And who you "vote" for is of no consequence either. In fact, the very act of voting is in itself choosing someone to "lead" you, and again a violation of the First Commandment. You already HAVE a leader. But of course you knew that.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Two that I need help with are the admonitions to subject ourselves to our "rulers," and the others are to resist evil - much has been written about both subjects, and I just cannot get what is God's will/law/wish in this matter. Taxes and otherwise. Thanks for any clarification for those of us in the peanut gallery. Cheers.
Only those with nothing to say would post a reply like that. Begone shill.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
But I certainly do not give Kotmair a pass on what appears to be an incredibly dumb deal for anyone to pay into. My similar analysis of the SAPF was posted on May 16, 2005 here: http://216.133.76.156/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5362&Disp=20#C20
I believe the IRS describes these folks as illegal tax protesters ... and I'm having difficulty figuring out why everyone wouldn't protest a little about an illegal Tax.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
The first three letters are not all that reassuring...
And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children. This is passing the buck, (lol) Hardly: Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. ... You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value. Jesus voluntarily paid the Temple tax, and out of the collected Temple taxes came the 30 pieces of silver used to bribe Judas to betray Jesus. So, by your application then, you would likewise have Jesus "voting with His money" to betray the Son of God. And Jesus commanded that taxes owed to Caesar be paid to Caesar, even though Caesar declared himself a god and the Roman army was spreading "peace" all over the known world. So, again by your application, you would now have Jesus telling everyone else to "vote with their money" in support of idol worship and Roman soldiers murdering kids. ... if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability. You're going need some remedial math as well as remedial reading. I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs. No, you don't understand. You previously were, and still are, very mistaken about the Biblical basis for paying taxes: Applying your "voting with one's money" argument (in my examples above) to Jesus, demonstrates the fallacy that sins of the rulers are conferred upon the taxpayer. Jesus neither sinned nor caused 'renderers to Caesar' to sin, though obviously in both cases the taxes were put to sinful purposes. Taxpayers are not accountable for their rulers' immoral use of lawfully required taxes. Further, even in your recent posts, you were incorrect in that Jesus did not "dispute the notion that EVERYTHING belonged to Caesar " as you argued here, nor did Jesus teach that Christians "shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor", nor that the "birthright of the children wasn't taxable" as you first argued and then repeated here and here. And your continuing misunderstanding stems in part from reading into the text what you want it to say, and in part from not knowing what else the Bible does teach about Christians being submitted to authority and paying civil taxes, as I explained to you here and here and here. The Bible is quite clear and specific on requiring your submission to authority and rendering civil taxes: Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. Every person includes you, and your disobedience brings condemnation upon you. Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. You are to render all taxes that are due. 1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, And no, you don't get to pretend zero taxes are due because you allegedly withdrew from income taxation. You are to submit to every human institution, not just the ones you like. Rom 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." Rom 2:1-3 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (2) And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. (3) But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? And finally, deciding for yourself that they are "murdering thugs" is neither your judgment to make nor your vengeance to take, especially when vengeance is indiscriminately applied (because not all of them are "murdering thugs" and not all tax dollars result in "murder") and places additional burden on others (because their taxes make up for yours, while you still benefit directly or indirectly from public facilities and services). So, however much you misunderstood before, you still misunderstand most of it. Every Christian is to be submitted to governing authority, to all human institutions, and render all taxes due. But whatever semantic games you're about to respond with, know that God will not be mocked; not by your arguments, and not by our rulers' misuse of our taxes. Maybe this debate has outlived its usefulness. As far as you and I are concerned, it has. Here's a final thought: Mat 12:36-37 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. (37) "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
To whatever extent they were lawfully due, yes I would, because: Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. No, I won't, because: Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I'm somewhat familiar with HALE v. HENKEL as well as MCALISTER v. HENKEL but as relates to trusts. I'll review them again in the context of your SS argument. Might you have (or point me to) anything more substantial on this "example" set by Hargis, as what you've posted is largely tax protester lore, found only on a few tax protestor websites, but not in the online law libs. That may or may not be significant. I don't know until I see it. I'd like to see exactly what the warrant was for and what the outcome was. As already noted in the IRS raid of Kotmair/SAPF in 1993, Kotmair claimed victory when in fact most of the assets siezed (some $44k) were kept for back taxes, so perhaps you understand my wanting the facts (or not).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
A bunch of guys got together and wrote some manuscripts which said something about "Give to Ceasar what is his" and "Bend over and obey all human institutions because they are given authority by God," and "Be baptized or go to hell," "blood worshipping, etc." I have to sadly announce my public doubt at this time that I am one of them, if these are some of their "requirements." By the way, that would make the Minutemen and all infants Hellbound...LOL. Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ. Jews were about TheLaw. Jesus was not. Jesus obeyed the laws of the time to prove he was Man [and yet God] and to show that we could..and should... overcome those limitations [and the results of disobeying them] after his death. The LAW died on the cross! I guess the "apostles" who wrote the above forgot that? Christianity is not about obeying "laws," especially unjust ones. It is a direct contradiction to grace. It is also a moral contradiction. It's obvious I'm arguing with myself here, in part. Sorry about my cynical mood today. Perhaps I will pray for guidance and assurance that I am not Hellbound for blasphemy and doubt on this Saturnalia.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell R.I.P.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
Maybe an overview 'big picture' would help? You may find the entire thread interesting, even if not persuasive for you personally.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
that's the way i see it. who commissioned the writing of these various bibles and for what personal and political agenda? men, that's who. i don't know who they were. none of us do. what it ultimately comes down to is faith--your personal faith as to whether or not these individuals were truly inspired by God. then let's not forgot the various translations over thousands of years and how people interpret each bible verse differently as evidenced by this thread. having said that, i still find the discussion interesting and appreciate the time given by everyone here.
