It seems to me the purpose of the 3rd epistle of John was primarily to combat the error of Diotrephes, the error of the idea of one leader being supreme over the other leaders. He “wants to be the leader over them,” and disallows the visiting brothers to have any authority in his church. This is contrary to the teachings of the apostles. First of all, the apostles were co-equal to each other. Secondly, they were careful to appoint multiple, co-equal elders in each church. The wisdom of disallowing one human being to have all the power, is confirmed by the wise men and wise cultures and wise political systems of many or all eras.
In America today, we have the opposite of separation of church and state.
My brethren in the USA, I urge you once again to work toward the separation of church and state. It will become more and more evident what a mistake it is that your churches are creations of the state, and your pastors are agents of the state. For it is incontrovertible in law that since your churches went to the IRS and asked them permission to be a 501(c)(3) corporation, that your church is therefore a creation of that law, and of that government. And that since your pastors went to the state and asked them permission to be a pastor, and received a license to be so, with all its conditionalities, that those pastors are agents of the state. My brethren, the situation of churches being corporations organized under certain statutes, and pastors being licensed by the state, IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Moreover, to do these things is in direct contradiction to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” You see, rendering unto Caesar things that are God’s, is direct disobedience to this.
You know or should know, that when a church is a 501(c)(3) corporation, the IRS can dictate what a pastor can or cannot say from the pulpit, and can demand accountability of certain records about the church members, etc. And they can change the terms anytime and in any way they want, in the future. Do you think this is wise, especially in these end times?
Why not be like the apostle Peter, who said, “We ought to obey God rather than men”? And this is contrary to the constitution of the USA, which says Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion. And this would be anathema to the American founding fathers. Patrick Henry was inspired to say his famous saying “Give me liberty, or give me death,” in 1775 after he witnessed a pastor being beaten to death in Culpepper, Virginia, for refusing to get a license to be a pastor.
Don’t you know that in America, the constitution says that you are already endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights? The bill of those rights includes the right to assemble, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to free speech. Why would you then think that you need permission from any government to do what God has already commanded you to do, and that your government’s charter says you already have complete freedom to do? Surely you would not give away your birthright for a mere tax deduction?
Please share this post about Separation of Church and State:
Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution
Change over time, micro-evolution, within one species, is undisputed. But macro-evolution, one species to a new species, has no evidence.
Homology, the universality of DNA
Homology, that all species have DNA, proves a common designer, not a common ancestor. Dawkins is guilty of circular reasoning, because he has predetermined to exclude a common designer. Many scientists look at the evidence with polar glasses, never considering intelligent design, so cannot interpret the evidence correctly.
Gradualism in the fossil record?
The fossil record shows no gradualism. Most all the phyla suddenly appear in the Cambrian stratum, without precursors.
Experiments on E-Coli bacteria, over enough generations to make it equivalent to 1 million years of human generations, could not break the bacteria out of its own species. Only variations of the same species.
As for transitional phyla, 99 of every 1,000 frames is cut out of the movie, according to National Geographic. There are not missing links, but missing chains. Well, the chain simply does not exist.
Make a list of species to which there are no other similar species whatsoever, either in the present or in the previous to them. Such species are numerous.
Science does not say evolution is true; scientists say it is true.
Please share this post about Intelligent Design:
Is This the Most Important Greek Textual Variant?
Revelation 14:9-11 says that if anyone takes the mark of the beast, that person will be tortured in fire and sulphur for ever and ever.
So it is very important not to get the mark. But how will it happen that people take the mark? Will it be forced on them by the beast, or will they give it to themselves / get it for themselves? Because of this question, I think that the textual variant below from Revelation 13:16 is the most important textual variant in the Bible.
In the first set of manuscripts, “they” are giving the mark. In the second set, with the Textus Receptus alone among the editions, “he,” that is, the beast, is giving the mark.
“they” Aleph A C P 046 82 94 141 172 175 181 241 256 367 424 459 469 616 627 792 920 922 986 2059 1611 1678 1732 1778 1828 1854 1862 1888 2019 2020 2026 2028 2048 2067 2070 2080 2081 2138 2256 2349 2351 2436 sahidic WH VS TG RC AT PK NA27 HF RP SBL
“he” 051 2053 2065 2302 2329 2814 TR
Download this chart in the Swanson style for the variant in 78 manuscripts and 11 editions.
