Would You Vote For Me?

[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.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Endtimes........

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

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 [it] 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

[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.

You would like this book:

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com.../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?

[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.

[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?

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 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.

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?

[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?

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.