Many non-believing archeologists and secular scholars in fact know that books of the Bible accurately record historical events. The Bible is one of, if not the, primary source of ancient historical records used and increasingly confirmed by historians and archeologists as factual. That's true. But then even God's Signature of Authenticity is verifiable in the prophecies, if one cares to look. No, you don't have to believe it, but you can't honestly argue it's a coin toss as to it's being truthful. There are only about 6 main translations in English, and as English changes, the translations get updated. But the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek have not changed. If you could read them, you wouldn't have any translation complaints. And that people choose to ignore what is plainly written in front of them, is not the fault of the writer. You wouldn't criticize the Constitution or the framers for my interpretations, rather you criticize me, as you should. Likewise, don't criticze the Bible because many people are as stubborn about spinning it as they are about spinning everything else. Everyone has an agenda - why not bypass them, read the Bible (any of the main English translations) for yourself, and get to know God's agenda directly from Him.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, Starwind, you betray this nation clear back to its Christian roots and the teachings of the Founders and the preachers of the Revolutionary and colonial period. Your brand of Judeo-Christianity is an affront to all right thinking Christian Americans. You WILL burn in Hell for your treason against your fellow citizens.
#2. To: Neil McIver (#1)
December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.
Although the Court has not had the opportunity to fully 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
1That 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).
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 injunction. For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.
#3. To: All (#2)
#4. To: Starwind (#3)
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
(Edited)
but the real scam is the legal system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched, constitutional argument
#6. To: Starwind (#5)
#7. To: Neil McIver (#0)
#8. To: Starwind (#2)
#9. To: Starwind (#5)
It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
#10. To: Starwind, Neil McIver, Jethro Tull (#5)
Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical.
It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.
#11. To: Neil McIver (#9)
SAPF's webmaster is a volunteer who works for free so we can't be picky with the updates to the site, but as of this writing it has motions posted dating up to 12/19.
I frankly didn't think the stay would be issued so I'm happy for the good guys today.
If you are contemplating accusing Kotmair of being a fraud, then you better post evidence of it star, or you really cross the line with me.
#12. To: BTP Holdings (#10)
Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger.
Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.
#13. To: Starwind, Neil McIver (#12)
(Edited)
Why is it you never have anything other than insults
Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you?
BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you?
Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice.
you were just testing me weren't you.
#14. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind (#10)
(Edited)
BTW, the Fellowship has an audio CD of a talk given at the headquarters by an ex-IRS revenue agent (his name escapes me just now). He outlines his progress to where he came to the point that he finally quit his job because he found out how the government is defrauding everyone, including many of the agents themselves.
#15. To: christine (#14)
this is probably one of the several former agents (including Joe Bannister) who appeared in Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
#16. To: BTP Holdings (#13)
So you wonder why I am such a pissed off motherfucker? I'm tired of being raped and sent to the poor house by a corrupt system and the lackeys who support it, for whatever reason. You're all fair game from where I sit.
#17. To: noone222, Starwind (#16)
Aww c'mon Jim, quit holding back. Tell this boot-licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie exactly how MILLIONS OF US FEEL !!!!
A picture is worth a thousand words. ;0)
#18. To: BTP Holdings (#17)
A picture is worth a thousand words. ;0)
#19. To: christine, BTP Holdings (#14)
this is probably one of the several former agents (including Joe Bannister) who appeared in Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
#20. To: Neil McIver (#19)
John Turner
#21. To: Neil McIver, christine, Starwind (#19)
John Turner
#22. To: BTP Holdings (#13)
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers.
If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.
Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice.
Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer.
And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me.
#23. To: Starwind, noone222, Neil McIver (#22)
(Edited)
Why am I not surprised.
Well it would seem you are a taxpayer
#24. To: BTP Holdings (#23)
But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered.
Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)
#25. To: innieway, noone222, BTP Holdings, nolu_chan, *Bereans* (#24)
(Edited)
euergetes; from G2095 and the same as G2041; a doer of good, i.e. a benefactor: - benefactors (1).
#26. To: BTP Holdings (#23)
Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact.
The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it. I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared.
#27. To: Starwind (#25)
[Your submission of Biblical Text]
#28. To: Starwind (#25)
Regarding paying the "tribute", here is Mat 17:27 complete and in context:
#29. To: noone222 (#27)
I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations.
I do indeed. I think the translation you have used is more casual
and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;]
#30. To: noone222 (#28)
(Edited)
As I said, two different taxes in two different verses, and no where does Jesus teach that civil taxes were deemed voluntary. Strong's G4399 means: prophthano
rather Jesus 'anticipated' what Peter was going to say and Jesus spoke first before Peter so as to teach His point to Peter, and then they paid the temple tax
prof-than'-o
From G4253 and G5348; to get an earlier start of, that is, anticipate: - prevent. G1323
Whereas the "tribute" in verse 25 is a poll-tax, in Greek:
didrachmon
did'-rakh-mon
From G1364 and G1406; a double drachma (didrachm): - tribute. G2778
kensos
kane'-sos
Of Latin origin; properly an enrolment ("census"), that is, (by implication) a tax: - tribute. G1658
Incidently, the above differences demonstrate the more literal (accurate and precise) translation of the NASB versus the KJV.