KJV: “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:”
NIV: He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,
NASB: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
DRP: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, to provide themselves a mark on their right upper limb or on their forehead,
Rev. 14:9-11: And another angel, a third one, followed those, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and takes the mark on his forehead or on his hand, he shall himself also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, mixed undiluted in the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoke of their torture goes up for ever and ever, and they have no relief day or night, those who worship the beast and the image of him, and anyone who takes the mark of his name.”
I have received criticism of my rendering of this verse. Here is a copy of some of that discussion, from a discussion board:
Critic: “Surely the unmentioned subject of the plural verb δωσιν does not refer to those included in παντας, but rather is generic, namely, ‘He makes it so that they (generic) should give all a mark on their right hand or forehead,’ hence why most translations simply say ‘receive’ instead of the unnecessarily wooden-literal translation.”
Rev. 13:16 καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν,
Let me get this straight. You are saying that ποιεῖ, 3rd person singular, should be rendered “He makes it,” where there is no Greek word present for “it.” So you supply an object for the verb. And you are saying that δῶσιν, 3rd person plural, which means “they give,” agrees in grammatical concord with an un-named subject you supply, rather than agrees with the 3rd person plural πάντας, which immediately and naturally follows our verb ποιεῖ.
So, you are supplying both an unwritten object, and an unwritten subject. All in one sentence!
Call me unreasonable, but how is this “surely”? I don’t see anything sure about it.
If you truly honestly believe that that is what the Greek means, then you should write that in your translation, like this, “And he makes it so that they give everyone a mark…” That isn’t so wooden. But literal it certainly is not. That would be very far from literal.
And I want to state, in case some readers don’t know, that the pronoun αὐτοῖς can and often does mean “themselves” as in ἑαυτοῖς. There is a contraction in the Greek of that time for ἑαυτοῖς as follows : αὑτοῖς. Notice the difference between αὐτοῖς and αὑτοῖς? There is a huge difference. The first has a smooth breathing mark, so it means “them,” and the second has a rough breathing mark, so it means “themselves.” Reflexive meaning. But the earliest Greek manuscripts did not necessarily always have breathing marks and punctuation. One of the most common Greek textual variants in Revelation, about which I am very knowledgeable by the way, and won’t apologize for it, is this confusion between αὐτός and αὑτός in the minuscules.
I thus find it easy to defend my rendering of this verse in my translation of Revelation. Your defense on the other hand of “most translations” is a great example of why I do not trust “most translations,” and am doing my own.
To download my translation of the Revelation of John, use this link.
Please share this post about the most important Greek textual variant:
Before you hire an attorney, there are some things you should know. Here are some quotes from the Corpus Juris Secundum (Complete Restatement of the Entire American Law as developed by All Reported Cases) – Title 7 C.J.S. Secs. 2, 4.
When you hire an attorney,
1. you “commit your cause to his management…”
2. you become the attorney’s “client.”
3. “Clients are also called ‘wards of the court'” 7 C.J.S. § 2
4. “Wards of the court,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary are: “Infants and persons of unsound mind.” Davis’ Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189, 190.
5. You are making your case and your rights secondary or tertiary in importance to the court and to the public. “An attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations.” …”His [attorney’s] first duty is to the courts and to the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” 7 C.J.S. § 4
Attorneys are only one kind of lawyer, and their “Bar Association” has interests that are not the same as those of a Christian, and a pilgrim on this earth seeking the kingdom of God.
“A holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will supposedly be the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be the loyal subjects of the Crown.” British General Cornwallis, quoted in the book Legions of Satan, Williams, Jonathan, (1781)
General Cornwallis went on to say that the churches in America would help Britain tax Americans once again. Though he did not know the exact details, this is has been accomplished by convincing the churches to become registered, State incorporated churches with licensed pastors, who would preach that their congregations should pay the tribute tax to British-controlled entities.
Another way that Cornwallis’ prediction came true is when Americans started hiring an attorney.
Cristians, when the government or some association pretending to be government is persecuting you, take heeed to Mark 13:11 “So when they take you delivering you to trial, do not concern yourself beforehand what you will speak. Rather, whatever is given you in that hour, that you are to speak. For you are not the ones speaking, but the Holy Spirit.”
In civil matters, the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7: “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another–and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (NIV)
When you get a marriage license, who are you marrying?
“The state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardians of their morals.”– Roberts v. Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381.
You make the state the senior partner. They then have the last word on your morals, and your children are wards of the state.
LEGAL DEFINITION OF A LICENSE
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, defines a license as follows:
“Permission from public authority to do something that would be illegal to do without the license.”
(By the same definition, you know that you do not need a license to do something that is not illegal.)
Now what makes something illegal? There are two forms of wrongness: malum prohibitum, and malum in se. Something that is malum prohibitum is deemed wrong because it has been prohibited by the laws of human beings in a particular society, for their particular society. Literally, it is “wrong because it is prohibited.” Something that is malum in se is wrong because it is “bad in itself.” Determining what is malum prohibitum is easy – you just find out what are the laws in the appropriate jurisdiction. Determining what is malum in se is also easy in my opinion – and in the opinion of the founding fathers of the United States of America. They said things like, “Men do not make laws; they but discover them. True laws originate from the Creator, the Supreme Legislator of the Universe.”
Marriage is not wrong in itself, so it is not malum in se. Neither is marriage prohibited, so marriage is also not malum prohibitum.
Therefore a human government cannot deny you the right to get married (neither permit it only upon the payment of a fee and the obtaining of a license) unless your marriage is malum in se, or malum prohibitum.
But wait a minute, why do marriage licenses exist in the United States then? Very simple: they were instituted for marriages that were deemed by society as wrong, either marriages that were malum in se, or marriages that were malum prohibitum, illegal, prohibited by law. In the history of America, the vast majority of people never got licenses to get married, because their marriages were never deemed illegal or considered wrong.
But up until the 1960′s there were some marriages, now commonplace and fairly normal, that were considered wrong: interracial marriages. Those were the marriages that required a license. (I am not against interracial marriage; I am only explaining the history of the marriage license.)
Even the most current edition of Black’s Law dictionary proves this. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines marriage license as:
“A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry”
Note that it does not say, “persons who intend to marry,” but “INTERmarry.” So you wouldn’t need a marriage license to marry, only to intermarry. Well, what is “intermarriage”? If you look up “intermarriage” in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition, it says,
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines Miscegenation as:
Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Statutes prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to equal protection clause of Constitution. Loving v. Virginia…
So now, you don’t even need a marriage license to INTER-marry.
Then why do people still get marriage licenses? Because their pastor, or their neighbor, or TV says you have to. The pastor, if he has a license to be a pastor from the state, and his church is a federal non-profit corporation, has a contractual obligation to act in the interests of the government, not in your interests or God’s interests. It is a conditionality of his license to do certain things and report certain things for the government. Often these obligations conflict with the family of God’s interests.
Share this post about a marriage license:
I am certain that God does not give you credit for giving to the poor by virtue of you voting for a politician who supports a government policy of taking money from people who have more money and giving it to the poor. You are only credited for what you actually personally sacrifice and personally give to a poor person you know. I am certain of this.
Robin Hood was a thief. So is a government that confiscates money from one person and gives it to a person who did not earn it. And as far as I am concerned, if you vote for such a politician or government, you are a thief too.
The Bible does not support the idea of taking money, or food, or anything else from one person and giving it to someone who does not work. Some claim that in the Old Testament under Moses there was socialism. No, not if by that you mean there were any people who were idle. No one was idle; everyone did something. Idleness was not in the least tolerated.
“And he makes it so that no one can buy or sell without having the mark.”
(Revelation 13:17) In order for the Antichrist to be able to control who buys and sells, even in the remotest jungle, that requires that everyone in the remotest jungle be connected to the Internet. The One World Government intends to accomplish exactly that. One of its branches, the Bilderbergers, and also the Council on Foreign Relations, has a member working on it earnestly, named Nicholas Negroponte. He has a simple, rugged laptop computer that he is literally dropping out of the sky, and giving free of charge to “poor” children (really free children) in “poor” and remote countries. The World Government just can’t have any people living independently, growing their own food, not needing money, not being tracked and controlled by Tax ID numbers, and not being connected to the Internet.