Christian Baptist Living

Author: admin

  • From where do we get the word Church?

    NOTE: Most of the following research was compiled by a fellow believer, who, for personal reasons, has chosen not to have his name affiliated with this site.

    Walk up to almost any church of any denomination in any nation on earth, and it immediately distinguishes itself from all other kinds of buildings. First, you might notice near the highway or on the sidewalk, a marquee with a name such as, Church of the Nazarene, or First Baptist Church, or Our Lady Catholic Church. These unique buildings we call churches have many things in common, not the least of which is the designation of the word “church” itself. What does the word “church” mean, and from where did it come? The Scriptures? No. The word “church” is neither Hebrew nor Greek, so when these languages were translated into English Bibles, the word church was already in existence.

    The word “church” found in most (not all) Bibles is translated from the Greek word “ekklesia,” and it means “called out ones.” The word “church” is defined in most dictionaries as: “A building for public worship, especially Christian worship; the company of all Christians as a spiritual body.” This, however, tells us nothing concerning the origin of this word and its original definition, meaning, and usage. Some theologians have erroneously stated that the word church comes from the Greek “kyrios” which means “lord,” and thus “church” is those who belong to the Lord, or references the “Lord’s house.” This is not, however, the origin or original meaning of the word “church.”

    “Church” is a very early English word that means “circle” (the shape of a circle), while the Greek word translated “church” is “ekklesia” and means “called out ones,” and more properly answers to the English words: congregation, assembly or group.

    In Acts 19:32 ekklesia refers to a riotous mob. And ekklesia is never applied to a building for worship. Furthermore, there can be only one “Lord’s House,” and that was the temple in Jerusalem, only. Local congregations and synagogues or assembly halls were never designated “The Lord’s House.”

    “Bethel” is the word for “Lord’s House” in Hebrew. Yet, this “Lord’s House” became an abomination to the Lord, along with all other such “Lord’s houses.”

    “For the saying that he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, shall surely come to pass… Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places… And this thing became SIN unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth” (I Kings 13:32-34).

    And so, in rebelling to God’s commands, “Bethels” were built throughout the land. And just as Israel continually looked to the heathen for their religious practices (see Jeremiah 10:1-5, for example), so did the heathens borrow from Israel. These “Bethels” or “houses of the Lord” became popular among the heathens. Bethels were being built throughout Europe, West Asia, and North Africa. They usually used the Greek spelling “baetyls,” but they were the same high, religious places of worship, which God condemned. So even if a “Bethel” was a “house of the Lord,” it was still condemned by God. Here are the historical facts regarding the word “Bethel” [From the Dictionary of Proper Names and Places in the Bible, by O. Odelain and R. Seguineau, Doubleday & Company, 1981]:

    The word literally means “House of God,” and was the name of a town about 17 km north of on the road to Shechem. was also the name of a Canaanite deity venerated at . In the ancient world is one of the camping places of Abraham and Jacob. From there Abraham sees the land God is giving him. It is also here where the dream of “Jacob’s ladder” occurs, and where God later appears to Jacob. Thus becomes a sanctuary of the patriarchs. Along with Ai, it is one of the first towns conquered by Joshua. Later, in the ninth century the town is the residence of a brotherhood of prophets centered around Elijah and Elisha. It also becomes for the the national center of worship, with its golden calf, “the sin of Jeroboam.” Amos pronounces God’s judgment upon this cult (Amos -15; 5:4-7), and is expelled from by the priest Amaziah. Hosea waxes ironical about , the “House of God,” that it has become Beth-aven (Hosea 5:8; 10:5), which means “the house of nothingness (or iniquity).” Josiah’s religious reform affects , where these altars and high places are destroyed (see II Kings -20).

    Now concerning the word “church,” Professor Smith of Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible states that “church” comes from a word meaning “circle,” which is akin to our word “circus.” Professor Lipsius (German theologian during the Reformation) also shows that “church” came from “circle.” Professor A. F. Fausett of Home Bible Study Dictionary” agrees with Professor Lipsius. The exhaustive ten volume Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature under the word “church” states that:
    “It was probably connected with the Latin circus, circulus, and with the Greek kuklos. Lipsius, who was the first to reject the received tradition, was probably right in his suggestion” (Vol. II, p. 322).

    Robert Brown’s work The Myth of Kirke” also confirms that “kirke” (church) means “Circle” or “Circular” (p. 22).
    Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, under the entry “church” adds this:
    “The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, kurious oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of the Greek. No doubt the word means ‘a circle.’ The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular [witness circular , one of the most ancient stone megaliths on earth]. Compare Anglo-Saxon ‘circe,’ a small church, with ‘circol,’ a circle.”
    In Scotland it is called “Kirk” and in Gemany it is “Kirche,” in England it is the word “Circe” (the “c” having a “k” sound).
    But according to Brown’s book, “Kirke/Circe” was also the name of a Goddess.
    Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god, who was famous for taming wild animals for her circus. But get ready for this: Circe is pictured holding a golden cup in her hand mixed with wine and drugs, by which she controlled the kings of the world. Now where have we heard that before?
    “And the woman [always the symbol for a church/kirke] was arrayed in purple and scarlet color [these colors symbolize wealth and high position], and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication” (Revelation 17:4).
    What else are we told is in the golden cup of this church?
    “…the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication” (Verse 2).
    But there is something else. Remember that Brown above also mentions drugs along with wine. Is our lady church of Revelation 17:4-5 “MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” also involved in DRUGS?
    Notice what Revelation 18:23 lists among her many abominations:
    “…for the merchants were the great men of the earth; for by your sorceries were all nations deceived.”
    Just what are these “sorceries?”
    The Greek word translated “sorceries” in this verse is pharmakeia. Dr. Strong’s first definition of this word is “medicine.” Our words “pharmacy” and “pharmaceutical” (DRUGS) are derived from this word. This harlot church peddles spiritual DRUGS to the world! And so, clearly this pagan goddess Kirke not only stamps Christian religions of the world with her name: “Kirke, Kirche, Church,” but also she is the Mystery Babylonian Harlot Church of Revelation 17 and 18. This Church has committed spiritual fornication among the leaders of the world, and has caused the inhabitants of the world to be made drunk and drugged by the contents of her golden cup.
    What about you? Are you yet so drugged and drunk on this Harlot Church that you cannot see to walk the straight and narrow way of Christ, which leads to life?
    ADDENDUM
    This brief synopsis of the word “church” is in no way meant to be an indictment toward the many wonderful people who attend churches. Lord only knows how much worse the plight of Hurricane Katrina victims would have been if it weren’t for the generosity of the area churches, who met many personal needs where government agencies such as FEMA and the Red Cross failed. I am confident that our Lord Jesus will remember good deeds such as these on Judgment Day. But good deeds alone will not qualify one for first-resurrection status (see Matthew 7:21-23).
    First of all, those who worship God must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. They must proclaim Christ as Savior of the world, and believe that He will indeed SAVE the world!
    “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe [that He is the Savior of ALL men, and that He will INDEED SAVE ALL MEN]. These things command and teach. (I Timothy 4:9-11)
    These are the things that our Lord commands His laborers to teach concerning Him. Now how many church pastors do you know of that are doing this? Instead, most believe and teach that our heavenly Father will cast the majority of mankind away into a fiery furnace for all eternity. Because of this erroneous teaching, they lead their flocks astray (see Jeremiah 50:6). The way to life [via the first resurrection] is indeed a narrow one.
    Secondly, those who take a stand for the Truth (Jesus) must be willing to do so even in the face of violent opposition. Remember these sobering words of our Lord:
    “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘ A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:18-20)
    “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (II Timothy 3:12)
    For some, this may even mean being forsaken by the members of one’s own household:
    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth… For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)
    Christ will become top priority to those who wish to find the narrow way that leads to age-abiding life. Not everyone will be able to make that type of a commitment. This is why Christ tells us to “count the cost” of following Him (see Luke 14:26-33).
    And finally, Christ makes it clear that it is the one who endures to the end who will be saved [or attain to age-abiding life] (see Matthew 10:22; Mark 13:13). But those who have been appointed to walk the difficult to find narrow road can take heart:
    “Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6)
    You will notice that it is God who began the work, and it is God who completes it!
    “Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him. But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.” (Hebrews 10:38,39)
    “He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.” (Revelation 21:7)

  • Baptism for the Dead by R. L. Dabney

    Baptism for the Dead by R. L. Dabney

    (Appeared in the Christian Observer, February 3, 1897; vol. 84:5, pg. 10.)

    The instructive and almost exhaustive treatise of Dr. Beattie upon 1 Cor. 15:29 suggests still another explanation which readers may compare with those recited by him. I first heard this from that devout, learned and judicious exegete. Rev. J. B. Ramsey, D. D., of Lynchburg, Va. He advocated it, not claiming originality for it. This explanation supposes that the holy apostle refers here to the Mosaic law of Num. 19:11-13, which required the Hebrew who had shared in the shrouding and burial of a human corpse to undergo a ceremonial uncleanness of seven days, and to deliver himself from it by two sprinklings with the water of purification containing the ashes of the burned heifer. This view is sustained by the following reasons:

    I. We know from Mark 7:4, and Heb. 9:10 (“As the washing [baptisms] of cups and pots, brazen vessels and of tables.” “And divers washings [baptisms] and carnal ordinances”), that both the evangelist and the Apostle Paul called the water purifications of the Mosaic law by the name of baptisms. Thus it is made perfectly clear that if the apostle designed in 1 Cor. 15:29 to refer to this purification of people recently engaged in a burial, he would use the word baptize.

    II. This purification must have been well known, not only to all Jews and Jewish Christians, but to most gentile Christians in Corinth; because the converts from the Gentiles made in the apostles’ days in a place like Corinth were chiefly from such pagans as were somewhat acquainted with the resident Jews and their synagogue worship. This explanation then has this great advantage, that it supposes the apostle to cite for argument (as is his wont everywhere) a familiar and biblical instance, rather than any usage rare, or partial or heretical, and so unknown to his readers and lacking in authority with them.

    III. This view follows faithfully the exact syntax of the sentence. The apostle puts the verb in the present tense: “Which are baptized for the dead.” For we suppose this law for purifying persons recently engaged in a burial was actually observed not only by Jews, but by Jewish Christians, and properly, at the time this epistle was written. We must remember that while the apostle firmly prohibited the imposition of the Mosaic ritual law upon gentile Christians according to the apostolic decree in Acts 15, he continued to observe it himself He caused Timothy to be circumcised, while he sternly refused to impose circumcision upon gentile converts. He was at Jerusalem going through a Nazarite purification and preparing to keep the Jewish Passover, when he was captured by the Romans.

    His view of the substitution of the New Testament cultus in place of the Mosaic ritual seems to have been this: That, on the one hand, this ritual was no longer to be exacted of any Christian, Jew or Gentile, as necessary to righteousness, and that such exaction was a forfeiture of justification by grace; but on the other hand, it was proper and allowable for Jewish Christians to continue the observance of their fathers, such as the seventh day Sabbath, and the scriptural Mosaic ritual (not the mere rabbinical traditions) so long as the Temple was standing, provided their pious affections and associations inclined them to these observances.

    IV. Dr. Ramsey’s explanation is faithful to the idiomatic usage of the Greek words in the text. He correctly supposes that the apostle’s term, “baptized,” describes a religious water purification by sprinkling, founded on biblical authority; and here, perhaps, is the reason why expositors with immersionist tendencies have been blind to this very natural explanation; their minds refused to see a true baptism in a sprinkling, where the Apostle Paul saw it so plainly. Then, Dr. Ramsey uses the word “the dead” (nekron) in its most common, strict meaning of dead men; and that in the plural; not in the singular, as of the one corpse of Jesus. He also employs the preposition “for” (huper) in a fairly grammatical sense for its regimen of the genitive case; “on account of the dead.”

    V. Lastly, the meaning thus obtained for the apostle’s instance coheres well with the line of his logic. If there be no resurrection what shall they do who receive this purification by water and the ashes of the heifer from the ceremonial uncleanness incurred on account of the corpses of their dead brethren and neighbors which they have aided to shroud and bury? If there be no resurrection, would there be any sense or reason in this scriptural requirement of a baptism? Wherein would these human corpses differ from the bodies of goats, sheep, and bullocks, dressed for food, without ceremonial uncleanness? Had Moses, inspired of God, not believed in the resurrection, he would not have ordained such a baptism as necessarily following the funeral of a human being. His doctrine is, that the guilt of sin is what pollutes a human being, the soul spiritually, and even the material body ceremonially; that bodily death is the beginning of the divine penalty for that guilt: that hence where that penalty strikes it makes its victim a polluted thing (herem). Hence even the man who touches it is vicariously polluted, as he would not be by the handling of any other material clod, and so needs purification. For all this points directly to man’s immortality, with its future rewards and punishments; and these affecting not only the spirit but the body which is for a time laid away in the tomb, to be again re-animated and either to share the continued penalty of sin, or, through faith to be cleansed from it by the blood of Christ, and thus made to re-enter the New Jerusalem.

    From Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney Vol. 5 Miscellaneous Writings pg. 184-187

  • Andy Stanley is wrong about small churches

    Andy Stanley is wrong about small churches

    Andy Stanley claimed in a sermon that small churches are bad because children that go to them will learn to hate the church because there won’t be enough people in their age group with which to make friends. He even claimed that a church was too small if their youth group wasn’t large enough for separate middle and high school groups.

    Andy Stanley’s argument is self-defeating. If his advice were followed then no churches could ever be started unless a large enough people agreed to instantly start one. This would eliminate the majority of churches, even large ones, from ever having been formed. The practice of the Apostles was to start churches in towns no matter small they started initially. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the Apostles should not have started a church if there weren’t enough people to have separate middle and high school groups. Obviously youth groups were not even part of the early church’s imagination. Such a focus on modernity and ignoring history shows Stanley’s absolute absurdity of requiring only large churches.

    Stanley’s requirement that all churches be large also would prevent small churches in rural areas from existing. If no church in a rural area should exist since it’s not large enough for Stanley’s requirements then Christians would be forced to drive long distances to attend church. Such a requirement would greatly hinder the body of Christ in rural areas.

    Although Stanley cites the need for a church large enough to support separate youth groups for middle and high schoolers, he provides no scriptural basis for why youth groups are even necessary or profitable. There is no requirement in scripture for youth groups. Many Christians would even make the case that scripture does not approve of what constitutes a modern church youth group. A lack of youth groups is not the reason why Christians who grew up church are leaving. The reason Christians who grew up in churches are leaving is that the vast majority of them received a government education based on atheism and then went on to four more years of higher education also based on an atheistic worldview. After being indoctrinated for 16 years in anti-Christian philosophy it is no wonder at all why Christians are leaving the church. Stanley’s failure to see the cause of the abandonment of the church by government-educated Christians shows his severe lack of discernment and his extremely weak Christian world-view. The documentary Indoctrination, produced in part by Exodus Mandate,shows how the result of 12 years of education based on atheism will result in Christians students becoming apathetic non-Christians who no longer attend church.

    Andy Stanley also seems to be in direct violation of Acts 20:30 which warns against drawing away disciples unto yourself.

    Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:30

    After seeing the reaction to his sermon Stanley admitted that he was wrong by saying:

    The negative reaction to the clip from last weekend’s message is entirely justified. Heck, even I was offended by what I said! I apologize.

    Given that his only response was to send a tweet apologizing it is likely that Stanley fundamentally does not understand why he was wrong beyond the mere surface level reason that people were offended. Christians should pray that Stanley will study the scriptures and conform to the worldview of the scriptures in which small churches are often the norm and in which Christian education is understood as critical to the preservation of the church.

  • Should Government Be Involved in Marriage?

    Should Government Be Involved in Marriage?

    By Pastor Matt Trewhella

    “There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.” This is the Libertarian cry that is growing in popularity and gets parroted by many who never ponder the depths of what they are saying.

    This time, however, the above quote was from a Republican legislator in Oklahoma.

    Republican legislators in Oklahoma have introduced a bill (which has already passed the House) that would remove the need to obtain a state marriage license. They say they are doing this to protect county clerks from violating their consciences by having to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

    The truth is, while this law claims to “protect” county clerks from having to violate their consciences by issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, it does nothing of the sort.

    Under this law, county clerks would be required to file “marriage certificates” with the state for the marriages to be validated. So, rather than protecting county clerks from violating their consciences, it merely changes the form in which their consciences would be violated. They would still play the integral role in procuring state-recognition of marriage for homosexuals.

    Furthermore, while this law claims to remove government from being “involved” with marriage, the reality is the law still requires that all people file their marriage with the state of Oklahoma.

    This parroted slogan — “government should not be involved in marriage” — is a delusion. Government has always been involved in marriage; always will be involved in marriage; and should be involved in marriage.

    What is tragic here is that an absurd slogan is being fleshed out into law. Rather than defend the family, these legislators have punted. They have denied their God-given duty to affirm and uphold the created order of God.

    Government in America has been at war with marriage and the family for decades now. This is seen in the no-fault divorce laws, the decriminalization of adultery, and the plethora of laws attacking parental rights (amongst so many others). Homosexual marriage is now the latest effort by government to belittle and demean marriage and family.

    When government perverts marriage and family through law and sides with debauched men, the result is chaos and lawlessness. The legislation proposed by these legislators will not fix any problem — in fact it will further exacerbate the problem.

    This move by the legislators of Oklahoma is not about getting rid of marriage licenses. It is not about protecting county clerks. It is not about getting government out of marriage. The real motivation for this legislation is they want to dispose of a problem that they just want to go away.

    They have failed to do their duty.

    In the past, I have written in opposition to state marriage licenses because they are an overreach by civil government. The marriage license exposes the statist thinking of Christians in America.  I’ve already heard from many young people who have been told by their churches and pastors that if they don’t get a state marriage license — even though two men or two women can get the same piece of paper — that they are “living in sin.”  That is insanity.

    But I deny the assertion that government should not be “involved” in marriage.  Civil government has the duty to affirm and uphold the created order of God.  Why?  Marriage and family is the foundation stone upon which society is built.

    This proposed law does not remedy the problem of state marriage licenses. This proposed law would place into statutory law the recognition of homosexual marriage by the state of Oklahoma. The law would remove statutory language limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. The new form — that county clerks would have to file with the state — does not indicate genders or use terms like “bride,” “groom,” “wife,” or “husband.”

    Next time you hear someone say “I don’t believe the government should have anything to do with marriage,” remind them that “government always has been involved in marriage; always will be involved in marriage; and should be involved in marriage.”  History, sound thinking, and the nature of man reveal this to be so.

    Matt Trewhella is the pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church (MercySeat.net) and the founder   of   Missionaries   to  the  Preborn (MissionariesToPreborn.com). He and his wife, Clara, reside in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area and have eleven children.

    His book, The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and A Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government is available at Amazon.com or LesserMagistrate.com

    http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com/view.php?sid=5607

  • Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

    Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

    Virgil Cooper:

    Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

    Tue Feb 8, 2005 02:52

    64.140.158.5

     

    Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth
    by Virgil Cooper ultrac21@whitemtns.com

    Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau. . . .

    About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26½ years, filed for divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two (2) sons. Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old. At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

    I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

    She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona. He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states — but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

    He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

    He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

    He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in their own minds. The state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,” he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a “dotted line” meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

    In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other “dotted line.” He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in the secular realm of the state’s marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually “joined” as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another “dotted line.”

    The picture he was trying to “paint” was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a “dotted line” merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

    Marriage License

    Secular Contract Diagram

    STATE

    (primary party)

    HUSBAND WIFE .

    (secondary party) (secondary party) .

    GOD

    He further mentioned that this “religious overtone” is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been “deputized” by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

    Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a “privileged business enterprise” various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

    By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is “Principles of Community Property,” by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

    In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have “borne fruit.”

    Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau’s administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself – the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by statute.” He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the

    marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband and wife didn’t realize that.

    My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

    Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.” Such a contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

    Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this.

    He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” – meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

    In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

    Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children – the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

    He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

    Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and

    conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

    That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

    At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

    His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, “You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”

    I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license. The marriage license as we know it didn’t come into existence until after the Civil War and didn’t become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”

    Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.

    Original message from Virgil Cooper: ultrac21@whitemtns.com

    http://www.usavsus.info/US–MarriageLicVirgilCooper.htm

  • The Marriage License is a Trap

    The Marriage License is a Trap

    We innocently forfeit our legal and parental rights when we purchase a marriage license.

    Rich writes:

    I wanted to pass along some VERY important information regarding marriage, the marriage contract, contract law, the state and children. This has helped me see the TRUE DANGER in getting married today.

    I have been studying the law intensely for the past few years and learned all about maritime law, contract law, trusts, corporations, policies, common law and how nearly ALL such “laws” today are not laws at all, but are merely Policies. They’re operating under pretense of law. That is why police today are in fact called Police…because they enforce POLIC(E)-IES… NOT laws.  They actually work for the insurance companies who are themselves owned by the banks, especially the Federal Reserve central banks.
    ________________

    by Rich
    (henrymakow.com)

         The marriage license began in the middles ages as a private contract between two families. Most of the time this was recorded in the local church with or without eyewitnesses. Usually the word of a couple that stated they were married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such.

    According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as – “Permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”

    In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. They then charge you a fee (which is a bribe) to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

    So the state, in instituting any kind of licensing, is forcing you to contract with them and pay a bribe to do something that they claim is illegal.

    In Civil Law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture. As the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.

    Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have “borne fruit.”

    Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.”

    This contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that are attached to it.

    Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid. This results in an implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.

    It should be emphasized that this contractual consideration places the bride and groom in an inferior position (as defined-by-law) and makes them subject to the State. Very few people realize this.

    It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” – meaning the children primarily belong to the State.

    In this regard, children are regarded as “contract bearing fruit,”.

    This was established in the US in the 1930’s by two doctrines. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

    Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to put it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent.

    Along this line, a 1930’s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.

    This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State.

    But if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -i.e. the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

    The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship between the husband, wife and state. It’s a trinity, just like a pyramid, with the State on top.

    Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage (a maritime corporation), to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage.

    Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence.

    The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction over the marriage, husband and wife, by the state, now separated, continues over all aspects of the marriage, including over marital property and the children brought into the marriage.

    That is why Family Law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage, because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. The marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

    This is why time and time again CPS feels that they can just come in and take over your children, because according to the marriage license (along with numerous other unrevealed contracts), they have legal jurisdiction over your children without you really knowing or understanding why.

    Much of this also goes back to the 14th amendment, your all capitalized name and each persons name being incorporated, thus giving the states and Feds authority over you.

    This is how we have all become enslaved once again, by these dangerous and unrevealed adhesion contracts, many of which, like the marriage contract, are always in force to some degree.

    http://www.henrymakow.com/the_true_danger_of_getting_mar.html

  • God Hates Cecile Richards

    God Hates Cecile Richards

    God Hates Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood

    Since Cecile Richards became the president of Planned Parenthood in 2006 she has been responsible for the murder of millions of unborn children. From 2006-2013, while Cecile Richards has been president, Planned Parenthood performed 2,569,092 abortions.

    Planned Parenthood abortions per Year

    In Proverbs 6:16-19 it says that God hates “hands that shed innocent blood.” However, not only does God hate those that shed innocent blood, they are an abomination to Him.

    “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:16-19

    Some people say that God does not actually hate people but that he only hates their sin. However, there are several passages in scripture which reveal that God does hate the wicked.

    The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:5

    The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Psalm 11:5

    And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. Leviticus 20:23

    All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. Hosea 9:15

    Sources:

    2006
    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf

    2007
    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf

    2008
    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_Annual_Report_08-09-FINAL-12-10-10.pdf

    2009
    http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf/

    2010
    http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/pp_fact_sheet_2011_2012_annual_report.pdf

    2011
    http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_ar_2012_121812_vf/3

    2012
    http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ar-fy13_111213_vf_rev3_issuu/1

    2013
    http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/annual_report_final_proof_12.16.14_/0

  • The pope is the man of sin and the antichrist

    The pope is the man of sin and the antichrist

    The office of the papacy is the “man of sin” of whom is spoken in 2 Thessalonians 2.

    “Let not any completely deceive you in not one manner! for it will not be unless the  defection should come first, and the man of sin should be uncovered, the son of destruction,” 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ABP

    vs. 6 “And now that which restrains ye know, for him to be revealed in his own time.”

    The papacy was revealed when the Roman emperors lost their ability to constrain it because of the destruction of the Roman empire. When pagan Rome was finally destroyed in 476 A.D., papal Rome rose to power since it was no longer constrained by pagan Rome.

    From the Geneva Bible with footnotes:

    vs. 4 “Which is an adversary, and (f) exalteth himself against all that is called God, or
    that is worshipped, (4) so that he doeth sit as God in the Temple of God, shewing
    himself that he is God.”

    (f) All men know who he is that saith he can shut up heaven and open it at his pleasure, and took
    upon him to be lord and master above all Kings and Princes, before whom Kings and Princes fall
    down and worship, honoring that Antichrist as a god.
    (4) He foretelleth that Antichrist, (that is, whosoever he be that shall occupy that seat that falleth
    away from God) shall not reign without the Church, but in the very bosom of the Church.

    vs. 7 (6) “For the mystery of iniquity doeth already (*) work; (7) only he which (♣) now
    (h) withholdeth, shall let till he be taken out of the way.”

    (6) Even in the Apostles’ time the first foundations of the Apostolic seat were laid, but yet so, that
    they deceived men.
    (*) To wit, privily, and is therefore called a mystery because it is secret.
    (7) He foretelleth that when the empire of Rome is taken away, the seat that falleth away from God
    shall succeed and shall hold his place, as the old writers, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Jerome do
    expound it.
    (♣) Which shall stay for a time.
    (h) He which is now in authority and ruleth all, to wit, the Roman Empire.

    Select quotes from Seventy Weeks – The Historical Alternative:

    Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, 390 A.D., writes, “By the ‘Hindrance’ Paul means the Roman Empire.” This was also believed by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 400 A.D.

    Jerome, 400 A.D., declared, “If St. Paul had written openly and boldly that the man of sin would not come until the Roman Empire was destroyed, a just cause of persecution would then appear to have been afforded against the Church in her infancy.”

    Bishop Wodsworth wrote in 1850, “The earliest Christian writers declare…with one voice the ‘he who letteth’ was the heathen Roman Empire.” (Apocalypse, p. 520)

    Tertullian: We pray for the Roman Emperors and empire, for we know that convulsions and calamities are threatening the whole world, and the end of the world itself, is kept back by the intervention of the Roman empire.

    Jerome: The Roman world rushes to destruction, and we bend not our neck in humiliation…The hindrance in antichrist’s way is removing, and we heed it not…In that one city the whole world hath fallen.

    Evangrius: The Roman emperors are driven from their kingdoms: wars rage: all is commotion: Antichrist must be at hand.

    Thus, the pope is the man of sin and the antichrist.

  • Pro-life supporters protest home of infanticide practicing doctor

    Pro-life supporters protest home of infanticide practicing doctor

    Pro-life supporters have recently been protesting at the home of a St. Louis Doctor who practices infanticide which is commonly incorrectly referred to as abortion. These mass murderers of those not yet born are David Eisenberg and Erin King who are married and both doctors. It is by Christians interposing themselves in the place of unborn children and decrying these evil tyrants and the rulers that support them that infanticide will be stopped.

  • Christians are in denial that public schools teach atheism and evolution

    Christians are in denial that public schools teach atheism and evolution

    Christians have been deceived in America into supporting a public school system that teaches atheism, evolution, and many other falsehoods. The public school system is also responsible for the rapid degeneration of society into accepting such things as sodomy, infanticide (the correct term for what we commonly call abortion), and other perversions. One woman who was a public school teacher and administrator was recently complaining that her state’s education budget had money taken away from it to be transferred for general use. When confronted with the fact that the public school system is anti-christian because of its teachings, her statements revealed that she has cognitive dissonance regarding the truth about the teachings of the American public school system. Read the response of a Christian to her complaints and see her cognitive dissonance exposed.

    Discussion about Public Schools teaching evolution

    The discussion ended because the woman was unable to admit in her mind that the American public school system teaches atheism, evolution, and a host of other evils. She has deceived herself.  Unfortunately, this thinking is common among Christians who think that their school system is better than all the others and that the horrible things occurring in other school systems don’t occur in theirs. For more information watch the documentary Escaping Common Core, which exposes the anti-christian teachings of the public school system and how much worse they are becoming. Another documentary exposing the public school system is IndoctriNation, which documents why Christianity is declining in America as a result of removing the Christian basis for education from the public school system. For more resources on getting Christians out of the public school system visit the website for the ministry Exodus Mandate.