Christians Argue that Yahushuwah spoke Greek Tuesday, May 27 2014 

Click to access BBR_2000_a_04_Porter_JesusUseGreek.pdf

Christianity: the Greatest Deception in World History Friday, May 2 2014

21 Proofs Christians Hate the Bible Monday, Jan 27 2014 

Mat. 5:17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets

Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Rom. 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

Christians of all shapes and sizes, for all their thousands of factions and doctrinal divisions, share a basic uniform assumption about the Bible that they all learned from the Catholic Church: The Jewish/Hebrew law, and the unique significance of the Jewish/Hebrew people, though the basis for the entire ontological, cosmological, epistemic, ethical and political system of the Bible, was abrogated, and replaced by the Gentile Church and its accompanying Greco-Roman Philosophical tradition at the resurrection of the Messiah. The Catholic Church would invent a new heresy known as “Judaizing” in its Synod of Laodicea. Canon 29 states, “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.  But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.” A 7th century Catholic Profession of Faith required the catechumen to profess, “in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish.”[1] This came to be known as Replacement Theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (TCOCC) 751 states that the “Church, the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to” the Nation of Israel. An heir is someone who receives the property of someone else at their death. This implies that the Nation of Israel is no more and has been replaced by the Catholic Church. TCOCC 1962 states, “The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.” This is all a game though because the Catholic Church makes many images and worships them, the holy name of Yahuwah is not spoken by its people, and the Sabbath is not kept in this Church. So they believe, neither the second, the third, nor the fourth commandments. However, the Catholic Church would invent another category of law in order to justify their disobedience to most of the Bible: Ceremonial Law. TCOCC 582 states, “Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: “Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.).”[2] TCOCC 2174  states, “Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week…For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord’s Day Sunday: We all gather on the day of the sun”.[3] TCOCC 2175 states, “Sunday…for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath.”

TCOCC 2176 states, “Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people”. TCOCC 2177 states, “Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christi, the feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of Saint Joseph, the feast of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints.”

TCOCC 1340 states, “By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. [Definitive denotes its abrogation. DS] Jesus’ passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills [Replaces. DS] the Jewish Passover”. TCOCC 527 states, “Jesus’ circumcision…is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham’s descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to do the Law…This sign prefigures that “circumcision of Christ” which is Baptism.”

So here we see the Catholic Church doing everything it can, not to adopt the Jewish faith, and be grafted into the Olive Tree of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace[4] but to abrogate and replace it with its own Greco-Roman inventions. The Renewed Covenant of Jer.31:31-32 will be replaced by Christianity’s New Testament.  The Nation of Israel will be replaced by the Gentile Church. The Hebrew Gospels and the Hebrew writings of Rav Shaul,[5] will be replaced by Greek manuscripts.  The Unitarianism of the Tanach will be replaced by the pagan Triune Godhead of Christianity, directly contradicted by the Torah,[6] which ultimately worships a monad huperousia pursuant to Plotinus’ Enneads 6 and 9. Following from this the Hebrew names of the creator and the messiah, Yahuwah and Yehoshuwah will be replaced by a Generic title: God, and the name of the Greek deity Iasos later to be translated Jesus. The Torah and all the hundreds of relational, political and economic laws revealed by Yahuwah himself will be replaced by pagan Monasticism, Asceticism, and Feudalism. The Sabbath day, which was sanctified and blessed by Yahuwah in the second chapter of the Bible as an integral part of the created order, will be replaced by the day of the Sun. The annual Sabbaths of the fall and spring feasts will be replaced by the Catholic Church’s liturgical calendar, celebrating the Bohemian pagan Christmas, the pagan celebrations of Astarte and her mystical Easter egg, and the pagan celebration of Halloween. The Protestant Christians, following Rome’s Replacement theology, still replace these feasts with their innovation known as The Lord’s Supper. Protestant Christians also follow the Catholic Catechism’s replacement of circumcision with Baptism.[7]  Following from this, the Creator’s calendar, which measures years by the ripe barley, the abib, and holding to Geocentrism, will be replaced by the Solar calendar of Rome and Jesuit Heliocentrism with the Gregorian Calendar. This religion would go on to justify prayer and worship to idols and statues and trinkets and a legion of other grotesque and abominable insanities explicitly condemned in the Torah. The past 150 years has seen an even bigger failure in Christianity to maintain any kind of religious order in Western Civilization following the Communist revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. Without the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the baseless, arbitrary theology of Christianity fell like a stack of dry leaves in the face of Marx and Engels’ wicked brilliance. The Torah established a Theocratic Republic[8] which killed anyone who prophesied falsely and promoted worship of another God.[9] This is a direct contradiction to the allegiance modern Christians have to the French Revolution’s doctrines of absolute religious toleration and freedom of speech. The Torah taught that the racial tribe of the Hebrews was more significant than any other people on the earth.[10]  Paul repeats this racial supremacy in his writings,[11] acknowledging the God-given racial privileges of the Jewish people.[12] Modern Christians reject this with their belief that all men are created equal. The Torah, though bestowing equal administrations of justice,[13] affirmed supremacies of privilege and franchise. Yahuwah gave Levites privileges and responsibilities no other class had. However, they were not given franchises other classes enjoyed.[14] The first-born son is given an unearned portion of inheritance.[15] Not only is  slavery condoned in the Bible, a person of Hebrew blood could only be enslaved for six years while a person of foreign blood could be held in hereditary slavery.[16] No mechanistic equality. The Gibeonites, though given administrations of justice,[17] were second class citizens in the Nation of Israel.[18] Women are regarded as the property of either their husband or father,[19] could only inherit property if there was no male heir[20] and are as a gender clearly referred to as ontologically subordinate to men.[21] Women are also to hold no teaching office in the religious assemblies.[22] Modern Christian women especially despise the Bible’s teaching on Head Coverings.[23] Paul teaches in Rom. 13:1-5 that Governments are established by Yahuwah. Modern Christians, in direct defiance of the Bible, following the French thinkers, say that Governments are established by the people. The Bible also condones the right of the state to physically enforce morality on the population.[24]  While some Fascist Christians do believe this, their Fascism is far too liberal to qualify for a true Bible-believing Philosophy. And finally, the Bible explicitly condemns the modern banking system, which Christian Capitalism glories in, with its prohibition against usury.[25] Thus, as we have seen, Christianity has stayed fundamentally consistent, since the 4th century and John Chrysostom’s Eight Homilies Against the Jews, in demonizing and rejecting everything Jewish. Christians, without any doubt, truly hate the Bible.

[1] Medieval Sourcebook: Professions of Faith Extracted from Jews on Baptism:

[2] This phrase “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19) is not in the bible. The words “Thus he” are italicized meaning they are a scribe’s addition.  The argument is that katharizon must mean “He declared” clean due to its masculine construction instead of neuter. The Christian is relying on a textual variant. The problem is, the way the Christian translates the passage, the word katharizon must be considered an adjective, but the word is a verb. Cleansing and declared clean are very different uses of the word clean. The former is a verb, the latter is an adjective while declared is the verb. Also take into account the cross reference in Mat. 15:17 and the curious absence of the statement, “Thus he declared he declared all foods clean”.

[3] First of all, Messiah did not rise from the dead on the first day of the week. The preparation day on which Messiah died was related to the Passover not the weekly Sabbath; thus it was not Friday. ( John19:14-15) Secondly, the only passage that seems to state (though the wording is not clear) that Messiah rose from the dead on Sunday is Mark 16:9. However, this passage is not in the oldest Greek text Codex Sinaiticus. The fact is, Messiah stated clearly that he would be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. Mat. 12:40.This is impossible with the Friday to Sunday view of the Christian Church.

[4] Rom. 11:17-24.

[5]The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Nazoraeans, 29. Against Nazoraeans 9,4; Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 24, 6;  Chapter 38, 2; Chapter 39, 16; Book V, Chapter 10, 3; Book VI, Chapter 14, 2; Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapters III and V; Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, 185-186, FN 152.

[6] Deut. 6:4: Christians pray to three persons.

[7]Gal. 2: 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled [Anagkazō] to be circumcised.

Does Paul use this word Anagkazō elsewhere in Galatians so we can see how he is using it? Yes! In Gal. 6: 12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel [Anagkazō] you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. So here we see that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, meaning, that he was not pressured into taking circumcision FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFICATION, thus throwing his lot in with this sect of men who taught that circumcision played a role in justification. (Gal. 5) Paul did not abrogate circumcision.

[8] Exo. 3:16; 18:25-26; Num. 11:16-17, 1 Sam. 8.

[9] Deut. 13.

[10] Deut. 7:6, 14:2, Zech. 2:8.

[11] Rom. 1:16.

[12] Rom. 3:1-2.

[13] Lev. 24:17-20.

[14] Heb. 7:11-13, Num. 18: 21-24.

[15] Deut. 21:15-17.

[16] Exo. 21: 2-6, Deut. 15:12-15, Lev. 25:44-46; Philemon.

[17] 2 Sam. 21:1-6.

[18] Josh. 9:22-27.

[19] Deut. 22:28, Exo. 20:17.

[20] Num. 27:8.

[21]1 Cor.11:3, 1 Pet. 3:5-7, Eph. 5: 22-24, 1 Tim. 5:14, Titus 2:4-5.

[22] 1 Cor. 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:11.

[23] 1 Cor. 11:5-15. Heinrich Ewald, The Antiquities of Israel (1876), 202.

[24] Prov. 18:6, 20:30, 23:13-14, 26:3.

[25] Deut. 23:19

A Correction of my View of Circumcision and Baptism; Progressively Untangling Myself From Replacement Theology Thursday, Jan 23 2014 

2 Peter 3:14-17 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the lawless; 

I am publicly repenting of teaching that Circumcision is only necessary for Gentiles who migrate to the Nation of Israel pursuant to Exo. 12. I must thank 119 Ministries for their excellent article on circumcision.

I had a meeting with a young man today and we discussed my activism in Louisville and my rejection of Christianity. I had listed off many problems with Christianity and yet the young man demanded that I was deceiving myself with regards to Galatians and Circumcision. I thought about this deeply today. I could not deny that Exo. 12 was requiring circumcision for a gentile who came into the Commonwealth of Israel and that the Galatians were technically not doing that. That is true. I saw no problem with my view of Circumcision. I prayed and asked Yahweh to show me truth and reveal any error. One thought entered my mind: If indeed the Gentiles are grafted into the same Covenant of Abraham (Rom. 11) which was entered into through circumcision in the days of old, am I not replacing circumcision with Baptism? Am I not falling into the same erroneous Replacement Theology that I had rebuked just earlier this morning? A thorn began to prick my conscience. My emotions must be suppressed in order to seek truth. Merciless, ruthless and cold-hearted as it is, truth is truth whether it makes me feel good or not. It is time for Re-evaluation.

Enter 119 Ministries.  These men have written an excellent article on this issue linked above. The clearest and strongest argument made in this article is this:

In Gal 2 we read:

Gal 2: 1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled [Anagkazō] to be circumcised.

Does Paul use this word Anagkazō elsewhere in Galatians so we can see how he is using it? Yes! In Galatians 6:

Gal 6: 12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel [Anagkazō] you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.

So here we see that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, meaning, that he was not pressured into taking circumcision FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFICATION, thus throwing his lot in with this sect of men who taught that circumcision played a role in justification. (Gal. 5)

Paul was in no way, diverting from the Torah. He was refusing to associate Titus with this heretical sect of men.

Remember, in Acts 16 we read of Timothy’s circumcision. 119 Ministries states,

“Because the decree of James proved the position of those in Acts 15:5 to be correct, Paul and Timothy both agreed that Timothy should be circumcised because all of the Jews already knew that he was a Greek. How awkward would it have been for Timothy to be issuing a decree that states that Gentiles were to learn the Law of Moses each Sabbath and still not be practicing the Law of God himself? Timothy felt as though he was ready to outwardly submit to his already inwardly circumcised heart.

What we would then have in Acts 16 is Paul and Timothy leaving to go issue the decree to the Jews that supposedly teaches that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but right before they leave, Paul actually circumcises Timothy, a converted Gentile. It simply does not add up. Why in the world would Paul and Timothy be issuing decrees to Jews that supposedly abolishes circumcision for Greeks and then feel it necessary to circumcise a Greek before they even begin? That would be the definition of insanity and hypocrisy.

Some even teach that Paul is simply trying to please believing Jews by circumcising Timothy. That makes no sense at all either. These Jews are already believers, this was not an evangelizing mission so there is no motive for Paul “pleasing” anyone. In addition, would Timothy have actually allowed himself to be circumcised for such an absurd reason if it was not because God commanded it? Why would Luke have documented this in Acts if it was not important and related to the decision in Acts 15, the same decree that they are leaving to deliver?

In addition, Paul already declared that his motive is to please God not men, thus there is not even a need to debate this:…

Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

Instead, Paul circumcised Timothy because the decree they were issuing teaches that Timothy should want to be circumcised in the flesh if his heart is truly already circumcised inwardly for the Word of God. This is what he would learn in the Sabbath each week as Moses (Law of God) was read from the Moses’ Seat.”

In the book of Galatians Paul is rejecting, not the Torah, but the doctrines of men:

Gal. 1:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Yeshua Hamashiach.

119 states,

“That being said, is the Law of God from God or from men? If the whole supposed point of Galatians is to teach against God’s law then why is Paul stating that he is teaching against doctrines of men? This will become clearer as we proceed.”

Notice, those who say that Stephen is teaching against Moses are speaking as false witnesses:

Acts 6: 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council.13 They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” 

119 states,

“Yet supposedly it is now “correct teaching” that Yeshua (Jesus) changed the law of God. Somehow what is a false accusation for Stephen is now true accusations according to the modern mainstream Church.”

As I have pointed out numerous times, Messiah and the Apostles teach against Rabbinic Tradition, not the Torah:

Mark 7:6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘ This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men

Mark 7:9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Mark 7:13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

 Paul cannot be interpreted to be doing away with the law

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Romans 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

119 states,

“Paul taught that it is inward obedience and conversion first:

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God…

We are not to be circumcised in the flesh until we are fully circumcised in the heart (fully desire the Law of God) and are no longer stiffnecked (Deut. 10:16; Deut 30:6).

Those of the Circumcision Party were only circumcising to boast in the flesh of their works:

Galatians 6:13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh…

To Paul’s point, if one is keeping God’s law only outwardly as written then they are missing the whole  point of God’s law which is an inward transformation. We are to keep God’s law to please God, not to please men. If we are keeping God’s law simply to boast then we are not keeping God’s law as intended. This is why Paul establishes this mindset in the very first chapter of Galatians.

Now we are really beginning to understand the difference between a true application of circumcision and a false application of circumcision.

This is why Paul states what he does in 1 Corinthians 7:19

1 Cor. 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of  God is what matters.

This is a very confusing statement by Paul because circumcision is actually a commandment of God as an inward and outward commandment.

However, if we fully consider everything that we have just reviewed we discover that Paul is once again just teaching against the doctrine of men that teach circumcision actually means something as it relates to salvation [Justification-Gal. 3:11, 5:4]. In reality, to Paul’s point it does not. Circumcision is simply evidence of faith in the Word.”

Baptism: A Jewish Ritual? Monday, Jan 13 2014 

I have already pointed out in my writings on Baptism that Baptism was a part of the Jewish Religion which is why John’s Baptism provoked a conversation about Purification. I am tickled when I hear Gentile Christians say they don’t have to keep Jewish ceremonies and rituals. O really? Did you know that the Mikveh, a Jewish Ritual, is the ancient Baptismal font?

This is another neo-moment for Christians. Look man, just get it over with. You’ll feel better. Here it comes: The Gospels and the writings of Rav Shaul and the apostles flow out of the original Jewish Religion and Hebrew Culture and Christianity has been doing everything it can to hide that truth from you.

I have read some Neo-Nazi guys complain that their parents forced circumcision on them, thus forcing Jewish rites upon them. Do they complain about the fact that they were baptized as infants? Not at all, because ya know, B-B-B-Baptism is a Christian rite not a Jewish rite……………………….nod and smile.

Take the red pill and commence Neo-Moment.

Heb. 12:11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Review of a Conversation on Natsarim Apologetics with Some Southern Seminary Guys Monday, Jan 13 2014 

>>> Me


>>>Mat. 5-fulfilled? So are all the prophets fulfilled? He said the Law AND the prophets!  Heaven and earth have passed away?

****Acts 10- Gentiles coming into the covenant of Abraham is an implication of the kosher laws being done away.

>>>How is the proposition “Gentiles are now being brought into the covenant of Abraham” deduced from the proposition “Unclean foods are now clean”?

***Don’t call unclean what I have cleansed. That implies a change! You believe there has been a change with the sacrificial system!!

>>>But that change is not contradictory to the Torah. The torah itself altered the sacrificial system implying that animal sacrifices did not take away sin. Your change is a massive contradiction to the Torah. The Torah called unclean foods abominations; The same word that is used of idolatry and adultery!

****Human language is adequate, it is not exhaustive.

>>>You think that my refutations of Latin theology which require heavy metaphysics are the same thing as my affirmation of Theology Proper. The truth is very simple. There is one God the Father Yahweh and pre-existing the heavens and the earth, always at his side is his son. How is this complicated?

>>>How else am I to test (1 John 4:1, 1 Thess. 5:21) whether or not you truly believe in one God if not by how many people you pray to? How else am I supposed to do it?

He never answers me:

>>>>The son is not autotheos because he is caused by the Father.

***You are using the word cause in a limited human perspective with a limited language structure that sees cause necessarily as creation.

>>>You are conflating emanation with divine fiat. I already distinguished the different causes. The fact is the Son is caused by the Father, not the other way around. Whatever perspective you take on it that truth demolishes the idea that the Son is self existent and absolutely equal to the Father. Period.

>>>It does not matter if the circumstances of southern slavery was racial. This country has commended the substance of the slavery institution. They believe that it is essentially wrong to own another person as property and once you take that position you cannot believe the Bible. Period!

*** Do you believe in Middle knowledge?

>>>No. Yahweh has control over everything that will ever happen and a possibility is not a thing because there are no possibilities (Genus of being, historical order) outside of Yahweh’s decree.

>>>Do you believe that it is immoral for a man to marry his sister? That is one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship.


>>>Based on what? That law against incest is not in the New Testament it is in the Torah.

 ***It is part of a cultural tradition informed by the Torah.

>>>That is cherry picking, 

>>>In order for Yeshua to say that his Father had forsaken him they had to be two numerically distinct beings. Is he forsaking himself? This is nonsense? *

**Yeah it is a complex issue we cannot understand.

>>>That is the exact position the papists held to keep the bible out of the hands of the common people that the bible is too complex. They used that exact word.

***Just because I used the same word?.. That doe snot mean

>>>Words mean things.By complex and I to understand mini-van? or maybe Fahrvergnügen.

***The danger on your side is that we can know it all

>>>1:01:35-50 The danger is that we can know God’s revelation!!!!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!!

>>>If the Father and the Son are the same being then the father forsaking the son on the stake was nonsense.

***”It’s complex and there is a glass ceiling to our ability; we can adequately know and recognize who God is through what he has chosen to reveal to us but he has chosen not to reveal all things to us because of our finity…you are assuming that you have the capacity in your human mind to know everything there is to know about God…I think we do know who the one God is; HE HAS REVEALED HIMSELF IN THREE PERSONS…I AM ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS.”

>>>No I don’t. I believe we can know what Yahweh has revealed. So on your view Yahweh’s revelation has failed to determine how we can identity the One God. Plus you say here he is in three persons and I in three persons; that is four persons.

***Just because I used the words I and he?

>>>Yes, words mean things,

***This is just going to keep going around in circles.

>>>No it doesn’t. You just don’t understand these differences in numeric and generic nature and the different and confusing ways you are using the word God. Think on these things more and get it straight. You guys keep coming to the point where you say we can’t determine what the truth is.

***You have just successfully destroyed a straw man.

>>>Correct me then. Why do we have to keep going around in circles?

***You are confused.

>>>Then tell me the truth. Unconfuse me.

***I don’t have it all figured out either.

>>>Thank you!!! You don’t know what or who the one God is, you don’t even know what the word one means, you don’t know what ethical system you believe; you totally cherry pick the Torah arbitrarily. These are the most basic aspects of a religion and your religion has failed to provide you with an answer to these basic fundamental doctrines. Christianity has failed!!!!!!

Christianity: The Spirit of Antichrist and the Mother of All Conspiracies Friday, Jan 3 2014 

My first movie!!!! I would like to thank David K. and Gigi M. for their support which made this movie possible.

Reply to James Trimm on Tithing Monday, Nov 25 2013

Just in case James tries to delete this.


“The tithe was not directly paid to the Levites, it was paid to YHWH and from that “fund” the Levites were paid. This was so that the Levites could devote themselves to full time Torah Study (2Chron. 31:4-5)”

>>>Yet in the very Chapter you cite we read,

“2 Chron 31:12 They faithfully brought in the contributions and the tithes and the consecrated things; and Conaniah the Levite was the officer *****in charge of them***** and his brother Shimei was second. 13 Jehiel, Azaziah, Nahath, Asahel, Jerimoth, Jozabad, Eliel, Ismachiah, Mahath and Benaiah were overseers under the authority of Conaniah and Shimei his brother by the appointment of King Hezekiah, and Azariah was the chief officer of the house of God. 14 *****Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the keeper of the eastern gate, was over the freewill offerings of God, to apportion the contributions ***for the Lord**** and the most holy things***. 15 Under his authority were ********Eden, Miniamin, Jeshua, Shemaiah, Amariah and Shecaniah in the cities of the priests, to distribute faithfully their portions to their brothers****** by divisions, whether great or small, 16 without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from thirty years old and upward—everyone who entered the house of the Lord for his daily obligations—for their work in their duties according to their divisions;”

Notice it does not say that the tithe was paid to the Lord. It says it was paid to the Levites, “FOR the Lord”!

“We are told only that the Tithe is paid to YHWH”

>>>Where in the verses that you quote does it say “pay the tithes to YHWH” or its meaningful equivalent?

“Now some have taught that the tithe Melchizadek paid ”

>>> Melchizadek paid a tithe?

“The whole logic of Paul’s argument here is based in the fact that the tithe that Avram paid to Melchizadek was EXACTLY the same tithe that the Levites were paid from.”

>>>That verse says exactly nothing of what you say it does. Where does it say that James?

“Another example of the pre-Mosaic tithe is the vow Jacob made to tithe saying to Elohim “and of all that you shall give me I will surely give the tenth onto you” (Gen. 28:22). Note that Jacob tithed on all that Elohim had given him and not simply on agricultural produce. In fact Jacob even tithed from his sons. In the Midrash Rabbab there is an important story related to Jacob’s tithe told by Rabbi Joshua of Sikaan in the name of his teacher Rabbi Levi:”

>>>This was a one time thing. It is never repeated yet you want me to give 10% on top of everything else the government takes from me on a yearly basis?

“We also get a reminder here. We do not GIVE the Tithe to YHWH, it was already His. He GIVES the 90% to us. When we do not tithe, we are not simply choosing not to give, we are actually stealing from YHWH!”

>>>No, we do not have 90%. The Government takes at least 40% of that.

When you and the other money hungry religious teachers start to live up to your responsibilities and resist the government and all its theft where we can have a living wage, then I’ll think about tithing to you, but until then no, and certainly not until you repent of your pagan Trinity heresy.

Yehoshuwah came in the name of his Father.

John 5:43 I have come in My Father’s name

That does not mean he is the same person as the Father. You are conflating nominal with numeric identity.


Farrell Fingers the Reason Why Christianity is Such an Irrational and Unstable Religion Sunday, Nov 24 2013 

JosephFarrell250“One ends, in this development, with an abstract God-in-general, who could be the God of the Christian Aquinas, or of the Muslim Averroes, or of the Jew Moses Maimonides, all alike Second European philosophers writing in more or less the same glowing terms about the simplicity of God. Not only is Christianity in the West Hellenized and Augustinized, one must say the same thing about Islam and Judaism. With this growing abstraction of the God-in-general a parallel development in law is presaged. God will become, in the legal as well as the philosophical texts of the Second Europe, the grand abstraction about Whom everything, anything, or nothing may be said. A God this generalized is also a God who is possessed of no moral character, who makes no specific claims or demands, and leaves no specific revelation to anyone. Once enshrined in law, this God will tolerate everything. Here too, then, the religious assumptions of the modern era have deep theological roots.” God, History and Dialectic, 379-380

The Bible and Human Rights; An Examination of the Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789 Monday, Nov 18 2013 

Dabney Backs Off of Making Filioque a Dogmatic DoctrineAn Examination of the Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

What is the Biblical theory of rights?

In Robert Lewis Dabney, “Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights”, Dabney lays out the fundamental form of government and the theory of rights taught in the Bible:

“So far as God gave to the chosen people a political form, the one which he preferred was a confederation of little republican bodies represented by their elderships. (Exodus 18:25-26; 3:16; Numbers 11:16-17; 32:20-27.)”

When he conceded to them, as it were under protest,[1 Sam. 8- DS] a regal form, it was a constitutional and elective monarchy. (1 Samuel 10:24-25.) The rights of each tribe were secured against vital infringement of this constitution by its own veto power. They retained the prerogative of protecting themselves against the usurpations of the elective king by withdrawing at their own sovereign discretion from the confederation. (1 Kings 12:13-16.)

The history of the secession of the ten tribes under Jeroboam is often misunderstood through gross carelessness. No divine disapprobation is anywhere expressed against the ten tribes for exercising their right of withdrawal from the perverted federation. When Rehoboam began a war of coercion he was sternly forbidden by God to pursue it. (1 Kings 12:24.)

The act by which “Jeroboam made Israel to sin against the Lord” was wholly another and subsequent one—his meddling with the divinely appointed constitution of the church to promote merely political ends. (1 Kings 12:26-28.)

Thus, while the Bible history does not prohibit stronger forms of government as sins per se, it indicates God’s preference for the representative republic as distinguished from the levelling democracy; and to this theory of human rights all its moral teachings correspond. On the one hand, it constitutes civil society of superiors, inferiors and equals (see Shorter Catechism, Question 64), making the household represented by the parent and master the integral ‘unit of the social fabric, assigning to each order, higher or lower, its rule or subordination under the distributive equity of the law. On the other hand, it protected each order in its legal privileges, and prohibited oppression and injustice as to all.”

Now to an examination of the Atheistic view of Politics as laid out in The Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789, 

“1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

>>>This is creedalized here in our country with Thomas Jefferson’s famous words, “all men are created equal.” The most obvious problem with this principle is the relationship between parents and children. Children know innately that they are subordinated, and hence not equal, to those who created them. And if in case the reader thinks that I am misinterpreting these words I would like to draw your attention to Engels’ Principles of Communism  (Remember, the Communist Manifesto was written during the Second French Revolution), Section 21,

“What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.”

You see, among other things, this doctrine is designed to strip parents of their authority over their children and to place the state in the position of master and teacher. And get this folks, the vast majority of so called Bible believers fall for this nonsense hook, line and sinker.  Secondly, what is the general good? Is this the same thing as the majority vote? If so, how does this not succumb to the problems of Utilitarian ethics? Thirdly, what is a right? How do we know about rights? Are rights things I can see, touch, smell, hear or taste? If not how do I know about it? Empiricists cannot appeal to innate forms because they believe all knowledge begins with sensation and thus Locke’s Tabula Rasa follows necessarily.

Dabney lays out the basic idea of the Jacobins, in that they teach all men are,

“entitled to ‘all the same franchises and functions in society as well as to his moral equality; so that it is a natural iniquity to withhold from any adult person by law any prerogative which is legally conferred on any other member in society. The equality must be mechanical as well as moral, else the society is charged with natural injustice… (1), There can be no just imputation of the consequences of conduct from one human being to another in society; (2), No adult person can be justly debarred from any privilege allowed to any other person in the order or society, except for conviction of crime; (3), All distinctions of ” caste” are essentially and inevitably wicked and oppressive; (4), Of course every adult is equally entitled to the franchise of voting and being voted for, and all restrictions here, except for the conviction of crime, are natural injustice; (5), Equal rights and suffrage ought to be conceded to women in every respect as to men.”

And then of course, they utterly reject the very essence of the slavery institution.

Dabney refutes each point from Scripture:

(1.) Of course hereditary imputation is involved in the persons of Adam and Messiah, but besides these, Dabney adds other instances of hereditary imputation in Holy Scripture,

“I add other instances, some of which are equally extensive. “The woman was first in the transgression,” for which God laid upon Eve two penalties (Gen. iii. 16), subordination to her husband and the sorrows peculiar to motherhood. The New Testament declares (1 Tim. ii. 11 to end) that it is right her daughters shall continue to endure these penalties to the end of the world. (See also 1 Peter, iii. 1-6.) In Genesis ix. 25-27, Ham, the son of Noah, is guilty of an unfilial crime. His posterity are condemned with him and share the penalty to this day. In Ex. xx. 5, God declares that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations. Amalek met Israel in the time of his flight and distress with robbery and murder, instead of hospitality. Not only were the immediate actors punished by Joshua, but the descendants of Amalek are excluded forever from the house of the Lord, for the crime of their fathers. (Deut. xxv. 19.) It is needless to multiply instances, except one more, which shall refute the favorite dream of the rationalists that Jesus substituted a milder and juster law. For this Jesus said to the Jews of his own day (Matt, xxiii. 32-36) : ” Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers: . . . that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.”

(2.) Dabney refutes the idea of universal equality of franchise,

“Not to speak of the subordination of women and domestic bondage (of which more anon), God distributed the franchises unequally in the Hebrew commonwealth. The priestly family possessed, by inheritance, certain teaching and ruling functions which the descendants of no other tribe could share. There was a certain law of primogeniture, entitled the right of the firstborn, which the younger sons did not share equally, and which the father himself could not alienate. (Deut. xxi. 15,16.) The fathers of houses (Ex. xviii. 21; Josh. xxii. 14), in virtue of their patriarchal authority, held a senatorial dignity, and this evidently for life. (See also the history of Barzillai.)”

(3.) Dabney refutes the atheistic, absolute denial of caste or inequality in privilege,

“Of course there is a sense in which every just conscience reprehends inequalities of caste. This is where they are made pretext for depriving an order or class of citizens of privileges which belong to them of right, and for whose exercise they are morally and intellectually qualified. But this is entirely a different thing from saying that all the different orders of persons in a state are naturally and morally entitled to all the same privileges, whether qualified or not, simply because they are men and adults…Thus, in the Hebrew commonwealth, the descendants of Levi were disfranchised of one privilege which belonged to all their brethren of the other tribes; and enfranchised with another privilege from which all their brethren were excluded. A Levite could not hold an inch of land in severalty. (Num. xviii. 22, 23.) No member of another tribe, not even of the princely tribe of Judah, could perform even the lowest function in the tabernacle. (Heb. vii. 13, 14.) These differences are nowhere grounded in any statement that the children of Levi were more or less intelligent and religious than their fellow-citizens…A “caste distinction ” is also found among the bondmen, whose subjection was legalized by the constitution. A person of Hebrew blood could only be enslaved for six years. A person of foreign blood could be held in hereditary slavery, although born within the land of Israel as much as the other. It was also provided that the treatment of bondmen of Hebrew blood should be more lenient. (Lev. xxv. 42-47.) A “caste distinction” was also provided concerning the entrance of persons of foreign blood into the Hebrew state and church. (Exodus xvii. 16; Deut. xxiii.3-8.)… Let the inference from these histories be clearly understood. It is not claimed that these caste distinctions established by God himself obligate us positively to establish similar distinctions in our day. But the fact that God once saw fit to establish them does prove that they cannot be essentially sinful. To assert that they are, impugns the righteousness of God….”We shall be reminded of Paul’s famous declaration (Col. iii. 11): “Where there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all”; or this (Gal. iii. 28): ” There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Now the Torah did indeed say that there was to be one law in Israel.

“Num 15: 15 As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the Lord. 16 There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.’”

This legal and moral equality was the exact thing that was rejected by Christian Feudalism, as Adalberon (bishop of Laon) famously stated, “Nobles and serfs, indeed, are not governed by the same ordinance.”[2] For example, according to the Torah,

Lev. 24: 17 ‘If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. 18 The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life. 19 If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Notice, the Torah did not distinguish between the rich and the poor. If a poor man killed a rich man, he was put to death. If a rich man killed a poor man, he was put to death. (Christianity also does not understand this. That is why they believe in the eternal punishment of hell. They think that offending an infinite person requires an infinite punishment. This operates right off of Dark Age feudalistic thinking) The Torah enacted equal justice, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, regardless of one’s station or place in society. That is the equality which the Torah enacted: blind, equal justice. It did not demand an absolute equality of privilege and franchise. That is the delusional insanity of Communism.

As a qualification, Dabney’s Christianity comes out when he says, “It is not claimed that these caste distinctions established by God himself obligate us positively to establish similar distinctions in our day.” Though my love for Dabney could not improve; I respect the man as much as any man could respect another; however, this statement right here is precisely why modern Christianity rejected the emphasis on the Torah that the Puritanic Colonies used to have. It is an inherent design flaw in Christianity.

One of many problems for the liberal argument at the later part of Dabney’s statement above is that these passages (E.g. Gal 3:28) obviously did not remove the supremacy of the male and the subordination of the female as Dabney will prove in a moment. So if it did not remove the natural distinctions between male and female, it did not remove the racial ones. The distinction removed here is spiritual.

(4.) Dabney refutes universal suffrage so enshrined in the slogan, “One man, one vote”,

“4. God’s commonwealth was not founded on universal suffrage. That he rejected the Jacobinical principle is plain from the history of the Gibeonites. They were exempted by covenant with Joshua from the doom of extinction, and retained a title to homes for many generations upon the soil of Palestine, and, as we see from 2 Sam. xxi. 6, they were very carefully protected in certain rights by the government. They were not domestic slaves, neither were they fully enfranchised citizens. From the higher franchises of that rank they were shut out by a hereditary disqualification, and this was done by God’s express enactment. (Josh. ix. 27.)…And to make the matter worse, the Scripture declares that this disqualification descended by imputation from the guilt of the first generation’s paganism and fraud upon Joshua”.

(5.) Dabney refutes the idea of gender equality,

“If a Hebrew landholder had male descendants when he died, his daughters inherited no share in his land. They could inherit land in cases where there was no male heir. And this was the legislation, not of Moses, but of God himself. (Num. xxvii. 8.)

It is more decisive to add, that the New Testament continues to assign subordination to women. 1 Cor. xi. 3: ” The head of the woman is the man.” 1 Cor. xiv. 34: ” Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Eph. v. 22-24: ” Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . .

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence,” (oude abdevreiiv dudpo;, “nor to dominate man.” The concept of usurpation is only implicit in the Greek verb.) 1 Tim. v. 14: “I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” Titus, ii. 4, 5: “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5, 6: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word they also without the word may be won by the conversation of the wives; for after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”

(6.) The sixth issue pertains to slavery which I have already given attention to in great detail.[3]

“2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”

>>>There is some truth here but it is incomplete.

“The supreme end of magistracy is only the glory of God as King of nations, and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth… The subordinate end of the civil power is, that all public sins committed presumptuously against the moral law, may be exemplarily punished, and that peace, justice, and good order, may be preserved and maintained in the commonwealth, which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the church, and to the promoting of the course of the gospel.”[4]

The Declaration goes on to define liberty, “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else”. First, as we have already discussed, the rights of men have yet to be accounted for, but now we have at least a definition of what rights the French think men have. Second, we have no definition of what an injury is. Government, de jure government, that is Government with well being, also has religious responsibilities and ends. As the Westminster Confession 23.1 states concerning the Father,

“the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”[5]

Here we see that Civil law must reflect Yah’s law in order to identify evil doers. And again, at 23.3,

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5]yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7][6]

You see, heresy is an attack upon a body politic; that is, it inflicts injuries. Christian heresy, which abrogates the law of Moses is a key example. The modern banking system is a result of Christianity’s rejection of the Torah’s usury laws. Thus, we see that Yah’s law intends to preserve man’s right to truth. With usury laws, we preserve man’s right to property and to the enjoyment of the earth.

The institution of Civil Government, is not a human invention designed to control humanity through Priestcraft or other forms of psychological manipulation. It is a divine ordinance derived from God the Father immediately as Creator.[7] Thus it is a law of nature. Therefore, even if Adam had not fallen, Civil Government would still have been ordained though the power of the sword would not have been. We can infer this because there is a Government even among the sinless angels.[8] Therefore, this institution is not based on grace but on nature. The institution of the Congregation (commonly referred to as the Church), is also not a human invention designed to control humanity through Priestcraft or other forms of psychological manipulation. It is a divine ordinance derived from Messiah immediately as Mediator.[9] This, the congregation, is based on grace. Therefore, the Yahudim as well as Atheists or Pagans[10] have the right, yes even an obligation, to raise up a Civil Government for the protection of its people. The Yahudim set up a Government de jure, with well-being. The atheists set up a Government de facto, with only being.

Operating off the same principles as anarchists, and this is something common with the Eastern Church, the East does not like to speak at all about necessities of nature, whether divine or human due to their Pelagianism. They don’t like the idea that nature influences action, because they know it ends up inevitably in Calvinism. It is this rejection of biblical revelation that the East denies the necessity of law upon man. Following Maximus the Confessor, they distinguish natural goodness from righteousness. However, Turretin shows that one cannot distinguish between natural good and righteousness when discussing a rational person:

Turretin says, Institutes, Vol. 1, 5th Topic, Q.10,

“X. First, because man was created upright and good and so originally righteous. Moral goodness and rectitutde necessarily include righteousness; nay, it is the righteousness of which Moses speaks, ‘God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was every good’ (Gen. 1:31). ‘God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions’ (Ecc. 7:29). Socinus, however, falsely pretends that tvb in Gen. 1, does not signify rectitude of soul or righteousness, but the aptitude and fitness to that which God had proposed to himself (and is extended to all the works of creation).Because although this may be said of all God’s works in general, yet it ought to pertain in particular to each one and should be applied peculiarly to man (according to the state of his nature and suitably to the end for which he was destined by God). Therefore as brutes and other creatures are called good by natural goodness, man (who is a rational creature and should be in moral subjection to God and his law)is declared to be good by a moral goodness, without which he could not attain his appointed end (viz. the glory and worship of God).  The word yshr in Ecc. 7:29 cannot only denote a negation of unrighteousness and a want of sin (with an indifference to good and evil), but necessarily marks the possession of righteousness by which he is reckoned upright and perfect (i.e., conformed to the law). It is frequently rendered in the Septuagint (in accordance with the subject matter) by dikaion, katharon, kalon, and agathon The antithesis confirms this because he opposes moral pravity in the vain reasonings of men to the rectitude in which man was created.”[11]

Turretin shows that it is a necessity of nature for God to place rational creatures under a law presupposing their creation. It is this necessity of nature that is at the basis of the necessity for civil magistracy.

You will notice in my examination of Communism here and other places how uniformly the Communists operate off of Eastern Orthodox anthropology. The supposed absolute freedom of the hypostasis leads the Pelagian Eastern Church to state that only man’s environment compels him to do evil. This is uniformly agreed upon in Communist literature.  And here we have the anarchist tendencies of Communism and the Pelagian Eastern Church coming to fruition in the recent Zeitgeist movement which advocates the abolishment of the state.

“3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.”

>>> There is much truth here but like any effective deception, it is mixed with some error. Civil Government ministers good by institution; that is by ordaining offices and lawful powers found in Yah’s Moral Law[12], and by constitution; that is, by securing the consent of the people by election and the drawing up of a conditional covenant between himself and the people.[13]  Again Gillespie,

“The supreme end of magistracy is only the glory of God as King of nations, and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth… The subordinate end of the civil power is, that all public sins committed presumptuously against the moral law, may be exemplarily punished, and that peace, justice, and good order, may be preserved and maintained in the commonwealth, which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the church, and to the promoting of the course of the gospel.”[14]

The Sovereignty of the people to elect a ruler as shown above, is not the same sovereignty being affirmed by the French. The concept of Popular Sovereignty affirms that the authority of Government is derived from the consent of the governed. This is true, but only instrumentally, not essentially and absolutely. This is why Rutherford’s book Lex Rex (The Law is King in contrast to Rex Lex: The King is the Law) was not entitled Vox Populi Vox Dei: the voice of the people is the voice of God which amounts to nothing less than that the people are the sovereign. In Harold Laski’s attempt to corner the Protestant theory in an anarchist position he says,

“For once it is clear that the prince holds his power upon conditions, becomes necessary to discover the means through which those conditions may be enforced. The merit of popular sovereignty at once becomes apparent; and to an age still permeated by feudal notions, princely power becomes, at least in part, the result of, and dependent upon, a contract with the people.” Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, Historical Introduction.

Does Protestantism teach that Government is ordained by the people and not by God? No. Samuel Rutherford says in Lex Rex, Question I and Question II,

“I reduce all that I am to speak of the power of kings, to the author or efficient, — the matter or subject, — the form or power, — the end and fruit of their Government, — and to some cases of resistance. Hence,

The question is either of Government in general, or of particular species of Government, such as Government by one only, called monarchy, the Government by some chief leading men, named aristocracy, the Government by the people, going under the name of democracy. We cannot but put difference betwixt the institution of the office, viz. Government, and the designation of person or persons to the office. What is warranted by the direction of nature’s light is warranted by the law of nature, and consequently by a divine law; for who can deny the law of nature to be a divine law?


That power of Government in general must be from God, I make good, 1st, Because (Rom. xiii. 1) “there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.”2nd, God commandeth obedience, and so subjection of conscience to powers; Rom. xiii. 5, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, (or civil punishment) but also for conscience sake;” 1 Pet. ii. 13, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme,” &c. Now God only by a divine law can lay a band of subjection on the conscience, tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgress.

Conclus. All civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that, 1st, God hath made man a social creature, and one who inclineth to be governed by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man’s nature; so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle. 2nd, God and nature intendeth the policy and peace of mankind, then must God and nature have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a power of Government. I see not, then, why John Prelate, Mr. Maxwell, the excommunicated prelate of Ross, who speaketh in the name of J. Armagh, had reason to say, That he feared that we fancied that the Government of superiors was only for the more perfect, but had no authority over or above the perfect, nec lex, nec rex, justo posita. He might have imputed this to the Brazillians, who teach that every single man hath the power of the sword to revenge his own injuries, as Molina saith…. Therefore I see not but Govarruvias, Soto, and Suarez, have rightly said, that power of Government is immediately from God, and this or that definite power is mediately from God, proceeding from God by the mediation of the consent of a community, which resigneth their power to one or more rulers; and to me, Barclaius saith the same, Quamvis populus potentice largitor videatur, &c.”[15]

This principle is explained in a masterful way in an article The New Constitution of Pennsylvania appearing in The Reformation Advocate, (vol. 1, no. 7), September, 1875, pp. 197-200. It was a critique of the American Atheistic principles in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874 and appended to Samuel B. Wylie’s book The Two Sons of Oil,

“[Article 1.,] Sec. 2. [of the Constitution of 1874] declares that “all power is inherent in the people.” By this, Pennsylvania means that the power to institute and administer civil Government exists in the people, like a property or attribute in a subject, so as to be inseparable from that subject, and essential to its very existence…the people are not a subject in which Government necessarily exists as a power, but merely an object, upon which it is intended to act as a power, by him in whom it necessarily exists, as an almighty power—”there is no power but of God.” The divine Government on earth is thus symbolically represented; Dan. 7:9, “his throne (the Mediator’s) was like the fiery flame, and his wheels (his providences) like burning fire.” And civil Government, is just the divine Government over men upon the earth. Just here is where Pennsylvania in her new constitution was lost. The convention laid it down as an axiom—a self-evident truth, that civil Government is a mere human thing—is inherent in the people. A most egregious blunder!

Government is the exercise of moral power upon the people as its object: not an emanation or flowing forth of moral power from them, as its origin or fountain.”[16]

Therefore, the correct statement is not, “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation”. The correct statement is, “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in Yah the one God through the nation”. I appreciate the Declaration’s attempt to steer away from the individual sovereignty of their Anarchist brethren, but the attempt still failed.

“4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”

>>>Again how do we define injury without the law of Yah? And also, what is society? Is this just a name for a reality that Empiricists can give no account for? Has the Frenchman actually seen a society or has he abstracted it? If the latter how can an Empiricist account for an abstraction that he cannot touch, or smell or taste or see, or hear? The secular mind will scoff at this question and appeal to common sense. The rise of the modern banking system is the most devastating rebuttal to such an appeal. What is wrong with taking interest from a loan if that loan provides a service for you? The loaner should get paid for using his money! Makes sense right? It appears to be common sense! Yet usury is detestable according to the Torah and the same inevitable result that Nehemiah saw in chapter 5 of his book is upon us today. Common sense is obviously not reliable. Economics is too nebulous to resort to “common sense”. Supposedly, the free sex movement was about love of your common man. That made perfect sense to our parents 50+ years ago. Now that this movement has permeated our culture, and the pill is an established method to avoid pregnancy, a man cannot find a woman to marry that has not had sex with many different men. It tortures the minds of the men here to know how many men their loved one has been with. No wonder marriage is avoided so much in our modern times. What seemed to be common sense and love for your fellow man, is actually destroying the family.  We may not see the injury that lies before us during our immediate action. This is why revelation from an omniscient being is necessary to a consistent and effective theory of ethics. Because fornication is a behavior considered to be non-injurious and even celebrated I am not assured the enjoyment of marriage and family. 

“5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law”

>>>Prov. 14: 34 sin is a disgrace to any people. So heresy is not hurtful to society? Sabbath breaking is not hurtful? Dissolution of the family is not hurtful? I will give you a perfect example of why false religion harms a society. From our Western Civilization text again,

“Therefore, when the Hebrews confronted natural phenomena, they experienced God’s magnificent handiwork, not objects with wills of their own. All natural phenomenon-rivers, mountains, storms, stars-were divested of any supernatural quality. The stars and planets were creations of Yahweh, not divinities or the abodes of divinities. The Hebrews neither regarded them with awe nor worshipped them. This removal of the gods from nature is a necessary prerequisite for scientific thought

The Hebrews demythicized nature”.[17]

You see, non-Abrahamic religions theoretically prevented their people from progressing technologically. Moreover, many years ago I was committed to one religious group who promised to fund my college expenses in exchange for certain services and they refused to come through a month and a half before I graduated, because I became convinced of certain Presbyterian doctrines. This spiraled my life into financial ruin which resulted in the loss of everything I worked for my entire adult life. I know of others who have been persecuted for being Sabbatarian, but I am a Sabbatarian and I have had to take huge debts which resulted in the loss of a prosperous career and my health because this society’s economy ipso facto rejects the Sabbatarian’s rights to practice his religion. I believe that general work and business on the Sabbath is prohibited and because of this I have been refused employment on scores of occasions. I have filled out or sent thousands of resumes and applications to employers during the last semester of college and after I graduated. The only jobs I could get were positions that paid little more than minimum wage. I had to get multiple jobs to survive which ended up destroying my health. I know many other people who believe the same thing and have been threatened to lose their jobs if they don’t work on the Sabbath. No nation allows freedom of religion. Its people through their own actions develop economies that inherently prejudice the religion of others. Human life is inherently Theocratic or at least Establishmentarian.

The Sabbath command was rejected by the French Revolution’s French Republican Calendar, and its ten day work week. It was rejected by the people as injurious to them. Yah is wiser than us and knows what it good for us and what harms us. Yah is wiser than men.

Not only is the materialist a failure in identifying beneficial behavior, what he thinks is injurious, like the institution of slavery has actually been proven to be beneficial. The blacks in North America have never enjoyed a greater standard of living and a more moral and familial stability than under Southern Slavery. Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross states,

“Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[18]

And again,

“The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[19]

And again,

“U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[20]

Also, slavery insures a native manual labor force and thus removes the present justification for illegal immigration.

“6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.”

>>>So does the decision have to be unanimous? If so, good luck with that one. If not, where does a Government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority? Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction?

And we all know these people are rabid hypocrites and liars. During the history of the South here in North America, the Southern people decided that slavery was condoned by God in the Bible, because it is. Yet, in typical Theocratic fashion, the Communists led the Yankee Army down here to rape, pillage and murder us for expressing our general will. The same thing happened to us during the Civil Rights era. It did not matter that the majority of the people in the Southern states did not want their culture and their race destroyed through integration and miscegenation. The Communists here in America imposed their will on us against our will at the end of a bayonet.[21] And let’s just get horrifyingly honest: The United States fundamentally contradicted its First Amendment when it made slavery illegal. What it said was the Bible’s religious teaching is criminal for condoning the owning of slaves. Truth hurts.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

>>>This is a Biblical Right. According to the Torah, no penalty was to be executed upon anyone without due process upon the testimony of two credible witnesses.[22] Moreover, extending from the Biblical rights of private property[23] and an express injunction against nonconsensual search and seizure[24], the Rights delegated in the 4th Amendment to the American Bill of Rights are also Biblical.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

>>>Yahuwah is the one who decides what is necessary and what is cruel. All the punishments in the Torah, beating[25], hanging[26], stoning[27], burning alive[28], along with severe torture to those who deserve it[29] (These were not citizens of Israel), shall continue through due process as Yah commanded them. Christianity and Western Civilization in general needs to grow a pair.

The Communists have no moral leg to stand on here. The bloodbaths and mass rapes these people indulged in in Russia, France, Asia and here in the South of North America[30] in the 19th and 20th Centuries gives them no room to lecture anyone on how to treat other human beings. 

“9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner’s person shall be severely repressed by law.”

>>>Agreed. Penalties are only inflicted through due process.

“10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”


>>> This is a direct contradiction to 1. The first few Commandments of the Decalogue.   2. The nature of Truth. 3. Biblical Anthropology.  4. The Kingship of the Messiah.

1. Deut. 13 precludes absolute freedom of speech as an application of the first commandment.

2. This legislation is intended to confuse the Congregation of Yah with thousands of religious factions. First, the Congregation, both in the laity and the pastoral, is commanded to have one voice[31] and against this one faith, there is to be severe rebuke to those who speak other doctrines.[32]

Samuel Rutherford says,

“Assertion 1.) “Such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches, of different forms of government, and pretending to different institutions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated [Free Disputation, 7.3] …there is but one old way, Jer. 6. 16. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4. 4. One faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. one truth to be bought, Prov. 23. 23. one Christ, which the Apostles, heard, saw, and handled with their hands, from the beginning, 1 John 1, 1. One name of Jesus, not any other under heaven by which we may be saved, Act. 4. 12. not Jehovah and Malcom, Zeph. 1. 5. not Jehovah and Baal, 1 King. 18. 21. not the true God, and the Gods of the heathen, the Samaritan mixture, 2 King. 17. 33. (2) And this one way we are to keep with one heart, Ezek. 11. 19. with one judgment, one mind, one tongue, one shoulder, Act. 4. 32, 2 Cor. 13. 11, Phil. 4. 2, 1 Cor. 1. 10, Zeph. 3. 9. Zach. 4. 9. Being rooted and established in the faith, Col. 2. 7. Not tossed to and fro, nor carried about with every wind of doctrine, Eph. 4. 14. Without wavering, Heb. 13. 9.” [Free Disputation, Chapter 12.2]

Objection. Doesn’t 1 John make things very simple, he that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life? Answer. By the Son, you could mean many things. The Messiah is a different person in the many thousands of factions we here. Do you mean Jesus, Yehoshuwah or who? Objection. If what you are saying is true all the Church fathers (Along with the rest of the history of Christianity) are going to hell for they held different doctrines! Answer. I am not arguing for a method of determining who is going to hell and who is going to heaven. I am arguing for a method of determining how the true religion is to be recognized and visibly administrated (By the Congregation and Magistrate) not a method of determining if the true religion has been applied to an individual (Which is the prerogative of Yah alone).

Rutherford says,

“But I hope Jeremiah had not the people of God in Judea, under the Babylonish captivity, follow an Heathenish peace, with toleration of divers Religions, or yet a Religious peace, or a Church peace, that standeth well with many Religions, yea they are to denounce wrath against the Chaldean Religion, Jer. 10. 11. and would he have Christians all keeping such an Heathenish unity and peace, as Babylonians and Americans have, and in the mean time tolerate all Religions, Christians who have one God, and one faith, and one hope are to follow more than a Civil and Heathenish peace” [Free Disputation. Chapter 25. Next to Last Paragraph]

Truly, the essence of a Congregation only requires the gospel of Messiah but proclaiming the gospel is not the only vocation of the Congregation. The Renewed Covenant clearly defines many negative fundamentals:

1. Professing that the resurrection has past 2 Tim 1:17-18, 1 Tim 1:19-20;

2. Professing that circumcision is required for salvation Gal 5:3-4  Compare with Acts 15:5, 24;

3. Professing that eating meat offered to idols is nothing even if you know it was offered to an idol, even though it is a grievous sin to eat meat offered to idols with knowledge of such Rev 2:14-16, 1 Cor 8:1-13; 1 Cor 10:25-33

4. Forbidding marriage 1 Tim 4:1-3;

5. Teaching that Messiah did not come in the flesh 2 Tim 1:7;

6. Professing that the day of the Lord has already come before the apostasy 2 Th 2:1-3;

7. Professing another gospel Gal 1:8-9 (Implied mixing faith and works from the context);

8. Teaching synchristic fables and geologies Tit 1:14, 1 Tim 1:4, Tit 3:9-10, 1 Ti 1:3, 2 Jo 1:9, 2 Jo 1:10. In addition to the support of this claim Rutherford says:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless Genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying, which is in faith, then to preach fables and endless Genealogies which are not fundamental errors, are yet another doctrine than the Apostles taught, and those that so teach are to be charged to teach no such thing, and so under two or three witnesses, if they willfully continue therein, to be accused and censured, yea and we are to avoid them, and not to receive them in our houses, nor bid them God speed, and so non-fundamentals as questions of Genealogies come in under the name of e`terodidaskalein of teaching uncouth doctrine.”

Second, Yah  holds people accountable for heresy even if what they said directly is not heresy but the logical consequence is.[33]

Thirdly, ignorance is a judgment of God on a people for sin and not an excuse for heresy.[34]

Fourthly, theological knowledge is the material cause of salvation and does not corrupt its possessor per se.[35]

3. Freedom of religion operates off of the assumption that if you give man freedom of worship he will seek the truth. On the contrary, the Scriptures teach: John 3: 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

4. The Scriptures teach that the risen Messiah Yehoshuwah has civil authority over all nations[36] and all his Political enemies will be destroyed.[37]

Torah based theocracy does not require men to force other men to attend their religious institutions. But it does mean that the magistrate has the authority to force heretics out of society. This is also not an absolute control of the press. We are mostly concerned with people speaking to lead the people to another religion. People will follow false teachers simply because of the dynamic way they speak. People rarely follow false teachers through diligent study.

“12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.”



[2] The Tripartite Society. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society, Volume I: To 1789, by Marvin Perry (Author), Myrna Chase (Author), James Jacob (Author), Margaret Jacob (Author), Theodore H. Von Laue (Author) (Wadsworth: Boston, MA, 2013, 2009), 221: Footnote: Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilization, trans. Julia Barrow (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 255

[4] Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (Edingurgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver Boyd, 1844-Originally Published in 1646) pg. 86-87.

[5] ROM 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

[6] [5] 2CH 26:18 And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. MAT 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. MAT 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 1CO 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? EPH 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. 1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. ROM 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

[6] ISA 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. PSA 122:9 Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good. EZR 7:23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? 25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. 26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 27 Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem: 28 And hath extended mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellers, and before all the king’s mighty princes. And I was strengthened as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me. LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. DEU 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc. 2KI 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (1CH 13:1-8; 2KI 24:1-25) 2CH 34:33 And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers. 2CH 15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

[7]2CH 19:8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. 10 And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass. 11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good. (2CH 29-30) MAT 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet.

[7] Rom 13:1, 2

[8] Josh 5:14-15-Captain of angels; Dan 10:13- Chief among angels; Col 1:16-Invisible dominions

[9] Eph 4:11-12

[10] Rom 2:14-15

[11] Pg. 467

[12] Exo 18:21, Det 17:14,15,18,19, 2 Sam 23:2,3 Job 34:17, Psa 94:20, Prov 16:12, Isa 10:1, Rom 13:3,4

[13]  Deut 17:14,15, Jud 8:22,  Judg 9:6, Judg 11:11, 1 Sam 11:15, 1 Chron 12:38, 2 Sam16:18, 2 Kings 14:21, 2 Chron 23:3

[14] Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (Edingurgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver Boyd, 1844-Originally Published in 1646) pg. 86-87.

[15] Constitution Society Site, “Lex Rex” Samuel Rutherford. [Accessed November, 2011]

[16] (Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanted) Site, Available at ; [Accessed December 2011]) See also Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex Question XII. Whether or not a kingdom may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest,

Assert. 3. — Mere conquest by the sword, without the consent of the people, is no just tide to the crown.

Arg. 1. — Because the lawful title that God’s word holdeth forth to us, beside the Lord’s choosing and calling of a man to the crown, is the people’s election, Deut. xvii. 15, all that had any lawful calling to the crown in God’s word, as Saul, David, Solomon, &c., were called by the people; and the first lawful calling is to us a rule and pattern to all lawful callings.

Arg. 2. — A king, as a king, and by virtue of his royal office, is the father of the kingdom, a tutor, a defender, protector, a shield, a leader, a shepherd, a husband, a patron, a watchman, a keeper of the people over which he is king, and so the office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection, care, love and kindness, to those over whom he is set, so as he who is clothed with all these relations of love to the people, cannot exercise those official acts on a people against their will, and by mere violence. Can he be a father, a guide and a patron to us against our will, and by the sole power of the bloody sword? A benefit conferred on any against their will is no benefit. Will he by the awesome dominion of the sword be our father, and we unwilling to be his sons — an head over such as will not be members? Will he guide me as a father, a husband, against my will? He cannot come by mere violence to be a patron, a shield, and a defender of me through violence.

Arg. 3. — It is not to be thought that that is God’s just title to a crown which hath nothing in it of the essence of a king, but a violent and bloody purchase, which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nimrod, and the cruelest tyrant that is hath nothing essential to that which constituteth a king; for it hath nothing of heroic and royal wisdom and gifts to govern, and nothing of God’s approving and regulating will, which must be manifested to any who would be a king, but by the contrary, cruelty hath rather baseness and witless fury, and a plain reluctancy with God’s revealed will, which forbiddeth murder. God’s law should say, “Murder thou, and prosper and reign;” and by the act of violating the sixth commandment, God should declare his approving will, to wit, his lawful call to a throne.

Arg. 4. — There be none under a law of God who may resist a lawful call to a lawful office, but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murder the most numerous and strongest, and chief men of a kingdom, that they may reign over the fewest, the weakest, and the young, and lowest of the people, against their will; therefore this call by the sword is not lawful. If it be said that the divine impulsion, stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest, that the ire and just indignation of God in justice may be declared on a wicked nation, is an extraordinary impulsion of God, who is above a law, and therefore no man may resist it; then all bloody conquerors must have some extraordinary revelation from heaven to warrant their yielding of obedience to such an extraordinary impulsion. And if it be so, they must show a lawful and immediate extraordinary impulsion now, but, it is certain, the sins of the people conquered, and their most equal and just demerit before God, cannot be a just plea to legitimate the conquest; for though the people of God deserved devastation and captivity by the heathen, in regard of their sins, before the throne of divine justice, yet the heathen grievously sinned in conquering them, Zech. i. 15, “And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.” So though Judah deserved to be made captives, and a conquered people, because of their idolatry and other sins, as Jeremiah had prophecied, yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody conquest, Jer. 1. 17, 18, 33, 34; li. 35, “the violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitants of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.” And chat any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawful a call to the throne as the people’s free election, we know not from God’s word; and we have but the naked word of our adversaries, that William the Conqueror, without the people’s consent, made himself, by blood, the lawful king of England, and also of all their posterity; and that king Fergus conquered Scotland.

Arg. 5. — A king is a special gift from God, given to feed and defend the people of God, that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him, (Psal. lxxviii. 71, 72; 1 Tim. ii 2;) as it is a judgment of God that Israel is without a king many days, (Hos. iii. 4,) and that there is no judge, no king, to put evil-doers to shame. (Judg. xix.1.) But if a king be given of God as a king, by the acts of a bloody conquest, to be avenged on the sinful land over which he is made a king, he cannot be given, actu primo, as a special gift and blessing of God to feed, but to murder and to destroy; for the genuine end of a conqueror, as a conqueror, is not peace, but fire and sword. If God change his heart, to be of a bloody devastator, a father, prince, and feeder of the people, ex officio, now he is not a violent conqueror, and he came to that meekness by contraries, which is the proper work of the omnipotent God, and not proper to man, who, as he cannot work miracles, so neither can he lawfully work by contraries. And so if conquest be a lawful title to a crown, and as ordinary calling, as the opponents presume, every bloody conqueror must be changed into a loving father, prince and feeder; and if God call him, none should oppose him, but the whole land should dethrone their own native sovereign (whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend) and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange lord, presumed to be a just conqueror, as if he were lawfully called to the throne both by birth and the voices of the people. And truly they deserve no wages who thus defend the king’s prerogative royal; for if the sword be a lawful title to the crown, suppose the two generals of both kingdoms should conquer the most and the chiefest of the kingdom now, when they have so many forces in the field, by this wicked reason the one should have a lawful call of God to be king of England, and the other to be king of Scotland; which is absurd.

Arg. 6. — Either conquest, as conquest, is a just title to the crown, or as a just conquest. If as a conquest, then all conquests are just titles to a crown; then the Ammonites, Zidonians, Canaanites, Edomites, &c., subduing God’s people for a time, have just title to reign over them; and if Absalom had been stronger than David, he had then had the just title to be the Lord’s anointed and king of Israel, not David; and so strength actually prevailing should be God’s lawful call to a crown. But strength, as strength victorious, is not law nor reason: it were then reason that Herod behead John Baptist, and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Jesus. If conquest, as just, be the title and lawful claim before God’s court to a crown, then, certainly, a stronger .king, for pregnant national injuries, may lawfully subdue and reign over an innocent posterity not yet born. But what word of God can warrant a posterity not born, and so accessory to no offence against the conqueror, (but only sin original,) to be under a conqueror against their will, and who hath no right to reign over them but the bloody sword? For so conquest, as conquest, not as just, maketh him king over the posterity, If it be said, The fathers may engage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselves as loyal subjects to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice; I answer, The fathers may indeed dispose of the inheritance of their children, because that inheritance belongeth to the father as well at to the son; but because the liberty of the son being born with the son, (all men being born free from all civil subjection,) the father hath no more power to resign the liberty of his children than their lives; and the father, as a father, hath not power of the life of his child; as a magistrate he may have power, and, as something more than a father, he may have power of life and death. I hear not what Grotius saith, “Those who are not born have no accidents, and so no rights, Non entia nulla sunt accidentia; then children not born have neither right nor liberty.” And so no injury (may some say) can be done to children not born, though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerors, — those who are not capable of law are not capable of injury contrary to law. — Ans. There is a virtual alienation of rights and lives of children not born unlawful, because the children are not born. To say that children not born are not capable of law and injuries virtual, which become real in time, might say, Adam did not any injury to his posterity by his first sin, which is contrary to God’s word: so those who vowed yearly to give seven innocent children to the Minotaur to be devoured, and to kill their children not born to bloody Molech, did no acts of bloody injury to their children; nor can any say, then, that fathers cannot tie themselves and their posterity to a king by succession. But I say, to be tyed to a lawful king is no making away of liberty, but a resigning of a power to be justly governed, protected and awed from active and passive violence.

Arg. 7. — So lawful king may be dethroned, nor lawful kingdom dissolved; but law and reason both saith. Quod ui partum est imperium, vi dissolvi potest. Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence: Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne, sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat.”

[17] Pages 37-38

[18] Pg. 244

[19] Ibid. 5

[20] Ibid. 126

[22] Deut. 19:15-21

[23] Exo. 20:15, 22:1-15

[24] Deut. 24:10-11

[25] Deut. 25:1-3,

[26] Deut. 21:22-23

[27] Lev. 20:2, 20:27, etc.

[28] Lev. 21:9

[29] 2 Samuel 12:31

[31] Jud 1:3  Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Act 15:25  it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

1Ti 6:21  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen

Rom 14:19  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace

Rom 15:5  Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

1Co 1:10  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.

1Co 1:11  For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Act 4:32  And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

2Co 13:11  Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Phi 4:2  I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

Zep 3:9  For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Gal 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[32] Tit 2:15  These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Gal 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1Ti 1:3  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine

1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1Ti 1:5  Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

1Ti 1:6  From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

Tit 1:13  This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Tit 1:10  For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

Tit 1:11  Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

1Ti 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

1Ti 6:4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

[33] Gal. 5:2, Mat. 22:30-33, Jer. 9:13-14, Deut. 32:18, 1 Cor. 15:16

[34] Isa 29:9-14, 1Co 2:8, Act 2:23, Joh 15:22, Num 15:27 -28, 2Pe 3:5

[35] Psa 19:7-8, Psa 51:13,Isa 6:10, Mar 4:11, Mar 4:12, Jer 31:19  Rom 6, John 12:40, Acts 28:27

[36] Phil 2:9  Elohim, therefore, has highly exalted Him and given Him the Name which is above every name, Phil 2:10  that at the Name of יהושע every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, Phil 2:11  and every tongue should confess that יהושע Messiah is Master, to the esteem of Elohim the Father. 

Dan 2: 44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Dan 7: 13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

Rev 1:5 and from Yehoshuwah Hamashiach, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood. 

Ps. 89:27 “I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth.” 

1 Cor 15: 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.

Luk 22: just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Yehoshuwah, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Psalm 110:1 Yahuwah says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” [Compare with-DS] Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, “ SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Acts 2:  29 “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. 32 This Yehoshuwah God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,  35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’ 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Yehoshuwah whom you crucified.”

As he was anointed the King and ruler of all the Earth Yehoshuwah received the anointing of the Holy Spirit by which he bequeaths the benefits of the Covenant of Grace.

Heb 1: 8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O elohim, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (kjv)

[37] Isa 60:12  For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

Psa 2: 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’” 10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. 11 Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling.12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Isa 49:23 “Kings will be your guardians, And their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth And lick the dust of your feet;  And you will know that I am the LORD;  Those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame.

[38] Deut 17:14,15, Jud 8:22,  Judg 9:6, Judg 11:11, 1 Sam 11:15, 12:25, 1 Chron 11:3, 12:38, 2 Sam16:18, 1 Kings 1:38-39, 16:16, 2 Kings 10:5, 11:17-18, 14:21, 2 Chron 23:3, Judg 8:22, 9:6 Ecc 8:2

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: