Would You Vote For Me?

[Didymus]

Changed my party affiliation to Republican 11-15-2010, hence the change of the first sentence .

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

Solving this countries economic woes is easy. We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. To accomplish this we must:

1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

2. Get rid of the department of Homeland Security. We already have a department of Defense, and it is their job to defend the United States of America. We don't need a department bogged down with beaurocracy to secure this country. It is redundant.

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

That, my friends is my platform, should I decide to run for President.

What do you think?

:ranger:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Some good foundations;

Do you know about Jake Towne?
He's from Quakertown area.

I think, generally speaking the Fed Govt was originally only involved in govorning the international affairs FOR the states; not for making laws for citizens of the states. The 14th amendemnt changed and hid alot through confusion of terms while establishing a 'citizen of the federal states'. State constitutions were also changed at that time.
You may have to also look at the constitutionality of the 14th.

I think your point #8 is a result of the 14th amendment establishing a secondary "Federal State" jurisdiction overlapping the independant union state for which it's 'naturalized' and tricked U.S. (federal) citizens to reside. There is also a secondary federal state citizenry imposed upon those born or naturalized into federal state citizenry. This is the accomplishment of the 14th amendment. Is there a difference between the post civil war 'U.S.' and the pre civil war 'U.S.A.'. If not, then why did states constitutions and oaths of military office drop 'of America' from the oaths?

Even so; aren't these all 'man made' govts but which thankfully still respect individual religious freedom.


It seems most of the points are valid points against areas of oppression and encroachment of outside influences and needed points of discussion and re-evaluation.


Do you know about Goldismoney forum?
AIPAC?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

A more important question that I would have is how you interpret Romans 13; the temple tax; and perhaps even the question about paying lordship to Ceasar that the Pharisee's (the vipers who would become unified with 'the beast') asked Jesus.

What do you know about 'just war theory' as basis for international law.

[Didymus]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD,

You make a good point. There is a difference between the "United States," and the "United States of America." Although I think it happened in 1913, when the "United States" was incorporated as a business. The Constitution for the United States of America was repalced by the Commercial Code of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

I am curious about your user name. Are you a preterist? And who is Jake Townsend?

Didy

:yo:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD,

You make a good point. There is a difference between the "United States," and the "United States of America." Although I think it happened in 1913, when the "United States" was incorporated as a business. The Constitution for the United States of America was repalced by the Commercial Code of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

I am curious about your user name. Are you a preterist? And who is Jake Townsend?

Didy

:yo:

Yes; I view the 'end times' scriptures as fulfilled with Deut 32 being the 'mother' of so called end time prophecies; but there are so many angles to being called a 'preterist' that I shy away from that nomenclature.

Although not a supporter or detractor Google Jake Towne for your own interests http://towneforcongress.com/

I disagree with the date of the change from USA to U.S. Research the Pa constitution before and after the civil war. Research the oaths of military office before and after the civil war.
And even before this, the U.S. citizenship was the U.S. Congress(people) assembled, officers and subjects of the federal govt through residency in D.C./Fed territory or allegience. I believe that U.S. Congress (people) assembled was the 'we the people of the United States' who ordained and established the Constitution FOR the United States of America; but not neccessarily for their citizens. Thus the later need for the 14th.

Just before the drafting of the U.S. constitution, while congress was meeting in Philadelphia, people who had served in the Revolutionary war went to the fed govt to get paid for their service to this group. Congress requested the Pa Militia to come and disband the group. The Govornor of Pa, rightly refused, understanding that Pa was not subodinate to the Fed govt, The Govornor basically said; Pay your own army. More info on the Pennsylvania Mutiny could be found online.

The U.S. citizenship of the 14th (civil war) amendment is federal territorial U.S. citizenship; not Union state nationality which would have subsequently equaled U.S.A. nationality. There are court cases after the civil war which indicate that there were at least 2 citizenships active within the land and being either one did not equal being the other.

And even before and during these things; I believe that individual religious freedom from corporal and warring govts was respected and protected within the states constitutions (and for the most part still is). Pennsylvania was founded as a Quaker (Peace church) state (Commonwealth) proclaiming individual religious freedom while NY was predominately Presbyterian. I haven't heard much of the others.

Awaiting the other answers.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD,

You make a good point. There is a difference between the "United States," and the "United States of America." Although I think it happened in 1913, when the "United States" was incorporated as a business. The Constitution for the United States of America was repalced by the Commercial Code of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

I am curious about your user name. Are you a preterist? And who is Jake Townsend?

Didy

:yo:
I think UCC is in congruence with international law and a result of 'just war theory' and thus is justifiably imposed as law for the U.S. federal/international territories and it's citizens due to ITS military. It is revealing itself as judaism. Although imposed as such I dont' think it is neccessarily supreme law of the land for every individual due to religious freedoms and the power of the kingdom of God. It is imposed as supreme law of the federal U.S. territories and all freely naturalized 14th amendment (federal) citizens.

Edit: Recently found; In support of Religious freedoms, Congress also recognized in 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act; But as PUBLIC LAW. This would be different than federal/private law. (I think)

See also:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=24395#post24395

That's why I asked you for your interpretation/understanding of Romans 13.

[Didymus]

You know, I am not to fond of the "preterist" label either.

I will check into Jake Townsend. Did he win?

Well, I am not sure of the date. You are right, there were many changes after the Civil War. And there were changes in 1913 as well. The 16th Amendment, for example.

Maryland was Catholic.

You said, "Awaiting other answers." If I may ask, what other answers?

:ranger:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

You know, I am not to fond of the "preterist" label either.

I will check into Jake Townsend. Did he win?

Well, I am not sure of the date. You are right, there were many changes after the Civil War. And there were changes in 1913 as well. The 16th Amendment, for example.

Maryland was Catholic.

You said, "Awaiting other answers." If I may ask, what other answers?

:ranger:
The perspective below is presented for individual study and research.

I don't think the 16th changed anything; but it is now misapplied and imposed as if was intended to include 'all' individual income from every form of human without regard to their (uncoerced) 14th amendment federal citizen status.