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability): - free (man, woman), at liberty. I'm sorry, but the translation you're using appears to have been written by a tax collector when using terms like 2 drachma tax, Poll Tax and "exempt".
#31. To: Everyone here (#30)
a village is missing its idiot.
#32. To: Starwind (#29)
None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).
#33. To: Starwind (#30)
submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly
#34. To: noone222 (#32)
I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants.
I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult.
Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail.
Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND.
I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones.
When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please.
#35. To: noone222 (#33)
Peter and the boys (Apostles) got arrested for preaching and thrown into prison. The were told by the "AUTHORITIES" to cut it out, and quit preaching. Peter told the authorities to shove it, he would have to obey God's Laws, not man's, and would continue preaching. Then the apostles were beaten and released.
I know. I pointed it out first. Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:
You really seem to have some kind of reading disorder.
#36. To: Starwind (#35)
Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:
#37. To: lodwick, Starwind, noone222, innieway, ALL (#31)
Most interesting thread - thanks, all.
#38. To: Starwind (#25)
You post rant after rant raging against the machine without once posting any proof of the legal basis that underlies your tax arguments you all claim to have researched so thoroughly (except for one SSA form)
There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Example:
In 1993 a gang of terrocrats from the IRS and Post Office raided the sovereign business (free-enterprise gold bank) of Anthony Hargis in Orange County, California. They seized records, files, computers, and money. Hargis indicated to them, essentially, that he was a state citizen (sovereign individual) and that they had no jurisdiction over him and his business. They backed down completely and returned everything they had seized. There are senior terrocrats who know that even in their own courts they would face a tough and very embarrassing ordeal, if confronted with a knowledgeable sovereign individual like Anthony Hargis.
1) The numbered citizen is a card-carrying and practicing member of socialism.
2) He has voluntarily waived his absolute right to:a) Personal Security
b) Personal Liberty
c) Personal Property
3) He can now qualify and expect to receive protection, security, old age benefits, minimum wages, food stamps, and welfare benefits from the government financed by the society at large.
4) He is now under public policy for the good of the whole and is allowed to keep only according to his needs after all his claims and deductions.
5) He is a "taxpayer" within the scope of the I.R. Code.
6) Some of his constitutional protection (Bill of Rights) no longer apply.
7) He has denounced his sovereign status of a "free person" and is administered through a regional district.
8) He is a taxpayer and a collector of his own tax, and can be labeled a tax cheater, a tax protester, and a tax evader if he does not file.
9) He subjects himself to the United States Congress and can be charged criminally for willful failure to file.
10) He has rejected the natural laws or common law, and he has exchanged his blessings of liberty for a mess of pottage. The organic laws of contract are now in force to compel him to abide by his hidden agreements, imposed by his participation in the Social Security system.
And yet you style yourselves 'Christian patriots' who advocate an "insurance-like" scheme which is legally indefensible and fiscally and actuarially unsound,
And to that end, I see ANYONE that's in agreement with the current situation to a point of allowing their fear to prevent them from joining a revolution as a traitor....
#39. To: Starwind (#35)
#40. To: Starwind (#34)
And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children.
#41. To: Starwind (#34)
(Edited)
But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are.
#42. To: Starwind (#26)
They're just clowns that you can back down, right? They have no legal basis to keep your $5,000 right? Your employer has no legal basis to keep for himself (or withhold) your $5,000, right?
#43. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind, innieway, all voyeurs remaining unnamed (#42)
because the system is so totally corrupt, especially the tax courts.
#44. To: Starwind (#34)
I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that.
#45. To: All you smart people here (#44)
The Bible has many conflicting passages, imo.
a village is missing its idiot.
#46. To: Starwind (#25)
#47. To: Starwind (#11)
No, I don't have evidence of fraud and I didn't say I did. I was thinking of the fraudulent tax shelters when I wrote that.
#48. To: Starwind (#25)
But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large.
#49. To: nolu_chan (#47)
SAPF
a village is missing its idiot.
#50. To: noone222 (#40)
(Edited)
#51. To: innieway (#44)
NOW, be honest.... If you weren't afraid of going to jail, YOU WOULDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES!!!!
Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail....
Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
#52. To: innieway (#38)
I had posted in a different thread Hale vs Henkel which has never been overturned, and is still in effect today:
In 1993 a gang of terrocrats from the IRS and Post Office raided the sovereign business (free-enterprise gold bank) of Anthony Hargis in Orange County, California.
#53. To: noone222, innieway, zipporah, lodwick, ferret mike, i'm going to hell (#48)
(Edited)
I believe the IRS describes these folks as illegal tax protesters ... and I'm having difficulty figuring out why everyone wouldn't protest a little about an illegal Tax.
IMO, Christians have been deceived either in Scripture or its interpretation and/or, perhaps, its only partial veracity? It's the only explanation for the contradictions. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#54. To: Starwind (#50)
#55. To: IndieTX (#53)
Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ.
#56. To: IndieTX (#53)
A bunch of guys got together and wrote some manuscripts which said something about "Give to Ceasar what is his" and "Bend over and obey all human institutions because they are given authority by God," and "Be baptized or go to hell," "blood worshipping, etc."
#57. To: christine (#56)
who commissioned the writing of these various bibles and for what personal and political agenda? men, that's who. i don't know who they were. none of us do.
what it ultimately comes down to is faith--your personal faith as to whether or not these individuals were truly inspired by God.
then let's not forgot the various translations over thousands of years and how people interpret each bible verse differently as evidenced by this thread.
#58. To: Starwind, noone222, innieway, IndieTX, christine. lodwick (#50)
(Edited)
The Bible is quite clear and specific on requiring your submission to authority and rendering civil taxes:
Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Every person includes you, and your disobedience brings condemnation upon you.
You are to render all taxes that are due.
And no, you don't get to pretend zero taxes are due because you allegedly withdrew from income taxation. You are to submit to every human institution, not just the ones you like.
Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government
by Ted R. Weiland
Ted Weiland is a former rodeo bull rider, current evangelist, and writer who has permitted us to reprint excerpts from his book, "Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government." This book offers an alternative analysis (primarily) of Romans 13:1-7 which is so strong that his work should be studied by anyone who seriously supports or rejects the Religious Right's political activism. [Note: Mr. Weiland prefers to use the Hebrew translation "Yhshua" rather than the name "Jesus" used by most Americans. He also uses the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH" (God's name in the Old Testament name; pronounced "Yahweh"), wherever he believes "it has been incorrectly replaced with the words 'the LORD' or 'GOD'."]
The first seven verses of the 13th chapter of the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans are often abused and misused by today's average clergyman. This has resulted in one of the most destructive doctrines that has come out of "Judeo- Christianity" (that segment of Christendom that is heavily influenced by the Talmudic religion of Judaism) 52; the false teaching of total submission to all government authority. This theological mistake has probably contributed more to the loss of Christian dominion than any other false doctrine. Judeo- Christianity relies on the following three passages for its Scriptural basis for this doctrinal error:
Titus 3:1-2: Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to do every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
1 Peter 2:13-15: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him .... For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation .... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Much of Judeo-Christianity has interpreted these passages to mean that God sanctions all existing government authority and that we are therefore to submit completely to any authority that happens to rule over us. Further, they teach that resistance to civil authority is rebellion against God Himself (except in the rare instance when someone might be ordered by government to deny Yhshua the Christ) and that God will punish those who rebel.
In fact, the Bible does teach submission to government. However, it teaches a limited submission which is not rendered indiscriminately to any and all who rule. Support for this view can be found from a careful reevaluation of Romans 13:1-7 where we discover Scriptural justification for the type of authority to which Christians are and are not obliged to submit:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [governing authorities, New American Standard Version; NASV]. For there is no power [authority, NASV] but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)
This verse is currently interpreted by most clergymen and government officials to mean: "God has established every civil or government authority, and thus Christians are bound to submit totally to whichever government God has placed over them at any given time."
Every authority?
It is remarkable how the teachings of the majority of modem preachers contrast with the views many of our predecessors held concerning submission to government authority. In 1603, speaking before Parliament, even King James I recognized that a ruler's authority has limits: "A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws."1
In 1643 Pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex ( The Law and the Prince) in which he explained: "...God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a king above the law [of God]... 2
"When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without [outside of] law, in so far doing against his office, he is not a magistrate. Then, say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. None doth, then, resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in tyrannous acts.3
"Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of God .... So we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the king. If, then, any cast off the nature of a king, and become habitually a tyrant... he is not from God... If the office of a tyrant... be contrary to a king's office, it is not from God, and so neither is the power from God."4
The proper perspective on authority was also introduced by the English philosopher, John Locke: "Where-soever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority."5
Many of America's early preachers and founders concurred with Mr. Locke. In a message preached just thirty-six days prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Pastor Samuel West emphatically proclaimed: "In order . . . that we may form a right judgment of the duty enjoined in our text [Titus 3:1, supra], I shall consider the nature and design of civil government, and shall show that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally oblige us to resist tyranny; or that tyranny and magistracy are so opposed to each other that where the one begins the other ends."6
Pastor Samuel Cooke, preaching at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 30, 1770, declared: "Justice also requires of rulers, in their legislative capacity, that they attend to the operation of their own acts, and repeal whatever laws, upon an impartial review, they find to be inconsistent with the laws of God, the rights of men, and the general benefit to society. This the community hath a right to expect."7
In 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone put it similarly in his commentaries on English law: "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [God's Law]."8
In 1860, John Wingate Thornton developed this thought further: "We may very safely assert these two things in general without undermining government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful and glorious . . . All commands running counter to the declared will of [YHWH] the Supreme Legislator of heaven and earth are null and void, and therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime."9
The wrong-headed teaching of many of today's clergy is at odds not only with our founding fathers, but more importantly, with Scripture itself. Consider the words of the Prophet Hosea: "Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of YHWH because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law . . . They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not. (Hosea 8:14)
In this passage, disobedient Israelites are described as those who "rebelled against [God's] law;' and "set up kings, but not by [God]." Are we to believe that the omniscient sovereign God actually did not know what these rebellious Israelites were up to? Of course not! Hosea is simply telling us that these rulers were set in positions of authority without God's favor.
No government can exist without God allowing it to do so. However, we must understand that there are two different types of government for two different types of people. A people who have submitted themselves to YHWH's Word are blessed with just and righteous rulers. But those who have willfully rebelled against YHWH's Word are visited with an oppressive government for the purpose of bringing them back into submission to God. Hosea 11:5 provides a graphic example: "... the Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel] refused to return [to YHWH]."
While this is true for the wicked, in Romans 13 Paul is addressing a body of believers who have submitted themselves to Yhshua as King, and is instructing them in the concepts of a Christian civil body politic. John Milton, in his book Defense of the People of England, commented on Paul's intent:
"It being very certain that the doctrine of the gospel is neither contrary to reason nor the law of nations, man is truly subject to the higher powers who obey the laws and the magistrates so far as they govern according to law. So that St. Paul does not only command the people, but princes themselves, to be in subjection; who are not above the laws, but bound by them . . . but whatever power enables a man, or whatsoever magistrate takes upon him, to act contrary to what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is that power nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to such a magistrate no subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the people forbidden to resist such authority; for in so doing they do not resist the power nor the magistracy, as they are here excellently well described, but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an enemy."10
Theologian Adam Clarke expressed similar sentiments: "Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on [the ruler's] part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding . . . . This conduct justifies opposition to his government."11
Pastor West preached: "Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone . . . and to suppose that He has given to any particular set of men a power to require obedience to that which is unreasonable, cruel, and unjust is robbing the deity [YHWH] of His justice and goodness."12
In 1749 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew argued lucidly against unqualified compliance to civil authority:
"Children are commanded to obey their parents, and servants their masters, in as absolute and unlimited terms as subjects are here commanded to obey their civil rulers . . . . Thus, also wives are commanded to be obedient to their husbands . . . . In all these cases, submission is required in terms at least as absolute and universal as are ever used with respect to rulers and subjects. But who supposes that the apostle ever intended to teach that children, servants, and wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters, and husbands respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even although they should require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelessly make an attempt upon their lives? No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and unlimited.
"Why, then, should it be supposed that the apostle designed to teach universal obedience, whether active or passive to the higher powers, merely because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms? And if this be a good argument in one case, why is it not in others also? If it be said that resistance and disobedience to the higher powers is here said positively to be a sin, so also is the disobedience of children to parents, servants to masters, and wives to husbands, in other places of Scripture.
"But the question still remains, whether, in all these cases, there be not some exceptions. In the three latter it is allowed there are; and from hence it follows, that... the use of absolute expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases is a sin."13
Pastor Rutherford joined in demonstrating the foolishness of arguing that Christians are to blindly submit to authority under all circumstances: "It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is due to them because [they are] kings; but that is not the question. The question is, if subjection be due to them, when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David did, though he was a king, he did it not as king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted king David . . . . "14
David was a minister of God, and was beloved of God, but was he never to be resisted, simply because he was king? Of course not!
Pastor Cooke pointed out the relationship between those in authority and the laws of God: "Rulers of every degree... are, equally with others, under the restraints of the divine [YHWH's] law. The Almighty has not divested Himself of his own absolute authority by permitting subordinate government among men . . . without true fear of God, justice will be found to be but an empty name."15
Further, if Christians are required to submit to every authority 52; to which authority would God require them to submit in the midst of a revolution? At such times there would be two competing authorities, and Christians who attempted to conform to the present-day Judeo-Christian interpretation of Romans 13 would find themselves in an impossible position. Common sense tells us there must be something wrong with such a doctrine.
The second clause of Romans 13:1 reads: "For there is no power [authority, NASV] but of God." The literal translation of the original Greek words is not "but" 52; it's "if not."16 If we replace the word "but," as found in the KJV, with the literal translation, this verse would read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power if not of God . . . ."
In other words, any civil authority not set up and sanctioned by God and not enforcing His laws is not a legitimate authority, at least not over Christians who have submitted themselves to the Kingship of Yhshua. J.B. Rotherham arrived at the same conclusion in the Emphasized New Testament, when he translated verse 1: "for there is no authority save by God."
Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports under the heading "Messiah," that this was the understanding of the early Hebrews: "In the period of the Hebrew monarchy the thought that Yahweh is the divine king of Israel was associated with the conception that the human king reigned by right only if he reigns by commission or 'unction' from him [YHWH]."17
The latter part of Romans 13:1 reads: ". . . those [authorities] which exist are established by God." To put it another way: "Legitimate authorities are only those established by God." J.B. Phillips obviously understood this when he translated verse 1 in The New Testament in Modern English: "Everyone ought to obey civil authorities, for all legitimate authority is derived from God's authority."
Apparently our early American forefathers' interpretation of verse 1 was much more Scriptural than the one advanced in many churches today.
In his book, Mr. Weiland analyzes the other six verses (Romans 13:2-7), offers a Conclusion which includes the following excerpts:
We can be thankful that many of our early preachers and founding fathers were not encumbered by the false theology so widespread today. They properly understood the question of submission to government and preached and wrote extensively on the subject. Had they followed modern Judeo-Christian notions, the United States of America simply would not exist.
America's Christian forefathers and patriotic citizens were courageous and stood upon the Word of God. They knew they must not surrender to tyrants. In 1773 the following famous proclamation was heralded by the men of Marlborough, Connecticut: "Death is more eligible [at least for some] than slavery. A freeborn people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny. . . . [We] implore the ruler above the skies, that He would bare His arm in defense of His church and people, and let Israel go."60 Preachers like West, Cooke, and Mayhew accurately taught early Americans what the Apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. Consequently, they felt no inhibition for resisting ungodly authority and establishing in its stead an American civil body politic that more closely resembled God's design. Pastor Mayhew answered all of his previous questions with the following ringing declaration:
"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers. They are more properly 'The Messengers of Satan to buffet us.' No rulers are properly God's ministers, but such as are 'just, ruling in the fear of God.' When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution 52; when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare 52; they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen."61
"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that [Paul's] arguments to enforce submission are of such a nature as to conelude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants and public oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle."62
Christians can serve only one master. The consequence of Judeo- Christianity's ambivalence is clearly seen in the John 19:14-15 account of the trial and crucifixion of Yhshua: "and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."
This is a far cry from the disposition of the first-century Hebrew zealots and the eighteenth-century Christian patriots. The watchword of the zealots was: "No God but Yahweh, no tax but to the Temple ...!"63 The rallying cry of America's early Christian patriots was: "No king but King Jesus;"64
If Paul and Peter had lived what modern preachers say they wrote i.e., 52; unconditional submission to King Nero's government 52; then Nero would have never have put them to death. Instead, Paul and Peter would have been lauded and honored as loyal citizens. Caesar put them to death because they preached and lived unconditional submission to King Yhshua and taught disobedience to all antichrist authority. Consider the following unmistakable proof of Acts 17:6-8: "And when they [the Thessalonian Jews] found them [Paul and Silas] not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down [effecting a change in government by what they were preaching] are come hither also... and these all do [act, NASV] contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Yhshua."
Was Yhshua another current king? Yes, definitely! Were these first-century disciples preaching only a future king? If so, the rulers of their day would not have troubled themselves about Him. Christians looked to Yhshua as a reigning King who alone deserved their allegiance. . . .
It is any wonder that the authorities were disturbed in the Apostle Paul's day? They and their system of government were being toppled by this "new" King and by what first-century Christendom was preaching and practicing. Whether modern Christendom understands it or not, the Thessalonian authorities understood that proclaiming Yhshua as Lord and King required unconditional submission only to YHWH and His laws.
Modem Judeo- Christianity calls resistance to tyranny sin against God; whereas true Christianity understands that such resistance is obedience to God. Christians who understand the Apostle Paul's intent in Romans 13 are today's point men. They, as the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world," are once again "turning the world [order] upside down" for their Lord and King, Yhshua the Christ. May our banner forever be: Obedience To God Rather Than To Men!
[Editor's note: Wieland's fiery book ends with a more moderate "Epilogue" by Pastor James Bruggeman: ]
America has been enslaved economically if not (yet) militarily. The process of enslavement has been so gradual and so subtle that most Americans still have not recognized their bondage-captivity...
Recently, however, many more Americans are being awakened to the true state of affairs, namely their bondage .... But those who understand Romans 13 properly, along with understanding the whole counsel of God in relation to government, are confronted with a dilemma: At what point of government oppression is civil disobedience and/or resistance in order?
Since the possible scenarios are myriad, we cannot give any more than general guidelines. We must look to Scriptural examples. At what point did the Hebrew midwives practice civil disobedience? At what point did Daniel defy King Nebuchadnezzar? When did Daniel's three friends rebel against this same king? Upon reflection of these incidents, it becomes apparent that just because our present government may be increasingly oppressive, that does not give carte blanche to any and all citizens to refuse to obey whatever laws and regulations they choose.
To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world, but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to study this and other such Biblical examples.
In summary, while there may be some who are called to fight the present, ungodly system via court challenges, common law, the Constitution, etc., we do not believe nor expect that everyone who comes to the proper understanding of Romans 13 must therefore revoke his driver's license, marriage license, Social Security number, insurance policies, etc., and "fight the system." Each person must by much' prayer, Scripture study, counsel from others, and study of current conditions, come to the conclusion for himself concerning what God is calling him to do at this critical time in history. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Pastor Bruggeman's moderating Epilogue implies that even the Religious Right and Fundamentalist communities are reluctant to release the passions of faith into the body politic. The lessons of history 52; especially the first American Revolution 52; make it clear that an unbridled Christianity can be an awesome political force. Instead of calling for a revolution, author Weiland seems only to warn that if the principles of the Religious Right concerning issues like school prayer and abortion are not given enough political space to survive, another American revolution fueled by religion may in fact occur.
Footnotes:
1 King James I, quoted by John Wingate Thornton. The Pulpit of the American Revolution Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) p.74.
2 Pastor Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Originally printed in London for John Field, October 7, 1644) (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) p. 101.
3 Rutherford, p.103.
4 Rutherford, p.117.
5 John Locke, quoted by Thornton, supra p.74.
6 Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.270.
7 Pastor Samuel Cooke quoted by Thornton, supra p. 167.
8 Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries (Philadelphia: George W. Childs Publisher, 1870) Vol. l, p.41.
9 Thornton, supra p.86.
10 John Milton, quoted by Thornton, supra pp. 67- 68.
11 Adam Clarke, Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, New York: Abingdon Press, 1831 ) Vol. VI, p. 145.
12 Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.283.
13 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra pp.65-66.
14 Rutherford, p. 149.
15 Cooke, quoted by Thornton, p. 168.
16 Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1990) p.119.
17 "Messiah," Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-1911) Vol. 18, p.192.
60 The Men of Marlborough, Connecticut, quoted by George Bancroft, History of the United States (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1854) Vol. VI, p.442.
61 Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra, pp73-74.
62 Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, supra p.78.
63 Quoted by Abram Leon Sachar, A History of the Jews (Alfred A. Knopf, 1968) p.I 17.
64 Committees of Correspondence, quoted by Cushing Strout in The New Heavens and the New Earth (Harper & Row Publishers, 1974) p.59. l
More results for Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
#59. To: BTP Holdings (#58) (Edited)
Thank you for that article.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#60. To: IndieTX (#59)
Freaks like Starwind are under the impression that we must obey our servants in government under all circumstances. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. They are to serve us, not the other way around. Did Jefferson ask permission of his slaves to do any thing? Nor should we ask permission of our slaves in government top do any thing. We owe them only the duty to obey what they are lawfully entitled to regulate, nothing more. And we have set out the rules for that in our Constitutions. They have strayed and need to be reined in, with rope and lead if need be.
Thank you for that article.
"It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
#61. To: BTP Holdings (#60)
Bingo.
We owe them only the duty to obey what they are lawfully entitled to regulate, nothing more. And we have set out the rules for that in our Constitutions. They have strayed and need to be reined in, with rope and lead if need be.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#62. To: Starwind (#51)
No, I won't, because: Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Yes, you will. You have a choice. You can opt out of the system. You don't have to donate to the killing of children. You CHOOSE TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT'S PROMISES AND BENEFITS. If you think for one second that Bush, or FDR, or Clinton, or Poppy Bush, or Nixon, or_______ is given to us by God, you're a total fool!!!! You can tell them by their works, remember??? The bottom line is the iniquity is on your hands too. Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. This teaching from the Messiah doesn't seem to bode well for a lot of Paul quotin do-gooders. Think what you want to think about Scripture or taxes. I don't give a shit. PLEASE don't think I want to interfere with your happiness and success!!! All I can personally testify to is that I know people that have withdrawn from the system and no longer pay in, and haven't for many years. What do those people all have in common - aside from still being free and walking around just like you? So go back to studying. Good luck finding some good argument. I've tried telling you IF IT'S IN COURT, IT'S THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW - and you won't find a "winner". If it's REALLY RIGHT, it never went to court to start with... THOSE EXIST (but court records on them don't - like Hargis. That's why you can't find a court case on it online - it doesn't exist - it never went to court. They only take things to court they think they can win). I've tried to show you court rulings, given logical reasonable arguments backed by Scripture, shown flaws in the "tax protester" arguments, and given you a truthful solution. You choose to ignore it, or try to find flaw in it. I can't help you anymore than that. Like I said - I don't give a shit what you "believe", your "beliefs" don't make a rat's ass (nor mine). The TRUTH exists independently of anyone's beliefs, and someday we'll all know the TRUTH.
Well, guess what. When it comes time to face the Creator, you get to tell HIM that you helped support "heinous acts" because man's law dictated it, and you were afraid of man's law's consequences - jail....
(1)They haven't had to go to court at all.
(2)They live good lives - healthy, happy, and at peace with themselves because they can HONESTLY claim that their name isn't on a bullet or some sanction that killed an innocent Iraqi kid.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#63. To: IndieTX (#53)
bump it, and amen.
Perhaps these are only SOME of the "problems" I've had with the Bible ever since I was a small boy, and why I've dealt with my doubts intermittently in my life. Way too many contradictions for my simple mind to accept and way too many words of men compared to the actual words of Christ.
a village is missing its idiot.
#64. To: innieway (#62)
My point exactly! We're supposed to bend over and obey evil leaders according to the Bible. Sorry. I won't be taking part.
If you think for one second that Bush, or FDR, or Clinton, or Poppy Bush, or Nixon, or_______ is given to us by God, you're a total fool!!!!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#65. To: IndieTX, BTP Holdings (#61)
Bingo i second that emotion.
We owe them only the duty to obey what they are lawfully entitled to regulate, nothing more. And we have set out the rules for that in our Constitutions. They have strayed and need to be reined in, with rope and lead if need be.
#66. To: christine (#65)
This "is" an emotional time of year ... a good dose of zoloff will correct ze problem ... or a chip in duh knuckle-head ... or maybe a month or two at the indoctrination center, no matter "we're from the govt. and we're here to help" Let us Texans remember the Alamo ... and the North American Union's similarity.
i second that emotion.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"
noone222 12-17-06
#67. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind, innieway, IndieTX, christine, lodwick, all other lurkers (#58)
The very first chapter of the Book of Daniel is very telling. The time period is long after the "House of Israel" (10 Northern Tribes) had been taken captive to Assyria never to return to Jerusalem. There we are informed that the Judahites have been taken to Babylon and the most promising youth (royals) were to be trained in the [Talmudic] ways of the Babylonians by one "Ashpenaz" [Looks a little like "Ashkenaz" and I'd bet there is an ethnic relationship]. (I added the word Talmudic, but these are the traditions of men, or sometimes described as the traditions of the elders, which Jesus is said to have railed against because he said "your laws make my Father's laws of no effect". The Talmud is the codified version of these laws that were previously handed down orally. These "laws" were and are similar in many ways to the codes, statutes, case-law, regulations, rules and procedures etc., ad nauseum that permeate the complex system of ridiculous regulation managed and monitored by pettifogging perverts of truth in our country today. This is why many Bible believers think we're living in a virtual Babylon complete with the number of the beast, bowing to baal, etc., and the reason we are instructed by Scripture to "come out of her my children". The Judahites and their descendants that brought this belief (legal) system back with them to Jerusalem (and the 1st Synagogues too) we call JEWS. The 10 Tribes of Israel were never "JEWS" in the strictest sense of the word, never were taught Babylonian Talmudic philosophy, nor did they ever have a synagogue, only 2 Tribes Judahites and a very small portion of Benjamites can be called JEWS. Modern Christians focus their learning on the New Testament and the writings of Paul to the exclusion of the Old Testament and even to a degree the teachings of Christ. I have a hunch that the Old Testament Manuscripts/Transcripts had been around, reprinted, copied and read for so many centuries that the general knowledge of them was too well known for them to be changed much, but what we call the New Testament didn't exist at the time of Jesus, was developed as we know it by a Pagan named Constantine in 325 A.D. in my opinion to unify the Roman Empire. Most of the New Testament (75-80%) consists of Pauls writings, which Peter described as difficult (hard), and which neither Paul or Peter were around to verify their validity. Suffice it to say that many scholars find it difficult to justify the Old Testament and New Testament regarding consistencies, while others go so far as to claim two different Gods inspired the two Testaments. My point is not to argue these opinions but rather to ask that people have an open mind to the possibility that politics may have played a more significant part in establishing the content of the New Testament than the Old Testament. Many modern Churches and their leaders admit that the church as we know it might not even exist without the writings of Paul, and I agree. In many instances I think they should rename their faith as "Paulianity". A pattern or trend has developed especially concerning the support for government supremecy or blind obedience to so-called leaders that arises relative to scriptural support for it. This argument usually doesn't exist among the general "Christian Community" because they aren't studied enough to even develop the pertinent questions because they are casual in their faith and allow seminary trained theologians to instruct them without verifying what they're being taught. I know that one Scripture claims that God is not the author of confusion (then who is ?) but some confusion must be admitted. The word Babel means "confusion" and the word Babylon comes from the word Babel. [I believe that all of the major Empires were and are heavily influenced by Babylonian [Talmudic] philosophy, especially with respect to controlling the masses through legal codes, rhetoric, propaganda and disputations that keep the people from unifying in their own best interests.] I should note here that Jesus never had a good word for the lawyers of his day, only the "Woes" (woe unto you etc.), which was the equivalent of fuck you in His day, and was probably made to sound more civil by the English translators of Scripture. This forum has a lot of well informed and learned participants. Those that are students of history, laws, and Scriptural writings will have to admit at some point that every major Empire including the current NWO scum have the Babylonian fingerprint, and their M.O. seems to never change. The debate rages on this particular thread between knowledgeable people that are so far apart in their determinations of "right and wrong" that it's almost funny ... except that we will suffer the same destruction experienced by every former empire or culture unless we can unify against those ruling our people with total disregard for us, our children, them, whomever they choose to be our current enemy, their children, and even the earth itself. They rule through chaos and destruction, murder and mayhem ... the inherent characteristics of satan. Having differing views relative to Scriptural writings is nothing new, and I would admit that better minds than mine that have studied longer, harder and better than me, on any given issue can disagree. So, I think we can afford to have different opinions easy enough but we can't afford to be divided. This country, more than any of its predecessors, had a stubborn bunch involved in its beginnings that tried their best to put certain things above the reach of others present at the same time that wanted a new Roman Empire or New Atlantis ... or in other words a fascist state. And while they did their best, we (including our recent ancestors) have fallen asleep only to realize that fascists never sleep, have all the money, guns, laws, and toadies for terrorism. The pettiness of tax arguments, or religious opinions that really become ego contests serve no good purpose. We have a real fucking problem that can only be solved by sober adults ... not a bunch of self-absorbed ego-maniac brats. We can do better, and we should if only for our posterity. Jesus said to his apostles, "How can I teach you heavenly things when you can't even undertsand earthly things" ? I think we deserve that remark as much as they did if not more, and we should give it some serious consideration.
To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world, but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to study this and other such Biblical examples.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"
noone222 12-17-06
#68. To: noone222 (#67)
Excellent. The idea that we should do nothing but go to the camps and wait until we die for God to do something is BS.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
#69. To: IndieTX (#68)
Irrespective of religious beliefs most people in the U.S. know things are happening that are counter to our cultural past. The insidious spy camera network, road blocks, internment camps, Homeland Security, high-level corruption in government, destruction or debauchery of the currency, unwieldy debt, outsourcing jobs and insourcing the unemployed, S.W.A.T. military styled goon units designed to attack civilian populations ... it all adds up to nothing good that most people are capable of noticing to some degree. Those that are keenly aware of the negatives and willing to openly discuss them are considered hyper-paranoid by others that are undergoing deep seated cognitive dissonance similar to that experienced by rape and incest victims unable to deal with the truth of their circumstance. The movie "V" for Vendetta demonstrates the only power we have, and that is us, "ALL" of us. If we are to have any ability to radically change the direction we're headed it will take a mass awareness/eductional program, and a willingness on the part of everyone to at least agree to remain free, or get free again depending on how one views our current situation. 25 years I have watched the so-called Patriot community approach unity only to let meaningless argument and stubbornness divide people. Getting past this obstacle may require "a catalyzing event" or the implementation of some law that everyone finds abhorrent ... Life without freedom doesn't appeal to me. I wonder if the revolutionaries of 18th century America were hindered by as much apathy as we are in the 21st.
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938"
noone222 12-17-06
#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
#99. To: christine (#97) (Edited)
This is super truth respecting "w" ... no one wants credit for that abortion ! By God we need a friggin riot ... what's wrong with us ???
"They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." Hosea 8:4
"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
#100. To: noone222 (#99)
See Domestic Turkeys
what's wrong with us ???
#101. To: IndieTX (#75)
Gotta disagree with you on Skinner. Politically he was basically an anarchosocialist. Behavioral psychology and its techniques are like guns, morally neutral in themselves and effective for good or evil -- far more so than cognitive psychology and idioms of mind. But yeah, modern Christianity (~50 or so years) is an Ars Moriendi for honkies and the lands formerly known as Christendom. It has little to offer us.
B.F.Skinner could've developed the version of defeatist 'christianity' they teach today, which is "Obey TheStateInc. It is of God!"
ARAGORN: Murderers... traitors! You would call upon them to fight? They believe in nothing! They answer to no one!
ELROND: They will answer to the King of Gondor!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest