|
What is the promise to Abraham? What is the promise to Abraham? If you're from the WCG, you've heard it many times. But looking at it from the plain statements of Paul may provide insights that would directly challenge all religions and simply put them out of business.
From looking at Romans 8:7 and Godel's theorem, we realize it is impossible to package all truth in one system, and the expected result is to be an increase of religious ideas into the thousands, or even into infinity, given enough time.
This would lead us to at least two logical conclusions: 1. There is no God 2.If there is a God, then that God has no intention of being discovered in such a way that his existence can be known in any provable fashion
In Matthew 24, we see that the disciples asked Jesus about the end time. His first warning was to "take heed that no man deceive you, for many shall come in my name, and shall deceive many".
So now we are faced with an impossible decision from any physical perspective, since there is no way to know if we can reach a truth that is consistent with God, and if our minds are enmity against God, how do we ever know that what we find is truth?
The fact is, we can't. If we could, then it could be shown to the world, and if shown to the world, then there would be no need for the 38,000 varieties of Christianity we have today. Nor would there even be a need for separation of church and state, since both could simply be combined into one government.
After warning his disciples of other events, he returned to his original warning in Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christ's and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect".
If you're ex-WCG, you've heard this many times, and you once believed you were one of those very elect, because we kept the law. Now, however, you know better. You also know that simply attempting to keep the law will result in a confusion of interpretations as to how it should be kept.
But don't feel bad, because that's what happened to Israel as well. By the time Jesus walked the earth, the Jews were a religion of incredible diversity, many different ideas and interpretations as to what God expected.
From this we may add another possibility to the ones above: 3.God intends diversity
Of course, if there is no God, then we can eliminate the second two altogether, but the results will be the same of the second two possibilities are correct.
So, working from the possibility of the last two conclusions, there is no likelihood whatever that we can ever develop any working hypothesis demonstrating a religion as true.
Faced with these two conclusions, there is only one possible correct choice to make in regard to the 38,000 varieties of Christian religions, and Jesus told us plainly in Matthew 24 what that choice is:
Verse 23: "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not."
In other words, there is only one correct choice to make: Don't follow any religion, period!
The apostle Paul carries this to a more powerful conclusion with his teaching on the promise to Abraham. We assume that the children of Israel were the fulfillment of that promise. Paul says no!
If it wasn't about Israel, then who was it about? Before Paul goes in to the explanation of this promise, he makes some controversial statements. First he tells us that the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to His laws, then Paul tells us that God already knows his children and has predestined them in advance!
Okay, let's assume that God is all knowing. If so, then Paul's statement is logical from that point of view. God would certainly know this in advance. There would be no escaping it. But then Paul goes to explaining this promise made to Abraham in the next chapter.
Romans 9:7: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called."
Okay, what's the big deal? Descendants of Abraham are also descendants of Isaac. So what is Paul talking about?
In verse 8, Paul seems to repeat himself. "That is, they which are the children of the flesh(Israel), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Here comes an interesting distinction. The physical descendants are not God's children, but children of the promise are!
Verse 9: "For this is the word of promise, 'At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.'
Wait a minute! Is Paul saying what I think he is? Are all those mentioned in Romans 8:29-30 actually born in just the same fashion as Isaac? When God made his promise to Abraham was God actually saying that there would be children born throughout history, foreknown by God, as Isaac was, predestined by God, as Isaac was, and called by God, as Isaac was?
If there is a God who does not intend for us to discover Him by our efforts, it would make sense to conclude that if there is a God, then that God would actually be doing the selection process just as He promised Abraham!
Well, why not look at Galatians 3:29: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Can we assume that all true Christians, those described in Romans 8:29-30, are all born in just the same fashion as Isaac was?
Galatians 4:28: "Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."
In Galatians 3:17, Paul tells us that the law came four hundred thirty years after the promise, so the promise stands.
When you think about it, this is pure brilliance! People can struggle for their own vision of God, seek answers that they will never find, and all the time guaranteeing that, just as Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-38, there will be increasing freedom and division right down to the individual level!
God would be in complete control of his promise to Abraham, and people would struggle among themselves trying to organize for a truth they can never achieve, guaranteeing freedom throughout history!
Absolutely brilliant in all its simplicity! Two birds killed with one stone, and God keeps his promise to Abraham! If there is a God, wouldn't you expect this very brilliance and simplicity? And, when the elect are resurrected, they are trained to be rulers, and then the rest are raised to be taught the truths of freedom!
2 Peter 2:19: "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."
We have 38,000 versions of Christianity and growing in numbers, all promising us liberty of we just join in. Yet the verse above says that whatever overcomes a man enslaves him!
The choice is so incredibly obvious we simply cannot see it! Jesus quoted Isaiah in Matthew 13:14: "By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:"
We can't see it because we're looking for a structured, geometric relationship of laws that relate in an organizational form. The answer stares us in the face because it cannot be structured in any algorithmic fashion. There is no structured decision procedure to get there! The only correct choice you can make is freedom! Of all the 38,000 varieties of Christianity in the US, there seems to be one belief they all have in common. Can you guess what it is?
Taxes. Virtually every one of them say we have to pay taxes, "render unto Caesar." Even the old WCG never let us back out on our tax responsibilities.
It's time we looked at this "render unto Caesar" thing and understood what Jesus was saying.
First, we can see from history that the Pharisees didn't like Rome. The ones who backed Rome were the Quisling Sadducees, the priests who were appointed to power by the Roman government. But Pharisees? Nah, they cared nothing for tax collectors, whom they called "publicans" and asked Jesus why he insisted on even associating with such people. Jesus' answer, of course, was that he didn't come to save the righteous, but sinners.
There you have it! In the plain words of Jesus, tax collectors were sinners. The Pharisees believed, and Jesus believed it.
So we get to the big scripture. The Pharisees we are told were trying to tempt Jesus. Most likely, they were trying to get him to declare what he was going to do, either challenge the Romans or side with the Sadducees. So they asked him a question:
"Is it lawful to render tribute to Caesar?"
Instead of answering them right there in front of possible Sanhedrin Sadducees, Roman soldiers, and the Pharisee themselves, Jesus simply asked for a coin. Have you ever noticed that Jesus never seemed to carry coins? Even when Peter was asked if his master paid taxes, Jesus told Peter to go cast the net, and he would catch a fish with a proper coin in its mouth.
This shouldn't seem odd. Jesus taught that a camel could go through the eye of a needle easier than a rich man could enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus taught that you cannot serve God and mammon, and Jesus even seemed to advise against corporations in Luke 12.
So, it's not unusual that Jesus would never carry coins.
Any way, they found him a coin. he held it up and asked "Whose image is on this coin?"
They answered "Caesar's."
If you never heard of "God's law" or read it, this question would mean nothing to you. It seemed to say, to any outsider, that Jesus was actually saying "give to Caesar what he desires" but if you know God's law, you know better!
The Pharisees, whatever their flaws, were sticklers for the law, so they knew instantly what Jesus was telling them.
When Jesus mentioned Caesar's image, he tied four subjects together: images, law, money, and taxes. The Pharisees knew they were NOT to pay taxes to Caesar, because they knew the second commandment said they shouldn't.
That would be like me asking you "According to the United States law, should we pay taxes to China?" You think the IRS agent would say "Yes, give to China what they require, and then give to us."
There was no law in God's law requiring Israel to pay taxes to other nations. They were God's chosen. They were not to be part of other nations, so they certainly wouldn't pay taxes to other nations, especially if the law said they could not bow down to any kind of image!
And besides, in the U.S. today, there is no Caesar. There is no king. All men are created equal, so if we pay taxes, there is only one sovereign to whom we should pay taxes, either ourselves as "Caesar" or to God. Since I am a sovereign individual, I am not required to pay taxes.
And, if the 1st Amendment says congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof, we don't have to pay taxes, especially if those taxes are based on "legal tender" that is nowhere legalized in the Constitution!
It makes you wonder, exactly who do these churches serve, anyway? In Daniel 2, we read that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about a great image, and sought Daniel to interpret his dream. The dream was about a great image of a man who had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass legs of iron and feet part of iron and part of clay.
It quickly became apparent to me that the description of fine metals was obviously a reference to money, trade, and commerce. I had also read about the statement of the historian Arnold Toynbee, who described the process of history as one of "etherialization". That merely describes a process of developing technology in which more and more is done with less and less. Buckminster Fuller called it "ephemeralization".
For example, we once had a very mechanical and specialized society with functions being separated according to the specialties of each function. With the development of electricity, however, we began combining more and more functions into one main process, until today we have desktop computers that act not only as a mail service, but also can direct and control the flow of information, and we can, at our own home, perform many functions for which we once had to pay others. This combination of more and more into less and less was the object of Toynbee's description.
If we look at the image described by Daniel, we may understand this same process as representing the growth of the state.
Babylon used gold primarily, but had a weight system in which trade was carried out by measurements, such as shekel, half shekel, ephah, etc. It is quite interesting that when Nebuchadnezzar's successor saw the "handwriting on the wall," it said, in part, "you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."
Today we may think of this as a symbolic scale of justice, but in that time, it was also the economic process of trade.
A friend of mine from New Caledonia named Conrad Hopman points out that it was the temple priests who used young women as temple prostitutes to get favors from travelers, usually in gold or gold trinkets, to further the power of the priests. Thus the "whores of Babylon."
Not only was Babylon's power limited by the use of one metal, but its process of weights and measures allowed the development of the kingdom of Persia, which not only added silver to the mix, thus expanding its power of trade, but was also aided by the use of coinage, developed in Lydia. This pre-measured coinage greatly facilitated trade and allowed expansion of power for the Persian Kings.
Gradually, however, it was not only the pre-weighed coins, but the realization that the "official stamp" placed on a coin also gave it value. The Greek empire used cheaper metals stamped with various images, including brass, and the Romans realized that Caesar's image placed on the cheapest of metals, even iron, would still allow them to confiscate property if citizens had no such coinage.
With this cheapening process, the power of state increased, causing the "etherializing" of money to expand government power and control. Of course the iron of Rome gave way to the ten nation confederacy represented by the toes of iron mixed with clay.
In looking at the clay, I speculated that today, clay is used as insulators for electric transmission. But clay also has another component called sand, and sand has a component called silicon. We know what silicon is used for. Money has literally become "dirt cheap."
However, the book of Habakkuk has another possible explanation for this clay of the ten toes. In chapter 2, verse 6, it says:
"Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! How long? And to him that ladeth himself with thick clay!"
I checked the Hebrew of this "clay" and discovered that it means a contract or loan, or a "pawn."
The basis of all transactions today is loans, contracts, mortgages made at a rate of interest, directly condemned repeatedly in the bible as "abominations" condemned throughout the Old testament. The "clay" described in Daniel 2 is a dry, clod-like clay, breaking up into brittle pieces, an empire of debt dying.
While the bible has directly condemned the use of interest or usury even in God's law, the world today measures its economy in terms of interest, using interest rates to slide "up" or "down" to regulate the economy and collectivize the people. That is why the bible calls it an abomination, because it takes away the people's power to rule themselves as individuals.
|
|||||
|
Richard Dawkins Proves the Bible Right?
Let's look at his main thesis. he writes about something he calls the genetic replicative algorithm. In other words, our need to reproduce and protect that right of reproduction stems from the gene's need to replicate itself. According to Dawkins, this drive seeks exact replication from generation to generation, and in order to control that replication, it must control its surrounding environment as much as possible. If the genes in our body function to replicate themselves in a cooperative way, it then becomes necessary for those cooperative genes to control the external environment, the biological world in which our bodies grow and produce more bodies, or as the Bible says "be fruitful".
If the main drive of our bodies interacting is to replicate ourselves as nearly perfectly as possible, it stands to reason that any social strategies we choose would seek to create rules and laws that minimize choice and reduce our "reality" to a process closely adapted to our environment. If our environment changes, our adaptive strategies are endangered, so we seek to develop collective behaviors that control our environment as much as possible.
This means socially that "deviant" behavior, one who acts too much as an individual, would threaten the reproductive success of the social system itself. Gradually, there had to develop strategies that ensured a person would follow certain behaviors to guarantee collective reproductive success.
E.O. Wilson, the Sociobiologist who shares Dawkins fondness for the collective behavior of genes, has stated that religion serves genetic success because it establishes behavior in a social framework in which there is a perfect, good, all powerful God who rewards our social behavior as we get older. The "born again" experience that occurs within fundamentalist religions in the US, says Wilson, are actually rites of passage that tend to occur in many religions when a person reaches the age of puberty, and begins to feel social/sexual pressures which are not familiar to him/her.
In many religious communities, if a person is "born again" into this social milieu, it guarantees that there will be marriage partners available for future reference. It is a prospect of "genetic fitness".
There is another advantage to this. To the extent that the genes can minimize differences, the greater their success for reproductive fitness and interaction in the future. The more "you' are like "me", and all others become similar, the greater our choices for reproductive success.
This need of exact replication may manifest by a process defined by two words, both of which actually mean the same thing: 1.narcissism, which is the linear extension of oneself into the environment 2.proselytizing zeal, which seeks the same goal.
As a further consequence, the idea of "heaven", an eternal and unchanging place of bliss where there is no change, no stress, no need to adapt, is the perfect goal for genes that need an unchanging environment to reproduce themselves exactly!
The goal of societies, therefore, would not only be to minimize decisions and changes in this environment, but to aim for that perfect environment which is the extension and fulfillment of our genetic drives!
We are conditioned to believe, by that process, that if many believe a thing to be true, the sheer number makes it so!
Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, described this process in the fifties, but it wasn't until Dawkins came along that there could be a physical reason for Hoffer's conclusions. Hoffer writes:
"There is a certain uniformity in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power, of unity and of self sacrifice. There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors which make them effective. He who, like Pascal finds precise reasons for the effectiveness of Christian doctrine has also found the reasons for the effectiveness of Communist, Nazi and nationalist doctrine. However different the holy causes people die for, they perhaps die basically for the same thing."
That "same thing "is the genetic replicative algorithm! Also, in regard to proselytizing, Hoffer writes:
"Whence comes the impulse to proselytize? Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth...Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power which as Bacon has it 'Is like a great flood, that which will be sure to overflow'. "The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have".
This would obviously be the result of the genetic replicative algorithm. If the genes create the need for a linear extension of ourselves into the environment, it must employ certain factors that make it successful. For this, the process is not only linear, but mechanical. It "seeks" to reduce all collective behavior into a process in which individuals are less important than the "greater good".
Philip Slater offers a key insight into this in the book EarthWalk that a mechanical response in the face of danger had no value until men began to make war on each other. In other words, each individual develops a "numbness" to his own individual life in pursuit of a collective goal. If you are tempted to "chicken out' in this, a perfect heaven awaits you in your effort. This is the ultimate "numbing" experience in which we seek that which is beyond life itself as a reward for the sacrifice of our lives here on earth.
From Slater:
"Mechanistic knowledge of the physiology of the body, for example, is an excellent device for blunting awareness of one's own bodily responses and their relation to environmental stimuli. treating the body as an object takes one out of the body and hence out of the environment> This enables someone in an anxiety-laden setting to take a pill instead of yelling or running out of the room, but this in turn increases the possibility that whatever is amiss in that room will not be corrected, thus requiring further 'anesthesia' ".
We see here a cooperative relationship between genes, proselytizing, narcissism, war, and the machine.
Hoffer refers to this in The True Believer as "estrangement from the self". If we are to become part of something greater and more wonderful than ourselves, wrote Hoffer, then we must assume that our individual lives are worth less than the collective "life" of the group. A wonderful genetic strategy!
Again from Slater:
"The objectification of morality makes it possible for an individual to feel moral or assuage guilt by conforming to a set of abstract rules even in the process of committing all sorts of viciousness".
Of course Hoffer has his own parallel:
"When we see the bloodshed, terror and destruction born of such generous enthusiasms as the love of God, love of Christ, love of a nation, compassion or the oppressed and so on, we usually blame this shameful perversion on a cynical, power-hungry leadership. Actually, it is the unification set in motion by these enthusiasms, rather than the manipulations of a scheming leadership, that transmutes noble impulses into a reality of hatred and violence. The deindividualization which is prerequisite for thorough integration and selfless dedication is also, to a considerable extent, process of dehumanization. The torture chamber is a corporate institution."
If we are "estranged" from our personal lives and the personal meaning of that life, it becomes easier to take the lives of others, since ours is of little importance. Consequently, we can kill, torture, and maim, all in the name of love. From that perspective, all is easily traced to the genetic replicative algorithm. "Universal love" creates a fitting environment for a gene pool that requires a minimum of change.
The term "narcissism" obviously comes from the myth of Narcissus, who beheld his image in a pool and could not tear himself away from it. he recognized it not as himself, but as an extension of himself, so perfect it finally caused him to die. You will also note this as the root word for "narcotic", narcosis", a deadening or numbing of oneself in order to accept the larger extension of that abstract, linear self into the environment.
Technology, writes Marshall McLuhan, in Understanding Media, causes this process of numbing, since the use of technology becomes an extension of our bodies and brains, and there is an effect of "local anesthesia" on the part of the body most affected.
The alphabet, the very words you read now, for example, provide a linear technology of thought. One letter after another, one word after another, one paragraph, etc, allow for the development of a technology of thought based on interchangeable parts, not that much different from our genetic replicative algorithm. From this perspective, it is not surprising that advancing technology, overpowering our process to make personal decisions, will cause us to seek drugs as a form of counter stress to the stress of technology.
Alvin Toffler, in Future Shock, points out that technology produces cults and sub-cults, as it reduces the decisions we have to make in order to cope with changes of technology. It should also not be surprising in such circumstances, that both drugs and religion are reinforcing in order to deal with accelerating change.
The Bible refers to this need for continual growth as "leavening." Jesus said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Sin itself is referred to as leaven. This "leavening" process actually feels good to people because it allows them to bury themselves in the crowd, to become one with all (as the old joke goes, a Zen Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything"). Meditation is big business because it allows us to eliminate the self, reach a state of peace and harmony. It's a successful business that literally teaches us nothing, and says so!
Jesus, however, had different ideas, as you see from Matthew 10:34-38, and in his teachings which said "straight is the way...and few there be that find it. Not choose it. Find it. Jesus' message was that we can't choose it, it's not given (Matt 13:11, John 6:44) and Paul followed up by telling us we have no decision process to get us there (Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 8:7, 8:29-30, Romans 9:16-22).
The only purpose served by such efforts as mainstream religion and government is to make a good breeding ground. Literally!
As the great writer Ayn Rand said, men offer you a poison that kills the individual, and as antidote, they give you another poison that kills the individual. Heads, you lose, and tails you lose.
Truth, said Jesus, is sharper than a two-edged sword. If it cuts through religion by the use of reason, it will equally cut through government, since both are created by the reasoning of the same human mind, and for the same general purpose of growth and replication. The message is "Come out of her, my people." The "spirit of truth" is about you as an individual, a human being, not a cog in the machine. Okay, you're looking at the judge, and you've just been charged with some silly law like driving down the road with no seat belt or five miles per hour over the speed limit. As you approach the judge, you might say "What's the use? I might as well plead guilty and get this over with."
First off, as I stated earlier, you have the right to a presumption of innocence. That actually comes with the guaranteed protection of Isaiah 54:17. You also have the right to face your accuser, as stated in Isaiah 50:8. You have the right to face no less than two witnesses, which comes from Deuteronomy 19:15, and also from Jesus' teaching in Matthew 18:15-18.
You further have the right to be judged by a jury for the "smallest things" in 1 Corinthians chapter 6.
As you stand there, you should realize that you face a situation in which your accuser is in service to the state, sworn to uphold the laws of the state. So is the prosecutor and judge. In other words, your accuser is the state.
But think about this: since you are guaranteed the protection of "righteousness" by God in Isaiah 54:17, and since the state recognizes God's sovereignty, how is it that the state can be your accuser?
The history of "due process" as mentioned in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, refers all the way back to Magna Carta, and is defined as "lawful judgement of your peers." But there is an even more interesting definition of due process given by Jesus himself:
Matthew 5:18: "Till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot ore one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Think about this as it applies to a court of law. Judges, prosecutors, and law officers are asked to swear on the Bible as they take their jobs. In fact, the prosecutor is allowed to prosecute on his oath of office.
By their own oath, and especially if they are profess to be Christians, they are bound to observe every jot and tittle that pertains to your case!
We already know from above what some "jots and tittles" include, but let's look at some more pertaining to traffic court:
Isaiah 29:20-21: "For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: "That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate (courtrooms. References to "gate" in this context means a place where people were tried for alleged offenses), and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."
Unclear? How about Jeremiah 5:26: "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. "As a cage is full of birds, so is their cages full of deceit."
What about traffic court itself? You're standing before the state which has accused you, and now will remove money from your pocket book.
Look down at verse 31: "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priest bear rule by their means (by their own power), and my people love to have it so."
You will notice that this description of trial was very similar to the trial of Jesus. He was brought before the priests, and the priests judged him according to the will of the people, not according to the violation or harming of any other person. Two witnesses could not be found, and the priest himself declared Jesus' statements to be blasphemy, while even Talmudic scholars today say there was no blasphemy in his statements.
In other words, Jesus was accused by "the people" (the state), and was not presumed innocent according to his own law. Every jot and tittle was not examined and he was put to death.
An interesting description of this type of proceeding is also found in Habakkuk 1:13-15: "...Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?" "And makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them?" "They take up all men with the angle, they catch them in their net, and gather them in their drag (dragnet): therefore they rejoice and are glad."
Two thousand years of history show the worship of a man who was tried and put to death, who committed no crime, no "sin" that was to be found by unbiased witnesses. Our entire legal process of the presumption of innocence is based on the life of that man who died so that we may not have to pay that penalty, and yet, even though the Bible itself is introduced as the book on which we are asked to swear, we cannot use that very word to show our innocence before the state? Hogwash! Traffic court is a scam! It's nothing more than a form of Admiralty Courts which the colonists despised, and introduced the 6th Amendment to prevent such injustice from ever happening! It's time we reminded the courts of what "due process" actually means!
Since it is called mother of harlots and abomination s of the earth, why not look at it from a Biblical perspective? We know from the prophecy of Daniel 2 that Babylon would be the first of a succession of empires that would use cheaper forms of currency, right up until the final empire, which would be a confederacy composed partly of iron and of clay. If you read my earlier essay on Daniel 2, you know what I'm writing about. Some have argued that it is the Catholic Church who is the "false prophet" of the "beast/prophet" duo of Revelation, but really, who is the "mother" of all these religions that have spawned from its single source? Who could be a "harlot" from a Biblical perspective? How about the nation of Israel? Deuteronomy 4:35 points out that God dealt only with Israel, and Amos 3:2 says that Israel was the only one of all the families of the earth with whom God dwelt. Jeremiah 3;14 says God was married to Israel, and they were unfaithful to him, so who really has a direct biblically proven connection to God? Well, Israel. But why connect Israel to Babylon? Historian Max DiMont tells us that when Cyrus of Persia allowed Israel to return to Palestine, the majority of Jews chose to stay in Babylon and sponsored the return of other Jews who wished to return to their homeland. Why? As DiMont writes, the Jews of Babylon had become quite successful by living along the trade routes of Babylon, and were satisfied with their wealth. What many do not know, however, is that the Talmud, which is the oral law of the Jews, as a written commentary on the Torah, is recognized as having its origin in Babylon. The Talmud was a "final' oral commentary that followed the Mishna, Gemara, resulting finally in the Talmud. This evolution from Mishna to Talmud is aptly described by Louis Ginzberg as quoted in DiMont's book "The Indestructible Jews": "The development of commerce and trade under the Hasmonean rulers peremptorily called for the building up of a code of civil law. The few rules found in scripture bearing on this branch of the law were not sufficient and could not be made so, not even by the most subtle reasoning of the cleverest interpretation. The time was certainly ripe for legislation. Every student of the history of jurisprudence knows that great as are the possibilities of interpretation, an old code has limits beyond which it cannot be stretched. When the breaking point is reached, legislation comes to the rescue (sound familiar?)... But how dare one tamper with sacred scripture, in which the Divine Will is revealed? The sages and scholars [formed] a new code--they created the Mishna" Mishna developed as a result of legislation needed for trade and commerce. Later the Gemara was added, according to DiMont as commentary on the text of Mishna. But it was the Talmud which finally became the commentary recognised by Jews as the official commentary on Torah, and it derived its authority from Babylonian origins. By the tenth century, writes DiMont, the Talmud had become the "common law" of the diaspora. Notice that the law was not Torah itself, but the Talmud, which had evolved as a result of the human commentaries on the Torah. It is interesting also to note from the Free Mason book titled "Morals And Dogma", that: "The dominant system among the Jews after their captivity was that of the Pharoschim or Pharisee. Whether their name was derived from that of Parsees, or followers of Zoroaster, or from some other source, it is certain they had borrowed much of their doctrine from the Persians. Like them they claimed to have the exclusive and mysterious knowledge, unknown to the mass...They styled themselves Interpreters; a name indicating their claim to the exclusive possession of the true meaning of the Holy Writings, by virtue of the oral traditions which Moses had received at MT Sinai." You will remember from Matthew 23:1 that Jesus admitted the scribes and Pharisees sat in "Moses' seat". It was also in that chapter that Jesus condemned them as hypocrites. he further warned his disciples against the "leaven of the Pharisees", who taught "for commandments the traditions of men". What an excellent description of Talmud! It was the Pharisees who finally eliminated all competitive religious views from Judaism and became the dominant system of thought. It was also the Pharisees who developed the rabbinical priesthood who were seen as the true spokesmen of God's word and the Talmud. They and the scribes of Jesus' day were the lawyers and legal experts. This evolution of Talmudic law, writes DiMont, introduced new methods of doing business based on credit and negotiable securities instead of gold on the barrel head. Whereas Roman law had held that indebtedness was personal and that creditors could not sell a note of indebtedness to someone else, Talmudic law recognized impersonal credit arrangements. Talmudic law held that a debt had to be paid to whoever had honestly acquired a debtor's note...There is clear evidence that these new easy credit arrangements, and the Talmudic laws enforcing the honoring of notes and debentures, led to the coming of international capitalism." DiMont further points out that concepts of common law and due process were shaped in the tenth century by Maimonides, and that trade and civil law was introduced to the Anglo Saxons by Jews whom William the Conqueror has brought along for that very purpose. Jesus himself had specifically warned against the Pharisees, and it was the Pharisees who had gradually developed an international system that would begin to facilitate growth by the development of credit schemes that evolved into modern day banking. And returning to the final empire described in Daniel chapter 2, we see the iron mixed with clay. And what is the clay? Perhaps Habakkuk 2:6 might give a clue: "Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! How long? And to him that ladeth himself with thick clay". This reference to "clay" according to the Hebrew, refers to pledges, notes of debt, credit. It was the Pharisees of whom Jesus warned us. It was the Pharisees who developed traditions of men that substituted for commandments of God. But during Jesus' life, the Talmud and its laws had to be somehow reconciled to give it a force of truth. The rabbi Hillel, who was a contemporary of Jesus, developed what became known as the "Seven Laws" of thought that would properly interpret human concepts of the Talmud. From this disciplined concept of laws, the Pharisees would derive their proper understanding of the Torah. The rabbis, trained in these concepts, would become the interpreters who would sit in "Moses' seat". But we see Jesus telling us to call no man master, or rabbi, or father. We see Jesus condemning the practices of the Pharisees and warning against the "leavening" of the Pharisees. Even further, as Hillel had claimed a logical process that properly defined human understanding of God's law, Paul had written that the natural mind was enmity against God's law and could not be subject to it(Romans 8:7). It was at this point that a great revolution occurred. Was a person right in refusing to acknowledge the authority of other men? Jesus said to call no man master or rabbi. The rabbis themselves claimed the right to properly interpret the laws of God according to logic and reason. The Pharisees themselves have evolved through the ages, as shown by historians. Modern banking has evolved to challenge the practice of loaning at interest, "usury", in direct violation of God's statements of Exodus 22:25. Leviticus 25:36-37, Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Nehemiah 5:7, Isaiah 24:2, and on the list goes. Today, we are looking at a system of trade that developed from Babylon and came to be a part of the whole world system of commerce, a system that "fornicated with the kings of the earth". It is a system of false prophets who will deceive the whole world, and how best to deceive someone? By operating from within the most sacred and cherished institutions, actually appearing to the source of goodness, when all along it is the very opposite. Who is "Babylon the Great"? Where does the evidence point? One of the most interesting debates I heard recently was on Youtube, called the Bahnsen-Stein debate on the question, "Does God Exist?" Bahnsen, the one who proposes that God exists, offers not proof, but an intriguing statement: How can you know anything if there is no God to reveal the knowledge to you? The atheist arguments should dispose of this, right? After all, we have no empirical proof whatever of God's existence, so, with no proof, we can offer no need to believe in God. Ah, says Bahnsen, that is exactly why God exists! Yes, you heard it right! God exists precisely because there is no empirical way to prove the existence of a non-material being, so there is no way for you to know what you know unless God was there to create you as a reality. What do you offer as denial? If you rightly claim that there exists no empirical proof of the existence of God at all, Bahnsen simply says, "That is no proof that God does not exist, since in making the statement "there is no proof" you are depending on circular reasoning, stating your own reason as the reason why God can't exist! This, says Bahsen, is "question begging", or circular reasoning, equal to saying "This is so because I say so". And where does Bahnsen's arguments take us next? Well, since the universe is composed of invariant physical laws, and those laws themselves are non-material, that in itself demonstrates the existence of a non-material God who created it! Are there invariant physical laws of the universe? Are they non-material? How do we know? Well, by the process of proof. But if such laws exist, is that in itself not proof of an invariant, non-material God who made them? But how do you know, asks the atheist. How do you not know, answers Bahnsen, since the laws of cause and effect demand a beginning of the cause. Something non-material must have created the non-material laws! The atheist is trapped now because he has to admit that all the empirical proofs he has to offer cannot be considered either complete or consistent in any absolute sense, so maybe there actually is something else that did create it. This little twist of reasoning is quite interesting, because there simply is no way of proving whether Bahnsen is correct, and that, says Bahnsen, is proof of his correctness! All right, so where do we go from there? Bahnsen says his "proof" is contained in Romans 1:18-20: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the foundation 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". Well, there it is, right? "Proof" that God has revealed himself to all men so they are absolutely without excuse! Before you laugh, that is what he states as proof! If you say "I know better, because there isn't even proof", he'll say, "It's not about proof, it's about revelation, and God has revealed himself to you so that any denial is the willful suppression of God's revelation"! Quite likely, you'll have 2Thessalonians 2:11 thrown at you. God has deluded you because you choose to believe a lie! You may ask "How do you know it's not you who believes the lie?" He may answer "Because I believe in God, and you don't". It all boils down to what Richard Dawkins called "narney narney nar, nar!" So, if you tell him to go and have a romantic interlude with himself, he'll respond by saying that you are simply denying the revelation of God! There are people who fall for this, hook, line, and sinker! You are a non-believer, because you deny the revelation of God! However, what he denies in this is that Deuteronomy 4:35 tells us plainly and specifically that God has chosen to reveal himself to Israel, and no others. Look at Paul's statement in Romans 1:19, and compare it to Deuteronomy 4:35. First, Paul's statement: ..."for God hath shewed it to them" Now, Deuteronomy 4;35: "Unto thee it was shewed..." To whom? Israel. Even more directly, we have Amos 3:2: "You only(Israel)have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities". So, who was "without excuse"? Israel. Who was directly shown? Israel. If Paul had stated that God had revealed himself to all the world so they had no excuse, obviously there would be some kind of evidence it was shown, but there is none. No empirical proof whatever, and Paul has shown that his own statement is consistent with the empirical data. The only ones to whom God had shown himself was Israel, and it was "them" to whom Paul referred. But if you simply back up to Romans 1:17, you see the obvious contradiction to Bahnsen's statement: "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, 'the just shall live by faith'". So, we have the "just" living by faith, while the evil and ungodly have the power of God revealed, so they are without excuse! Assuming that all were once sinners, and that they were considered "evil" at some time, wouldn't they still know that God had revealed himself? Do you get dumber if you "accept Christ"? From all evidence, it would seem so. The 14th amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and the state wherein they reside. Of course, there seems to be a qualifying clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is said to apply to Indian or those having a pre-existing culture. What, exactly, would a pre-existing culture be? The key here is the recognition of the fact of birth in these territories creating a condition of citizenship. Must it therefore be assumed that just because we are born in these territories we are citizens? No. A pre-existing culture existed, to which we are a par, if we so choose, and is fully recognized by the Constitution. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God".(John 1:12-13) That is, quite plainly and simply, that if you so choose, you can be born "of God" outside of any government created by the "will of man". We know that the Constitution is created by the will of man, because it says so ply in the Preamble, "We The People...." Whatever the will of the people ordain, therefore, is subject to the choice of any individual to the contrary. This is stated in the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting free exercise thereof". That is, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is only applicable by choice. If I choose it so, then it is so. Any contract entered into by the US, whether contracts of driver's license or any other such contract must either state the right of an individual to reject that obligation, or it is based on fraud. This right is challenged by the due process clause of the same amendment, which is also part of the 5th Amendment. As you know, the due process clause of the 5th Amendment states that no person can be forced to offer testimony against himself. If any person entered into a contract with the government, state or otherwise, and that contract was used to cause an individual to be prosecuted, then the state and federal government stand in violation of the Constitution. To deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is to ignore the same due process that includes the right against self incrimination. To declare a person a citizen when he has the pre-existing right to chose otherwise, and to declare him subject to a violation by virtue of a contract with the state, is to incriminate that person without due process. he is not "subject to the jurisdiction" unless he claims it, and jurisdiction is achieved by the use of the oath, either when you accept your license, or when you go to court. That is how jurisdiction was achieved from ancient times, using oaths of fealty. The 9th Amendment tells us that the rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be construed to disparage or deny other rights retained by the people. One of those rights has as been to deny citizenship if the individual wishes, under "higher" citizenship before God. Since all fifty states recognize the sovereignty of God, they cannot deny you this claim. It is said by the legal experts that the first use of "substantive due process" used by the Supreme Court was in the "Dred Scott" case, where Chief Justice Taney said it was a violation of due process to assume that a slave (property) was freed once he traveled to a state that was free. Certainly the only reference to "due process" to which Taney could have referred, and the only due process to which he was empowered to refer, was Constitutional due process, which is NOT due process as listed in the 5th amendment! By defining it later as "substantive due process" legal experts were actually saying that Taney took the concept of due process under the 5th amendment, which actually protected individuals from federal power, and defined it as applying to property. (Fugitive slave law, Article 4). In fact, that was the only conclusion which Taney was empowered to give, since he was sworn to uphold the US Constitution. He could render no other decision under "due process" of Constitutional law. But due process of federal, Constitutional law, is not due process as defined in the 5th amendment. It is defined, and has long been recognized, as stated by Justice Story, as preexisting the Constitution and coming from Magna Carta. Due process of common law, said Story, declares that any slave who escapes to a free territory or state is to be made free once he or she reaches that state. As Story wrote in his Commentaries, "It is well known that, at the common law, a slave escaping into a state, where slavery is not allowed, would immediately become free, and could not be reclaimed." Where does this common law ruling come from? Deuteronomy 23:15: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant (slave) which is escaped from his master unto thee: "He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Taney could not offer judgment on this aspect of due process, since he was not empowered by the Constitution to do so. It would be ridiculous for the founders to offer due process of law, which is defined as "lawful judgment of peers, or law of the land" which is defined by Justice Story as common law, and then tell the Supreme Court "You can define due process as you see fit." Due process of law, common law, is not subject to Supreme Court discretion! Since the fugitive slave law forced slaves to be returned to their masters, it was a violation of both common law and God's law as the courts then recognized God's law. That being so, the 1st amendment forbade congress from making any law that prohibited the free exercise of religion. The state courts which had declared Scott free were correct under common law ruling, and Taney had no authority to rule otherwise, since it was according to both common law and God's law, not to mention the famous phrase of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self evident..." So, in declaring the right of equality in his revered Gettysburg Address, Lincoln stated that "our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." What Lincoln called a proposition, Jefferson called a self evident truth. When Lincoln declared "four score and seven years ago" he pointed us directly to 1776, not 1789. In fact, in the speech, Lincoln correctly declared that slaves were free by virtue of the common law, NOT the Constitution, which had ratified the fugitive slave law in violation of the common law. However, in making this declaration, Lincoln nullified his authority as president, and declared a moral authority higher than man made law. But if God created all men equal, and Lincoln declared a moral right above the Constitution, then we clearly have that same example to guide us today as equals before the law. Not "under" the law, but BEFORE the law. What Lincoln declared, and what was honored via the Civil War, was exactly the same right before the US Constitution that Jefferson had earlier declared before the laws of England. Due Process preexisted the Constitution. So, since the U.S. Supreme Court was created by the Constitution, it clearly has no power over due process of law, other than procedural due process as dictated by the Constitution itself. This separation between the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship, and the rights of due process are clearly shown in the 14th amendment. The same due process clause that had limited the power of federal government now limited the power of state government, showing a power of law existing OUTSIDE of both state and federal law. Therefore, you can claim privileges and immunities under state and federal citizenship, or you can declare RIGHTS under due process. The rights you possess under due process exist outside state or federal control, since due process preexisted the US Constitution. The next issue is, does the due process clause of the 14th amendment "incorporate" the 1st amendment? It has been argued that the 1st amendment, now applied as restraints against both state and federal power, must be included under the due process clause of the 14th because there is no process of law allowed at all under the 1st amendment. That, however, is simply not true. Right to face accusers (Isaiah 50:8) Presumption of innocence (Isaiah 54:17) Two witnesses required in all accusations (Deuteronomy 19:15) Protection against perjury (Deut. 19:19) Entrapment (Jeremiah 5:26-31. Habakkuk 1:14-15) Right of search warrant under oath (Isaiah 29:21. No one can be prosecuted "for a word.") Right of privacy, private property (Deuteronomy 24:10-11) Right against zoning, control of property by vote (Micah 2:5) Protection against laws made by majority rule (Exodus 23:2) Right to settle out of court (Matthew 5:25, Matthew 18:15-18) Trial by jury (1 Corinthians 6) All governments subject to the power of God (Romans 13) Since Jesus himself authorized all settlements out of court, and that "two ore three" will be recognized such that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven," due process can be applied by ANY COMMUNITY OUTSIDE FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY! "Lawful judgment of peers" requires only two or three (after the two witness rule Deuteronomy 19:15.) Jesus defined due process in Matthew 5:18: "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." You are not bound by the jurisdiction of any court except by your own sworn oath, which Jesus says you should not do (Matt 5:34, James 5:12.) If you do swear an oath in the courtroom, it becomes inquisitional instead of accusatorial, and inquisitional law is recognized as ecclesiastical law. So, under oath, if you declare that God is your witness, make sure the judge lets you use the verses above as your witness!
If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site,
|