I think The court case that launched the 16th involved a NY resident/non U.S. citizen who owned rental property which was situated inside a federal land area. He claimed that since he was a non resident/non federal citizen (alien) that his rental income from sources within the 'federal' united states area was non taxable unless it was apportioned among the states and in accordance with the census. He was wrong and lost due to the property being 'within' a federal area/territory and listed among SOURCES of federally connected income that were taxable irreguardless of one's citizenship status. Congress was given authority to tax it's territories and its' subjects and its citizens in ways that it could not tax Citizens in a Free state. In the Regs in sections 861/871 are listed specific sources from within and specific sources from without federal states; D.C. and federal areas. These federal areas are defined in the code as "United States" and these 861/871 sources from within and without are stated as 'FEDERALLY connected SOURCES of income. These, I believe, were the original focus of the 16th to non-resident aliens.

There were court cases after the 16th which emphatically and specifically stated that no new laws had been enacted by the 16th. And the last determination prior to 1913 around 1896 had upheld the U.S. constitution and forbid congress to tax non federally connected individual labor/income of Union State citizens/nationals within the union states without apportionment through the states and according to population/census as stated earlier in the Constitution. And, the states were not too keen on paying up when the Fed did demand a poll or head tax.

The focus of the 16th was 'source' income from whatever specifically defined and stated federally connected sources (either those sources within or sources without a federal U.S.*area) that they were derived and that those sources were taxable irregardless of being a non-resident alien or as the act put it; 'without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration. *Remember again that in almost all cases; the definition of 'united states' for which congress has exclusive jurisdiction are the 5 federal areas; D.C. and federal territories and IT's citizens.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever [federally connected] source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Basically; the 16th re-stated what parts of the constitution had already stated and it would seem that it's only inclusion as an amendment without using the words "federally connected" before the word 'source' would be to later confuse, obligate, tax through imposition, the populace.(or cause them to study) The words 'federally connected" are found in sec 871 and likely 861.

There are some who follow what is called the 861 argument, and I believe they are wrong or fed plants because they either do not realized that non-resident aliens (NRA's) are a political/religious choice within the earth and USA and that the U.S. is defined as the federal areas with respect to sources of income for NRA's. The 861 argument people view NRA's and foreigners as someone from outside of the geographic country, and they view within and without the U.S. as being within and without the geographic country rather than within or without exclusive federal jurisdiction.

From what I have heard, the record of deliberations about the 16th have "mysteriously" vanished from congressional records.

I think the 16th in it's present reading also presumes and is subordinate to the 14th amendment u.s citizenship status as are most of the post 14th amendments.

I believe that AN additional SOURCE of 'federally' taxable and connected income is based on this individual (U.S.)citizenship status and by individually being a willing 14th amendment (federal; U.S.) citizen (or perhaps resident). Previous to the 14th (and after) U.S. citizenry/allegiance would have included members of Congress, officers of federal departments, the U.S. military personal loyal to Congress; and direct residents living in the U.S. (D.C.) . These were taxed under federal income income tax as far back as 1870's.

It IS Logically and reasonably presumed if a person is born in a federal area/territory (5 fed territories) and does not expatriate or a freeborn in a State freely and willingly while in full knowledge and awareness of the facts and options of jurisdictions and citizenship; etc elects to remain in, or is naturalized as a 14th amendment FEDERAL (U.S.) citizen / resident that they would desire to be and remain as such.

I believe that the 14th amendment additionally confused things by creating an additional and new federal state which overlaps the union state territory for IT'S U.S. (not Free State nationals or "other" Peace church citizenships) citizens to 'reside'in while living in a [freeborn] union state with religious liberties. Note the words: All persons born or naturalized in the [federal] united states and subject to ITS [congresses exclusive] jurisdiction are citizens of the [federal] united states AND [additionally, federal-state citizens] of the [newly created federal-] state wherein they reside.

U.S. congress could not dictate that a person naturalized in the [federal] U.S. would also have to be a Citizen of a Free-born/Union State as the religious freedoms of God and Freeborn status upheld in the Union states could be contrary to the subjugation and the corporal/military citizenry of the U.S. law and it's federal states. Thus (I believe) the phrase 'and [a citizen] of the state wherein He resides' MUST refer to a newly created federal state for those who actually lived in a Free State but who had given allegience to the U.S.

Just prior (days or weeks) to the 14th, Congress enacted IN PUBLIC LAW; (not federal, private law) the 'expatriation' statute where a person finding themselves in an undesireable citizenship/allegience (such as the now 'freed' slaves) could expatriate to a non federal (non u.s.) jurisdiction. Unfortunatley, congress began pressuring states to have their immigrants give allegience to U.S. citizenship rather than Free state nationality or to independance or another "King".

I saw a record of Michigan where a letter/memorandum was written which instructed state officials to end immigration and allegiance to a 'State of Michigan' and to divert immigrants to U.S. allegiance and citizenship. I think this was 1871. Interestingly enough; it was (I believe) a Michigan Congressman who drafted the 14th.

Note the similarity in language between the wording of the 14th amendment and sec 26.1.1-1(c) . I think that's the proper code. It talks about who is liable for (individual) federal income tax. They both say 'born or naturalized and subject to ITS (U.S.Congresses) exclusive jurisdiction.

There is a status called 'non-resident alien' with respect to 14th amendment "U.S." citizenry (and then also fed-state citizenry) which seems to be designed for those not freely willing or unable due to religious convictions to be 14th amendment or corporal U.S. citizens or partake in 'benefits', obligations, and natural consequences of that allegiance. I believe It's mentioned in U.S. title 50 (military) & title 8.(naturalization and ineligibility for [federal/U.S.] citizenship) among others.

Free birth status and a Persons Individual Religious freedom and Protection against forced or compelled participation in a ministry against the conscience of the individual are upheld in Pennsylvania and likely other states.
Edit added: And in 1998 Congress in PUBLIC LAW (not federal, private law) reaffirmed religious freedom through the International Religious Freedom Act.

The question becomes: how does a free born native of a free "Union" state or commonwealth become 'naturalized' into 14th amendment (U.S.)federal citizenry or federal residency and/or subject to it's jurisdiction?
And it's an answer that I think centers on freely, willingly and un-compelling registration or contract process.

Citizenship = individually uncompelled 'allegience'. It is not birth or residence status. See Janet Reno's survey of the act of Expatriation. It would be logical that the act of patronization and citizenship is opposite that of expatriation.

This is where the study of the 'just war theory', ones interpretation/contextual understanding of Romans 13 and the 'render unto Ceasar' studies come in; and the considerations of the fulfilled prophecies and the victory of the saints and the promise of the increase of Christ's government come in.

Other sources of taxable federal income MAY be through direct employment for a federal agency/employer and independant work done for a federal agency even though being a political non-resident alien. This second group I believe is addressed through form 1099. This form is also inappropriately (I think) being used to tax presumably voluntary and willing [ though sometimes coerced, compelled or lied to through obfuscation and custom definition of terms] political U.S. citizens and/or residents who may be doing non-employeee work in the private non-domestic (without the federal U.S.) sector. Again weather these are taxable to NRA's is part of sections 861 and 871. I'm not sure if direct federal employment is either possible or taxable to NRA or if one MUST give allegiance (citizenship) to U.S congress to become actually federally employed.


You said, "Awaiting other answers." If I may ask, what other answers?
The questions that are important for any christian to answer and especially helpful to understanding govt which I ask you IS.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25647&postcount=3

[Didymus]

I know nothing about the "just war theory." I've only heard it mentioned a few times.

I think Romans 13 is plain. As Christians, we are to be obedient to the governing authorites. Is there something specific in Romans 13 you want to discuss?

:ranger:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I know nothing about the "just war theory." I've only heard it mentioned a few times.

I think Romans 13 is plain. As Christians, we are to be obedient to the governing authorites. Is there something specific in Romans 13 you want to discuss?

:ranger:
I disagree with your 'plain' interpretation.
Why did all the apostles (except John) die if they submitted to every command of Govt.?
I'll leave it up to you to do a word study of exousia and Romans 13 and then apply it to the context of Romans 12 and his talk about the freedom and power to Love; even loving your enemies. And consider the context of the end of Roman 11 where Mercy was to be shown even to those who were then their enemies. Note 13:8 &10 and the previous chapters context. Note also that at the beginning of the book Paul is writing to the 'called out' ones... I.E. those given 'the Power to become children of God/Love. When those without the Holy Spirit attempt to interpret and apply this; it appears to say what you mentioned.

As Huey Lewis sang' Power of Love; and as John Michael Talbot sang; Do you remember the Power;.... How he LOVED those who Peirced him.... etc.

Here are some helps although I dont' fully agree with every aspect of every article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p11.1.html
http://www.hisholychurch.info/sermon/romans13.php
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

Edit:
Isaiah 22:21 is the best place that I've found for the word translated 'govornment in the KJV. The septuigent words are Kratov and oikonomian. Kratov can be and is often used in the NT as power of God. A thorough word study of synonyms of rulership; govornment; dominion, kingdom, etc to determine what Paul is saying here. And that understanding should align with the rest of Paul is saying in Romans and elsewhere and be observant of the historical context that Paul was writing from within Rome and as a prisoner and that his letters were likely screened by Roman authorities.

Just war theory can be researched in wikipedia from the other links. It is apparently basis for inter-national law and thus reverts to 'mans ability to make laws for himself and justify 'war' and killing on a corporal or 'national' level. I think it's the basis of UCC as you noted and rationalized / corporal law.

Recall also that the corporal/national mosaic law is the administration of death and no longer advocated or blessed by God even for it's negative purposes; while the individualized/eternal; NEW (restored) covenant of Mercy/eternal forgiveness/adoption is the present and eternal administration of The Father(daddy); Jesus; Holy Spirit.

The answers to the temple tax Google Moses temple tax results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=temple+tax+moses&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) and Tribute to Ceasar (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html) are also connected to this idea.

The word "power" has a connotation of individual 'freedom'/liberty/authority' and in the context it seems to be refer to having that power and freedom from fear, hate or Law and to Live and Love freely and responsibly. Could it be related to how the law of the Spirit and Love of Christ has made us free from the law of sin/death and mosaic conditional/national law and free to his LOVE?? (Rom 8:2; 10;4ff)

This perspective of the 'higher powers' being the Higher Powers/Principles of God is specifically what Ireneous denied but said that some did interpret things this way. (see book 5; chapter 24) Ireneous also completly misapplied the temple tax that Jesus and Peter paid that was to support the Mosaic covenant temples as a Roman tax in the same chapter. This is inexcusable and is strong support for the romanization and censorship of the surviving letters of the ECF's.
See the first article by lew rockwell. James discussion about friendship with the world being enmity with God contradict Ireneous' statements.

We of the fulfilled perspective proclaim that the kingdom of God; of Love; individual freedom and Peace and the “EVERLASTING Good News OF THE CREATOR” is here and fully established and Dan 7; Deut 32 and Isaiah 59 also fulfilled and yet we live and sometimes 'choose' to live and contract in the kingdom of the judaizers or the kingdom of men; or even 'the church age'.

There was a rescent article that I read where some branch of the govt was sending memo's out to encourage the churches to preach the romanized version of Rom 13. That should be an awareness call of how important this may be.

I've written alot for you to research and think upon and again as stated; not sure how promptly I'll continue to respond.

These are things that should be discussed and studied objectively and prayerfully in our churches.

[Didymus]

Endtimes........

You are making a false assumption. I never said we should obey government above God. I hate when people twist what I say and make false assumptions about what I say. And I find that to be a common practice on the internet.

:dontknow:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Endtimes........

You are making a false assumption. I never said we should obey government above God.

:dontknow:
Didymus;
No, I dont' think I'm misrepresenting you, but I think your misunderstanding what I was saying. I'm saying that Romans 13 doesn't teach what you said it did at all.


I think Romans 13 is plain. As Christians, we are to be obedient to the governing authorites.

In its contextual study, Romans 13 and the 'higher powers' have nothing to do with submitting to (worldly)Govorning authorities even though the church has predominately been taught that perspective through the ages starting possibly with Erroneous' obviously romanized interpretations(or before).

P.S. [added 11/28/10] Even take note of sec 2,3 & 25 of article 1 of Pennsylvania's constitution. Individual religious liberty, power of the people and recognition of "HIGHER POWERS" are extant from the Govornment. Not that the powers of God rely on mans recognition or declaration of them (as sec 25 & 3 states)

To give a beginning point for what the Higher POWERS are referring to; consider the Attributes of Goodness and Love of the Creator as the HIGHER Powers. And consider the Freedom/Liberty, and Right of those qualities to exist and to Be Expressed due to the Reality and Essence of his BEING and HIS Eternal, Omnipotent, Unchangeable nature.

These attributes (Powers) were now openly displayed by God in and through the Works of his incarnation during the acceptable year (lifespan) of the LORD (continuous).
Notice especially the context of Love in the preceding section of chapter 12 and especially in chapter 13 verses 7-10.

I think this perspective can even be supported from circling back to his eternal qualities and powers that were talked about in Romans 1:20.
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
For there is no (Essential) POWER but of (from) God's Being.

If they who had recieved and known HIS GOODNESS and MERCY in their souls dont' fear and respect that Goodness, Mercy and LOVE of God to others they/we will likely bear HIS (God's) infliction.

In addition "Rulers" could just as or more easily be referring to Apostles and Spiritual Leaders or Celestial Rulers rather than secular (worldy) leaders as it had also in Rom 12:8
[[I]Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, [let him do it] with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. ] And as it was indicated by the fact of the letter being written to those with the knowledge of God'.
But its also possible that his decree is for all souls to also include the worldly govornments to learn to respect the individual worship and service of God through Goodness and Love and in Freedom (LK 1:74,75).

Paul in talking to personal recievers of that Goodness and Love; (John 1:16) says to let every one of them, (Christians from highest to lowest) (and perhaps others also) submit themselves and reciprocate these Higher points and freedoms of God's Character which they now posess and which Christ exemplified. (even in his death).

Note also; the new covenant is individual, associated, eternal while the way of seeking corporal blessing or attain peace through attempting to obey civil, counterfeit religious / corporal national law passed away and is condemned.

A thorough inductive / objective / contextual study would be in order; and I'll leave it up to you to do that.

Again; Note Huey Lewis; "Power of Love" song.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

[COLOR="Red"] 1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.
:ranger:

You would like this book:

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

A quote about philosopher Hegel.


If we wish to stop this juggernaut toward a socialist-fascist system, then we must restore educational freedom to America. Americans forget that the present government education system started as a Prussian import in the 1840’s–’50’s. It was a system built on Hegel’s belief that the state was “God” walking on earth. How much different is Hegels belief than that which the church teaches about Romans 13?

Anothe quote from the author or a similar perspective.

I want them to know that there will always be hope for freedom if they follow in these
people’s footsteps; if they cherish the concept of “free will”; if they believe that human
beings are special, not animals, and that they have intellects, souls, and consciences. I
want them to know that if the government schools are allowed to teach children K–12 using
Pavlovian/Skinnerian animal training methods—which provide tangible rewards only for
correct answers—there can be no freedom.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

In a previous post in this thread, I noted a certain case that influenced the 16th amendment. I had a few points wrong. It was stock from a domestic company (created within and by the congressional U.S.) which he owned and which was declared taxable even though he was a 'non resident alien. This was a source of taxable income due to it's being formed by congress.

I actually thought that this case launched the 16th amendment, but it appears that was another case.



You should be familiar with the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co.. What you might not know is the Union Pacific was Chartered by Congress. That made it a Domestic corp. in the United States and also while it resided in the State for federal purposes. However, it remained foreign to the Union State it inhabited.
Mr. Brushaber was a nonresident alien living in New York, a Union State, therefore, he did not reside in the United States. He did own bonds of the Domestic corp. which he derived interest from and that was a trade or business carried on with the United States. We all know the decision of the Court was that the Tax imposed was an Excise based on a "privileged location".


TREASURY DECISION (T.D. 2313).

"Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic (U.S.) corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.
Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire `net income 'from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States,'(in the federal area) computed upon the basis prescribed by law."

[Didymus]

End.............,

Amid computer problems and other distrations, I have not been here for a while.

I am a simple man with a simple understanding of Scritpure. Advanced theological rot leads to questions and even false doctrines. I think you must over analyze Romans 13. It is plainly written that we are to be obedient to the governing authorities. The very first sentence of romans 13 is, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." How can you get plainer than that?

:ranger:

[Didymus]

P.S. [added 11/28/10] Even take note of sec 2,3 & 25 of article 1 of Pennsylvania's constitution. Individual religious liberty, power of the people and recognition of "HIGHER POWERS" are extant from the Govornment. Not that the powers of God rely on mans recognition or declaration of them (as sec 25 & 3 states)

Now you are mirepresenting what the Pennsylvania Constitution says. It is hard to have a clear discussion with someone if their premise is a misinterpretation of what is being said. And, with you discussion of contextual studies, you have not abided by the the plain and simple context of the Pa. Constitution.

Section 2 has nothing to do with religion at all. It plainly shows that all the powers of goverernment are "inherant in the people."

Section 3 firmly establishes that the people of Pennsylvania have the religious freedom to "worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences..."

And the "higher powers" clause of section 25 has nothing to do with religion.

:ranger:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

End.............,

Amid computer problems and other distrations, I have not been here for a while.

I am a simple man with a simple understanding of Scritpure. Advanced theological rot leads to questions and even false doctrines. I think you must over analyze Romans 13. It is plainly written that we are to be obedient to the governing authorities. The very first sentence of romans 13 is, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." How can you get plainer than that?

:ranger:
Sorry for your computer problems.

No, Romans 13 does not say 'governing authorities'. The greek word is Exousia. For there is no Exousia [power, liberty] but of God. In other words; let every soul be subject to the higher [Godly] ordinances, statutes and dominion of the living God; and since Paul is writing in the post incarnation era; those revealed in, by and and through Christ. In it's context,and especially in the context of the previous chapters; it has nothing to do with submission to [then especially pagan] governments but to the Higher principles previously discussed in earlier chapter[s]

We most often find our lives within the bounds of the statist and corporal law; but that doesn't mean that human governments have become the LIVING lord God or have natural jurisdiction and dominion over the kingdom and government Christ wrought.

Your wrong interpretation of Romans 13 will lead one to that perspective and dominion though. And it can lead one to a sense of self justification and self righteousness through keeping human laws or NT codified law rather than by faith in Christ. I think I provided several links of interpretations of Romans 13 that inductively study the context.

The pro-state interpretation apparently began in the 2nd century when the Roman Govt beseeched and threatened the church leaders to codify and compartmentalize their doctrines similarly to the way Romes laws were structured. This 'systematization and codification of NT doctrine as law and theology' is against the intent of the living God dwelling within and instilling growth and knowledge gradually through his Spirit. We find these 2 verses in 2 Cor 3
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. There were false rumors going on about what the sect believed and taught including some about Cannibalism. This was the situation and pressured context in which most of the early church 'fathers or leaders' framed and interpreted the scriptures and the Epistles into a systematized and codified set of 'beliefs' or interpretations. It would have not been easy for the ECF's to write of the superior dominion of the kingdom of God and that that dominion is what caused Rome to invade Judea; and that the Christians and the kingdom of Peace, even then had dominion 'over' the Romans and their 'gods'. That would not have been received to well.

Through the pressure of Romanized systematization and codification of the NT, several if not many texts were misinterpreted from their contextual and original audience interpretations. This is why and how [I believe] Ireneous came to several erroneous doctrines such as the futurist perspectives. In addition; the early Roman Ceasars especially around 250-300 AD ordered thousands of early documents and writings to be destroyed in a censorship and oppression of their growth. It's unlikely that any such interpretation that was the least un-supportive of Roman dominion would have been allowed to perpetuate. But interpretations, such as Ireneous and Trypho's (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) that Christ paid roman tribute would have been spared and sanctioned by the Censors.

The letter of Romans is written to Christians who recognize No mediator between God and man but Jesus AND a moral accountability to and freedom from that Creator.

Governments dominion are entered into and submitted to individually by contract on at least the Federal level; and likely the state level also. I think this is due to recognition of religious freedoms through the individualism of the accountability of ones life to the Creator and the individualism of the new covenant. The state of Pennsylvania has at least 2 domains and citizenships. see http://www.state-citizen.org. One that is subject to the federal govt after the Civil war through 14th amendment citizenry; and one that is organic of the Union State at Peace and not subject to U.S. federal citizenry. I don't even think State congresspeople and representatives know that they most often operate under the fed govt whereas before the civil war; they did not. And I believe that there is a citizenship that is separate from citizenship in a state, and which proclaims citizenship in the kingdom of God through the kingdom of Christ.

Thankfully, the constitution of the governments have adopted and permitted individual religious freedoms apart from secular - humanist statism. Pa constitution even states that no person who hold a view of eternal rewards or an eternal state shall be denied from participation in an office. It can be read that though not denied; this perspective is not the foundation for the State. Not saying or implying at all that all the states do is humanist, communist, evil or secular in scope'.

I read a story, though, where a man going through a divorce researched and questioned the foundations for his Arizona marriage license. He found that it subjected the marriage to the state and that the state acted as an agnostic [at least] or atheistic entity in the matter and claimed dominion over the 'marriage' for it's own purposes and intentions.

I'll end there as to deny these inductive studies and interpretations of Romans 13 would likely be an indication to be prone to argue irrationally and subjectively against them.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Now you are mirepresenting what the Pennsylvania Constitution says. It is hard to have a clear discussion with someone if their premise is a misinterpretation of what is being said. And, with you discussion of contextual studies, you have not abided by the the plain and simple context of the Pa. Constitution.

Section 2 has nothing to do with religion at all. It plainly shows that all the powers of goverernment are "inherant in the people."

Section 3 firmly establishes that the people of Pennsylvania have the religious freedom to "worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences..."

And the "higher powers" clause of section 25 has nothing to do with religion.

:ranger:
I'll admit that I'm not real clear on weather sec 25 separates all parts of article 1 from the rest of the Constitution.

But I'm happy with my understanding of the intent of article 2 & 3 and the preamble.

I'll apologize if I don't respond promptly to any responses. There is alot to chew on in these posts. And I sense a never-ending interaction with little resolution.

All the best to you though in your political endeavors.

[Didymus]

Why can't you simply accept what the Bible says instead of over analyzing evrything. Where is your faith.

I may be stupid, but I have faith in what God says in His Word. Why you can't accept the simple Word of God, I can't understand. The Word of God simply staes that we are to be obedient the the governing authorities.

Where is your faith?

:ranger:

[CWH]

Why can't you simply accept what the Bible says instead of over analyzing evrything. Where is your faith.

I may be stupid, but I have faith in what God says in His Word. Why you can't accept the simple Word of God, I can't understand. The Word of God simply staes that we are to be obedient the the governing authorities.

Where is your faith?

:ranger:

If the current US government is run by President Adolf Hitler, do you think we should be obedient and accept the simple Word of God? If the apostles of Jesus were to follow what you said, they would have worshipped the Roman Emperor as God...now if that is the case, where were their faith?

Remember what Jesus said,"Matthew 24:4 Jesus answered: 'Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many".

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why can't you simply accept what the Bible says instead of over analyzing evrything. Where is your faith.

I may be stupid, but I have faith in what God says in His Word. Why you can't accept the simple Word of God, I can't understand. The Word of God simply staes that we are to be obedient the the governing authorities.

Where is your faith?

:ranger:
There is no such thing as "the simple Word of God." If the Bible is anything, it is not "simple." Folks have been disputing its meaning for 2000 years, and rather than coming closer to a resolution, have only created more and more division. If you really believe the Bible is God's Word, then you need to accept that God did not intend for it to be "simply" understood. The book is filled with contradictions, confusions, and incomplete statements that no one can interpret because God omitted the information! If God had desired for us to have a simple understanding, he could have simply explained things directly and with clarity. But he did not do that. The irony is that any human textbook on Mathematics, Electronics, or Quantum Physics is a thousand times more "clear" and "simple" than the Bible. And this reveals the true purpose of the Bible. God designed it to force us to think for ourselves and to reject Biblical fundamentalism if we accept the Bible as God's Word. It is the apotheosis of irony - the Bible makes Biblical fundamentalism impossible. And this brings up another reason for the confusion around the Bible. Folks have been taught that it must be "infallible and inerrant" if it is really the "Word of God." This lie has destroyed the minds of nearly every person who has believed it. Christian apologists routinely prostitute their minds to create false explanations to cover up the truth of what the Bible really teaches. And since the TEACHERS are showing the sheep that it is OK to twist and pervert truth to support a false doctrine, the minds of the sheep are corrupted. I've been watching this go on unabated for decades. It makes a total farce of the religion known as American Evangelical Christianity.

[Didymus]

If the current US government is run by President Adolf Hitler, do you think we should be obedient and accept the simple Word of God? If the apostles of Jesus were to follow what you said, they would have worshipped the Roman Emperor as God...now if that is the case, where were their faith?

Remember what Jesus said,"Matthew 24:4 Jesus answered: 'Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many".

Many Blessings.

All I know is what the Bible says. However, Scripture also teaches Christians to obey God rather than man. It seems likely then that we are to obey the governing authorites when the governing authorities are not contrary to God's Word.

Why is this so hard to understand? It is very understandable if you read the topic in context. I urge you to read the whole of Romans 13. It is referring to governments appointed by God. And there is no authority except from God. The purpose of the government so appointed by God is to punish the evil-doer.

I can't answer your question about Adolf Hitler, since it is hypothetical. Your question should be, did God appoint Hitler. I believe he did. For what purpose? That you will have to ask God.

Why did God raise up armies to attack Israel?

Is it not possible that God appoints tyranical governments to punish evil-doers today. Look at the the United States today. Abortion, homosexuality, greed, etc. Look at the church in America. It's divided, it's idolatrous, it's unloving. So God has given us extreme weather, and a stupid government at all levels.

II Chronicles 7.14.

:ranger:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

All I know is what the Bible says. However, Scripture also teaches Christians to obey God rather than man. It seems likely then that we are to obey the governing authorites when the governing authorities are not contrary to God's Word.

Why is this so hard to understand? It is very understandable if you read the topic in context. I urge you to read the whole of Romans 13. It is referring to governments appointed by God. And there is no authority except from God. The purpose of the government so appointed by God is to punish the evil-doer.

This is not an academic question for Americans because our country was founded on a rebellion against our government, and the problem was exacerbated by the fact that the British government was explicitly Christian. Many Christians believed it was a direct violation of Romans 13 to rebel against our government.



I can't answer your question about Adolf Hitler, since it is hypothetical. Your question should be, did God appoint Hitler. I believe he did. For what purpose? That you will have to ask God.

Hypothetical questions can be answered just like any other. Indeed, most important questions are hypothetical. They are questions like "What should I do if .... ?". Likewise, most important mathematical theorems are answers to hypothetical questions like "If x is prime, how many divisors would it have?".

The correct answer to Cheow's question is that we should refuse to obey Hitler if he were president of the USA. I believe this clearly shows why the Biblical teaching that all governments are established by God and are a terror only to the wicked and should be obeyed is clearly false.



Why did God raise up armies to attack Israel?

Is it not possible that God appoints tyranical governments to punish evil-doers today. Look at the the United States today. Abortion, homosexuality, greed, etc. Look at the church in America. It's divided, it's idolatrous, it's unloving. So God has given us extreme weather, and a stupid government at all levels.

II Chronicles 7.14.

:ranger:
If God were trying to communicate through random weather events, then he would be the worst communicator in the history of the world. There is no way anyone can discern the "Voice of God" by looking at some hurricane here or tsunami there. And what kind of "intelligent being" would even think to communicate that way? If God really wanted to communicate, he could just speak so all could hear. As it is, all we have are random weather events interpreted like chicken entrails by voodoo/Christian witch doctors. The fact that many Christian leaders like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have explicitly taught that God was angry and speaking through natural disasters shows how utterly corrupt the Christian mind has become. They have made an absolute mockery of modern Evangelical Christianity.

[Didymus]

I am a simple man. As a simple man I accept Scripture by faith. And I believe the Bible is simple to understand when not subjected to the treatment of Advanced Theology. By applying whatever theological system you want, you can twist Scripture into whatever shape you want it to take. I was on that path when I "heard the calling to go into ministry." I went to Northeastern Christian Junior College. I saw this twisting their. "The Bible doesn't mean what it says, it means what we say it means." This is the attitude of many theologians.

Sorry to say, but I have seen this twisting here as well. It seems to be going on all over Christendom.

I just recently learned that Genesis 1 & 2 is a myth. Some preterists teach that Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, but rather with the creation of covenants. Yet neither view is supported by the text itself.

When it comes to Romans 13, I know what it says. If you want a deep theological explanation beyond what is written, you will have to ask God.

:ranger:

[Rose]

I am a simple man. As a simple man I accept Scripture by faith. And I believe the Bible is simple to understand when not subjected to the treatment of Advanced Theology. By applying whatever theological system you want, you can twist Scripture into whatever shape you want it to take. I was on that path when I "heard the calling to go into ministry." I went to Northeastern Christian Junior College. I saw this twisting their. "The Bible doesn't mean what it says, it means what we say it means." This is the attitude of many theologians.

Sorry to say, but I have seen this twisting here as well. It seems to be going on all over Christendom.

I just recently learned that Genesis 1 & 2 is a myth. Some preterists teach that Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, but rather with the creation of covenants. Yet neither view is supported by the text itself.

When it comes to Romans 13, I know what it says. If you want a deep theological explanation beyond what is written, you will have to ask God.

:ranger:
Hi Didymus,

The simple truth of the matter is....the ONLY way the Bible can be understood is through human interpretation, and given the way in which the Bible is written that pretty much leaves it wide open to however one wishes to interpret it. That's is the reason there are practically as many interpretations, which turn into doctrines as there are people.

Think of the millions of people over the centuries that have prophesied words they said were from God that have never come to pass....everyone can't be right, yet they all speak as if they are.

Much of the Bible is NOT written in a clear to understand manner, there are parts of stories with no beginning, introduction of ideas with no background, insertions of events that have no foundation in the Bible, and the list could go on, and on....that is the reason it is left wide open for twisting and manipulation.

If after 2000 years Christians are no closer to the truth, I think trying to get insights from the standard method of Biblical interpretation might be a lost cause. Maybe, we need to look at the Bible from a different perspective....one of viewing it as a collection of the human experience of the divine, and how they perceived God to be from their place in the time-line of history.

All the Best,
Rose

[Didymus]

Hi Didymus,

The simple truth of the matter is....the ONLY way the Bible can be understood is through human interpretation, and given the way in which the Bible is written that pretty much leaves it wide open to however one wishes to interpret it. That's is the reason there are practically as many interpretations, which turn into doctrines as there are people.

Peter disagrees with you as he has written in II Peter 1.20, "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation."


Think of the millions of people over the centuries that have prophesied words they said were from God that have never come to pass....everyone can't be right, yet they all speak as if they are.

Much of the Bible is NOT written in a clear to understand manner, there are parts of stories with no beginning, introduction of ideas with no background, insertions of events that have no foundation in the Bible, and the list could go on, and on....that is the reason it is left wide open for twisting and manipulation.

If after 2000 years Christians are no closer to the truth, I think trying to get insights from the standard method of Biblical interpretation might be a lost cause. Maybe, we need to look at the Bible from a different perspective....one of viewing it as a collection of the human experience of the divine, and how they perceived God to be from their place in the time-line of history.

All the Best,
Rose

I Corinthians 1.10 states, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

How can we all speak the same thing if we all have our own interpretation?

:ranger:

[Rose]

Peter disagrees with you as he has written in II Peter 1.20, "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation."



I Corinthians 1.10 states, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

How can we all speak the same thing if we all have our own interpretation?

:ranger:

If Scripture isn't interpreted by individual humans then who interprets it? The only way anyone can read words written on a page and understand what is being said is to INTERPRET them.

All the Best,
Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

When it comes to Romans 13, I know what it says. If you want a deep theological explanation beyond what is written, you will have to ask God.

:ranger:
Hi Didy;
I offered 3 links (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25714&postcount=10) to non-governmental interpretations of Rom 13 and of the greek word Exousia which is 'power'. One factor that we need to consider is that we are reading English translation of Greek words and ideas. And there are also some evidences that the KJV was biased towards Human Govt and hierarchical church govt similar to the bishops bible, but not as severe. All translations have a certain amount of interpretation involved and this does not eliminate the KJV from inclusion... although there are some groups who proclaim that stance.

Thus, in order to get to the accurate meaning of the words, we absolutely MUST consider the Greek words being used. In the last 10 yrs or more websites and bible software have aided this greatly, but even before; Strongs and other lexicon helps were available for the 'Simple' man to aid in his studies.

This controversy over the Greek word Exousia is not new. In fact, Ireneous mentioned in book 5 chapter 24 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103524.htm)I think, that there were some who held a different view of this word, but that he disregarded them in favor of the pro government view; even pagan govt. With Iraeneous other mistakes and false interpretations, this perspective cannot be depended on either.

How much influence did Roman pressure and threats create for the early church leaders. From Trypho's first apologetic we can understand that the Roman govt system was asking and seeking systematized and codified explanations of belief, practice and interpretations. It was likely that in response to that pressure and the Romans questions about some of the writings, letters and gospels that spurious, incomplete, poorly expressed, legalized and perhaps even wrong or compromised interpretations and perspectives were promulgated by the ECF's.

You mentioned the context of Romans 13, but the context is also Romans 12 and within the context of the topics in the whole book of Romans. No-where else that I know of does he talk about the Roman [or human] government as being god ordained though they were orchestrated by HIM and for his purpose. It is not like Paul's writing to start a new topic [or declare a ordinance] out of the blue and without context to previously discussed ideas. Neither is his typical way or intent of writing to establish or declare ordinances; but to write encouragement and support for ideas and subjects they were likely already thinking about.

There is power, power, wonder working power.... in the blood.....of the lamb... etc.. What does the word power, mean here?

Let every soul be subject to the HiGHER [God's good] powers [which must have had a meaning in a previous contextual reference] For there is no POWER [no eternal ordinances, statutes and principles or the free expression of them related to man] but of the goodness of God in His Creation of man in his image. And the powers [higher ordinances, principles] that be; they are ordained of God.

This takes comprehension and study beyond do's and don'ts of codified law and researches into the very Character and Goodness of God in his creation and the ordinances, principles and foundational laws set forth in the Creation, and then also the Re-Creation and new beginnings of the New heavens, new earth of the new prophet and seed of Eve/God.

That's why it's mentioned; Rom 13 [at least the beginning of it] has NOTHING to do the ordination of human govt.

The new testament and new covenant is not new practices of a repeat of the conditional principles of the old covenant . The New covenant principles and laws is contrary to the conditional principles of the old covenant of keeping statutory, codified law. We are not blessed of God by the conditions of keeping mosaic law NORthe multitudes of codes/laws of human govt NOR by codifying the NT letters into New law under which we now seek to obtain blessing, justification and approval by attaining and keeping. [though there are wise principles of instruction in the NT letters to the first century church to be considered].

Paul says; Blessed is the man who's sins are forgiven; Blessed is the man whos sins the lord does not count AGAINST him..... and in Romans 8; now if God [and his powers] be FOR us...who can be against us. We are blessed in our very individually [forgiven] humanity and divinity in the image of the Creator and the indwelling of his Spirit of adoption.

It is not that studying and knowing Gods everlasting new ordinances and principles through his character should degrade us below human codified law; but Christians of the mold of the apostles should set the standard, including standards of freedom and of individual accountability toward God's positive Life.

There are some atrocities and oppressions against the ordinances and statutes of the Creator of Life being committed by secular governments [sometimes due to corruption of the individual administrator] and their codified laws and systems. And a false interpretation and understanding of what Paul means in Romans 13 can fuel those atrocities.

As you mentioned; you say you know what it says in English, but do you know what it meant in the Greek, to the original audience and from the heart and intent of the writer/composer.

I do not think this passage teaches or even implies that human Govts are God's ordained government and presence [over the church of the Lamb] on the earth.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

There is no such thing as "the simple Word of God." If the Bible is anything, it is not "simple." Folks have been disputing its meaning for 2000 years, and rather than coming closer to a resolution, have only created more and more division. If you really believe the Bible is God's Word, then you need to accept that God did not intend for it to be "simply" understood. The book is filled with contradictions, confusions, and incomplete statements that no one can interpret because God omitted the information! If God had desired for us to have a simple understanding, he could have simply explained things directly and with clarity. But he did not do that.
For your consideration and contemplation; Jesus declared that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. I think there is deeper meaning to this about the New Beginning of the Eighth day that I'll not get into right now.

But if we hold forth that believers are justified, loved, forgiven, and indwelt apart from conditional corporal law and apart from having every single accurate interpretation as "new" law to be conditionally subjected to, then, just like the Sabath being made for man, the written word is made for confirmation, instruction, building up of redeemed and 'quickened' Man, not for carnal man for the written word.

Paul said the 'word' [incarnate God] is in you,[speaking of Believers indwelt] in your mouth and in your heart.. The written word confirms the spirit of the Living word received through faith in Christ.


2 Cor 3.1
Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
..................
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.


1 cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

[Didymus]

If Scripture isn't interpreted by individual humans then who interprets it? The only way anyone can read words written on a page and understand what is being said is to INTERPRET them.

All the Best,
Rose

It is not for us to interpret but to accept what is written by faith.

:ranger:

[Didymus]

Endy,

I am writing this off site since your posts are so long, it is hard to follow them and reply at the same time. And I am a bit mift about all of it. This was not designed to be a religious thread. It started as a political thread asking, "Would you vote for me?" Of course, it's a moot point as I have decided not to run for President. A political thread in the midst of UFOs and conspiracy theories. So, in either case - IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS THREAD!

Now to the topic you have replaced the topic of the OP with.

1. I agree with you about the KJV. It is likely that Prince James ordered to the translators to protect the ecclesiastical heriarchy of the Church of England, hence the mistranslation of pascha in Acts 12.4.

2. It is good to have Bible study helps in order define words if needed. But, theologians down through history have often twisted Scripture to fit their theological dogma, causing division resulting in hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of denominations. The resulting religion bears little resemblance to the Christianity founded on the foundation of Christ and the Apostles.

3. The words "power," and "authority" are often used interchangeably in literary works.

That is all I can respond to at this time, as much of your responses are full of theological concepts I have little or no knowledge about.

It is my goal to stay with in the point of the OP when I make responses to the threads of others. I would appreciate if you give me the same courtesy.

:ranger:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Endy,

I am writing this off site since your posts are so long, it is hard to follow them and reply at the same time. And I am a bit mift about all of it. This was not designed to be a religious thread. It started as a political thread asking, "Would you vote for me?" Of course, it's a moot point as I have decided not to run for President. A political thread in the midst of UFOs and conspiracy theories. So, in either case - IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS THREAD!

Now to the topic you have replaced the topic of the OP with.

1. I agree with you about the KJV. It is likely that Prince James ordered to the translators to protect the ecclesiastical heriarchy of the Church of England, hence the mistranslation of pascha in Acts 12.4.

2. It is good to have Bible study helps in order define words if needed. But, theologians down through history have often twisted Scripture to fit their theological dogma, causing division resulting in hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of denominations. The resulting religion bears little resemblance to the Christianity founded on the foundation of Christ and the Apostles.

3. The words "power," and "authority" are often used interchangeably in literary works.

That is all I can respond to at this time, as much of your responses are full of theological concepts I have little or no knowledge about.

It is my goal to stay with in the point of the OP when I make responses to the threads of others. I would appreciate if you give me the same courtesy.

:ranger:
The questions were genuine to determine your understanding of important [to me] foundations and concepts.


So, in either case - IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS THREAD!

One's 'religion' and spiritual views of the laws of the Creator permeates all aspects of life including their freely contracted political activity and also by their lack thereof as supported by separation of church/state.

Apparently the preamble and articles of the Constitution of Pennsylvania [at least] agrees as does the the Declaration of Independence; and the laws and limited domain of the federal Constitution.

But, agreed, the continuation of discussion and study of Roman 13 MAY be better done in the bible studies section. I'll not promise prompt replies though.

Cheers.

[Didymus]

At the same time, I don't know if the intent of the conspiracies, delusions and ufo's thread was intended to advertize ones political cause and agenda. But that is a consideration for Richard, not I. I think its fine to discuss and interact about them.

I didn't put it here. It was moved here from "General Discussion."


The questions were genuine to determine your understanding of important [to me] foundations and concepts.

One's 'religion' and spiritual views of the laws of the Creator permeates all aspects of life including their political activity and also by lack thereof.

That might be true, but you could have stayed on point.


Apparently the preamble and articles of the Constitution of Pennsylvania [at least] agrees as does the laws and limited domain of the federal Constitution and of the Declaration of Independence.

Agrees with what?

:ranger:

[Rose]

It is not for us to interpret but to accept what is written by faith.

:ranger:

That's the problem! No one can except what is written by faith, unless it's been interpreted by a human. How do you think we understand words written on a page? The only way is by first learning the language of the text, and then interpreting the words. Words have meaning only when they have been interpreted by an individual, whether it be us hearing someone speak, or reading the text for ourselves it all comes down to INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION.

That is the reason there are so many doctrines concerning the Christian faith, because everyone interprets the words a little differently depending on the world view they live in, hence what they accept by faith is maybe a little different from what you or I accept by faith.

All the Best,
Rose

[Didymus]

That's the problem! No one can except what is written by faith, unless it's been interpreted by a human. How do you think we understand words written on a page? The only way is by first learning the language of the text, and then interpreting the words. Words have meaning only when they have been interpreted by an individual, whether it be us hearing someone speak, or reading the text for ourselves it all comes down to INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION.

That is the reason there are so many doctrines concerning the Christian faith, because everyone interprets the words a little differently depending on the world view they live in, hence what they accept by faith is maybe a little different from what you or I accept by faith.

All the Best,
Rose

I think you are confusing interpretation and definition.

:prayer: - now I lay me down to take a nap.

[Rose]

I think you are confusing interpretation and definition.

:prayer: - now I lay me down to take a nap.

Now you've got me confused...:dizzy:

Rose

[Didymus]

Now you've got me confused...:dizzy:

Rose

When you define a word, and accept your findings, that's definititon.

When you define a word, and you decide the meaning, that's interpretation.

:ranger: