LOYALISTS &/OR PATRIOTS: the "4th of July", 1776, "declaration": a Bible perspective The 1776 Rebellion of thirteen British colonies in North America, called the American Revolutionary War, may be equated with the Bible story of "Jehoboam's Rebellion" [representing the rebellious American colonists in this analogy] against King Solomon’s son Rehoboam [representing King George III of Britain in this analogy], which split- up the Hebrew kingdom [representing Britain, the "mother-country", or the worldwide British Empire in this analogy], hence, from the Bible point of view, the American "patriots" were the "bad guys", and the American "loyalists" were the "good guys", which is a valid alternative concept of a way of looking at the "4th of July", 1776, "Declaration of Independence". Every year on the 4th of July America celebrates the 1776 Rebellion against the British Crown. The editorials which appear in this country’s newspapers on that date every year must bewilder all American loyalists how the so-called American patriots were so thoroughly blinded by the deceptive propaganda Satan disseminates. Instead, the "4th of July" should be a celebration of a reconciliation with the British Crown to right the wrong done by the unruly, godless 1776 generation of American colonists. Why should we give allegiance to the U.S. government which was created out of a revolution? For, from the Bible we know that the Arch- Angel Lucifer led the first rebellion, and has been the instigator of all rebellions since, including the three rebellions against the British Crown: the 1642-1649 Rebellion, the 1688-1689 Rebellion, and the 1776-1783 Rebellion. It is a fitting question to consider; due to the seriousness of the question. The "Consent Theory", which America's so-called "founding fathers" used to justify their rebellion, says that everyone consented to abide by the U.S. Constitution that created the present government that sits today in Washington, D.C., which provided for a democratic state. Though it was not meant to be, but democracy has turned out to be the tyranny of the majority over minorities. The whole concept of democracy is the devil's doctrine, and may very well prove to be Satan's great "end time" lie. The present government that sits today in Washington, D.C. tells us that we today, that is, our contemporary generation, are bound to the acts, decisions, and works of a godless generation of American colonists who rebelled against their sovereign- lord King George III, the "Lord's Anointed" (so-called); however, how does each new generation grant its consent to be governed by the laws of a state they did not create? The basis of the "Consent Theory" is that everyone is free and therefore must individually grant his or her consent to be governed, or otherwise remain an "outlaw", i.e., "outside the community's protection", which has been the case ever since Adam ate the apple. The story is well-known that God had told Adam and Eve that they could do anything they wanted to do in the "Garden of Eden" except one thing, to eat of the fruit of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". As long as they refrained from doing so, the "Supreme-Being", God, as the creator of all things, was their master, but, when Adam and Eve disobeyed and did "that one thing" they made themselves their own masters. For the essence of their sin was the transference of the control of their lives from God to themselves. Here, the human-race expressed its autonomy and independence of God’s rule. Here, is the origin of "democracy" and "human rights"! Here, the "divine monarchy" of God on earth was replaced by a "republic" or "government of the people". The climax of man’s rejection of God’s rule, doubtless, was when Pilate presented Jesus to "the people" as their king, to which "the people" [i.e., first century Jews] responded, saying: "we will not have this man to reign over us" (Lk 19:14b), which reminds one of the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) which says of America’s king [George III]: "we will not have this man to reign over us" [paraphrase]. Now, can anyone see a correlation here when you compare that phrase in the "Declaration of Independence" to the verse in the Bible that has the same words? Well, do not dismiss it out of mind but consider its ramifications morally, religiously, and legally. To be sure, the future government of Messiah on Earth, and Heaven too, is a "monarchy", not a "republic"! In the Bible there is reference to the Throne of God which indicates that in Heaven there is a situation of absolute monarchy; can we extend this to a suggestion that earth should mirror Heaven constitutionally? Heaven may be an absolute monarchy, but, due to the fact that ever since Adam ate the apple the human-race has been in a fallen state, thus, the corruptibility of human individuals. This would not be a realistic option for good governance, hence the checks and balances referred to in the Bible that God put on the ancient Hebrew kings, which also applies to the modern British monarchs. The republic which replaced royal-government in America has a mandate "from the people", which validity is questionable and open to debate, however, the monarchy the 1776 generation of American colonists renounced its allegiance to, the British Monarchy, has a "divine" mandate from God to rule, as illustrated in its "origin-story", that is, the story of "The Sword In The Stone", when a 15-year old squire, named Arthur, pulled the sword "Excalibur" from "Vulcan’s Anvil", in AD495, which fulfilled the "vision" and/or prophecy of St. Bryce, as well as the instructions given by Pope Gelasius in his "Epistle to The Britons" to let God decide, which he sent to the Britons in response to a letter the Britons [gathered in a national convention during a vacancy of the throne] had wrote and sent to him by an embassy asking him [the pope] to make them a king. The episode was determined a miracle by the British people, and, interpreted as a sign that God had chosen the young lad [Arthur] to be the king giving him and his successors, the British royal-line, a divine commission to produce the shepherds [kings] for His [God’s] flock [sheep] in the British Isles and its overseas colonies, which once included America until the 1776 rebellion. This commission is still valid and will remain so until the "Second Coming" of Jesus, The "Christ", that is, when "Messiah" establishes the direct rule of God in person on earth incarnate in Jesus, the future "world-king", who forever lives, and whose "kingdom" will be an eternal absolute monarchy and theocratic state, and the human experiment of "democracy" will prove a failure and disappear forever from the experience of the human race. Meantime, the British royal-line reigns "by the Grace of God", not "by the will of the people", representing God’s rule, not man’s rule, while America, rejecting the theocratic right of the Creator to choose the country's rulers, elects its own rulers, the presidents, whom govern by a "mandate from the people", which is a devilish concept from the Bible standpoint, for who can give one man the right to rule over another man, surely not a constitution written by a "congress" of men, nor laws enacted by a "congress" of men who have no authority to do so, for only God can give that right. Yea, people make presidents, however, God makes kings. It appears that man in his rebellion against God thinks he can exist apart from his Creator. Indeed, America, from 1776, has been a country in rebellion against its divinely ordained sovereign, remembering that the British royal-house descends from King Arthur [through the Tudors], and descends [through the Stuarts] from Christianity's "Holy Family", that is, the "Family of Jesus", the "Jesus Dynasty", or more precisely from St. James, one of the so- called "brothers" of Jesus. And, on some early royal genealogical charts The "Virgin" Mary appears as the ancestress of the British Royal House (2nd-6th Cent. AD), via Saint James, one of the so-called "brothers" of Jesus! The 1776 Rebellion was not only against the Royal Family but also against their ancestors, the Holy Family. How can a Christian people rebel against the descendants of Christianity's Holy Family? The Hollywood movie "1776", unsatisfactorily explains the reasons for breaking-ties with the mother-country though entertaining. The phrase [in the 1776 "Independence Declaration"] "the inalienable rights the Creator gave to man", that is, "human-rights", is a very appealing idea, however, the truth of the matter is the whole idea of "human rights" is a fantasy, for Jesus says "we are not our own, for we are bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19b-20a), that is, His "Sacrifice", hence, we "the people" actually have no rights. And, even if King George The Third was an ungodly king, though for the 1776 generation in America to question his authority was in essence to question God’s purpose. He had a "mandate" from the Creator, called "divine-right", therefore, the 1776 generation of American colonists should have obeyed him in all things! Is it possible to convince reasonable people that authority based on a fantasy has any right to exist, much less one to govern? In the first national convention the 1776 generation of America severed its allegiance to the British Crown. That convention initially wanted to crown George Washington as "King of America"; and, when he refused the office, it was offered to the British Jacobite Heir, "Bonnie Prince Charlie", who was invited to establish a rival royal court in America, then, only after he declined the offer that the convention adopted a republic as this country’s form of government under the "Articles of Confederation", which provided for a confederate state. The present U.S. "Constitution" that we have today however came out of a second national convention, which provides for a federal republic and an oligarchic
...
news:9046b08b-f2b5-4427-a2de-78c2c7d044a4@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... LOYALISTS &/OR PATRIOTS: the "4th of July", 1776, "declaration": a Bible perspective The 1776 Rebellion of thirteen British colonies in North America, called the American Revolutionary War, may be equated with the Bible story of "Jehoboam's Rebellion" [representing the rebellious American colonists in this analogy] against King Solomon’s son Rehoboam [representing King George III of Britain in this analogy], which split- up the Hebrew kingdom [representing Britain, the "mother-country", or the worldwide British Empire in this analogy], hence, from the Bible point of view, the American "patriots" were the "bad guys", and the American "loyalists" were the "good guys", which is a valid alternative concept of a way of looking at the "4th of July", 1776, "Declaration of Independence". Every year on the 4th of July America celebrates the 1776 Rebellion against the British Crown. The editorials which appear in this country’s newspapers on that date every year must bewilder all American loyalists how the so-called American patriots were so thoroughly blinded by the deceptive propaganda Satan disseminates. Instead, the "4th of July" should be a celebration of a reconciliation with the British Crown to right the wrong done by the unruly, godless 1776 generation of American colonists. Why should we give allegiance to the U.S. government which was created out of a revolution? For, from the Bible we know that the Arch- Angel Lucifer led the first rebellion, and has been the instigator of all rebellions since, including the three rebellions against the British Crown: the 1642-1649 Rebellion, the 1688-1689 Rebellion, and the 1776-1783 Rebellion. It is a fitting question to consider; due to the seriousness of the question. The "Consent Theory", which America's so-called "founding fathers" used to justify their rebellion, says that everyone consented to abide by the U.S. Constitution that created the present government that sits today in Washington, D.C., which provided for a democratic state. Though it was not meant to be, but democracy has turned out to be the tyranny of the majority over minorities. The whole concept of democracy is the devil's doctrine, and may very well prove to be Satan's great "end time" lie. The present government that sits today in Washington, D.C. tells us that we today, that is, our contemporary generation, are bound to the acts, decisions, and works of a godless generation of American colonists who rebelled against their sovereign- lord King George III, the "Lord's Anointed" (so-called); however, how does each new generation grant its consent to be governed by the laws of a state they did not create? The basis of the "Consent Theory" is that everyone is free and therefore must individually grant his or her consent to be governed, or otherwise remain an "outlaw", i.e., "outside the community's protection", which has been the case ever since Adam ate the apple. The story is well-known that God had told Adam and Eve that they could do anything they wanted to do in the "Garden of Eden" except one thing, to eat of the fruit of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". As long as they refrained from doing so, the "Supreme-Being", God, as the creator of all things, was their master, but, when Adam and Eve disobeyed and did "that one thing" they made themselves their own masters. For the essence of their sin was the transference of the control of their lives from God to themselves. Here, the human-race expressed its autonomy and independence of God’s rule. Here, is the origin of "democracy" and "human rights"! Here, the "divine monarchy" of God on earth was replaced by a "republic" or "government of the people". The climax of man’s rejection of God’s rule, doubtless, was when Pilate presented Jesus to "the people" as their king, to which "the people" [i.e., first century Jews] responded, saying: "we will not have this man to reign over us" (Lk 19:14b), which reminds one of the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) which says of America’s king [George III]: "we will not have this man to reign over us" [paraphrase]. Now, can anyone see a correlation here when you compare that phrase in the "Declaration of Independence" to the verse in the Bible that has the same words? Well, do not dismiss it out of mind but consider its ramifications morally, religiously, and legally. To be sure, the future government of Messiah on Earth, and Heaven too, is a "monarchy", not a "republic"! In the Bible there is reference to the Throne of God which indicates that in Heaven there is a situation of absolute monarchy; can we extend this to a suggestion that earth should mirror Heaven constitutionally? Heaven may be an absolute monarchy, but, due to the fact that ever since Adam ate the apple the human-race has been in a fallen state, thus, the corruptibility of human individuals. This would not be a realistic option for good governance, hence the checks and balances referred to in the Bible that God put on the ancient Hebrew kings, which also applies to the modern British monarchs. The republic which replaced royal-government in America has a mandate "from the people", which validity is questionable and open to debate, however, the monarchy the 1776 generation of American colonists renounced its allegiance to, the British Monarchy, has a "divine" mandate from God to rule, as illustrated in its "origin-story", that is, the story of "The Sword In The Stone", when a 15-year old squire, named Arthur, pulled the sword "Excalibur" from "Vulcan’s Anvil", in AD495, which fulfilled the "vision" and/or prophecy of St. Bryce, as well as the instructions given by Pope Gelasius in his "Epistle to The Britons" to let God decide, which he sent to the Britons in response to a letter the Britons [gathered in a national convention during a vacancy of the throne] had wrote and sent to him by an embassy asking him [the pope] to make them a king. The episode was determined a miracle by the British people, and, interpreted as a sign that God had chosen the young lad [Arthur] to be the king giving him and his successors, the British royal-line, a divine commission to produce the shepherds [kings] for His [God’s] flock [sheep] in the British Isles and its overseas colonies, which once included America until the 1776 rebellion. This commission is still valid and will remain so until the "Second Coming" of Jesus, The "Christ", that is, when "Messiah" establishes the direct rule of God in person on earth incarnate in Jesus, the future "world-king", who forever lives, and whose "kingdom" will be an eternal absolute monarchy and theocratic state, and the human experiment of "democracy" will prove a failure and disappear forever from the experience of the human race. Meantime, the British royal-line reigns "by the Grace of God", not "by the will of the people", representing God’s rule, not man’s rule, while America, rejecting the theocratic right of the Creator to choose the country's rulers, elects its own rulers, the presidents, whom govern by a "mandate from the people", which is a devilish concept from the Bible standpoint, for who can give one man the right to rule over another man, surely not a constitution written by a "congress" of men, nor laws enacted by a "congress" of men who have no authority to do so, for only God can give that right. Yea, people make presidents, however, God makes kings. It appears that man in his rebellion against God thinks he can exist apart from his Creator. Indeed, America, from 1776, has been a country in rebellion against its divinely ordained sovereign, remembering that the British royal-house descends from King Arthur [through the Tudors], and descends [through the Stuarts] from Christianity's "Holy Family", that is, the "Family of Jesus", the "Jesus Dynasty", or more precisely from St. James, one of the so- called "brothers" of Jesus. And, on some early royal genealogical charts The "Virgin" Mary appears as the ancestress of the British Royal House (2nd-6th Cent. AD), via Saint James, one of the so-called "brothers" of Jesus! The 1776 Rebellion was not only against the Royal Family but also against their ancestors, the Holy Family. How can a Christian people rebel against the descendants of Christianity's Holy Family? The Hollywood movie "1776", unsatisfactorily explains the reasons for breaking-ties with the mother-country though entertaining. The phrase [in the 1776 "Independence Declaration"] "the inalienable rights the Creator gave to man", that is, "human-rights", is a very appealing idea, however, the truth of the matter is the whole idea of "human rights" is a fantasy, for Jesus says "we are not our own, for we are bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19b-20a), that is, His "Sacrifice", hence, we "the people" actually have no rights. And, even if King George The Third was an ungodly king, though for the 1776 generation in America to question his authority was in essence to question God’s purpose. He had a "mandate" from the Creator, called "divine-right", therefore, the 1776 generation of American colonists should have obeyed him in all things! Is it possible to convince reasonable people that authority based on a fantasy has any right to exist, much less one to govern? In the first national convention the 1776 generation of America severed its allegiance to the British Crown. That convention initially wanted to crown George Washington as "King of America"; and, when he refused the office, it was offered to the British Jacobite Heir, "Bonnie Prince Charlie", who was invited to establish a rival royal court in America, then, only after he declined the offer that the convention adopted a republic as this country’s form of government under the "Articles of Confederation", which provided for a confederate
...
and the charges against George III contained in the Declaration of American Independence. At the time, a member of this NG pointed out that plagiarism was a common practice in 1776, and it did not carry today's stigma.
: LOYALISTS &/OR PATRIOTS: : the "4th of July", 1776, "declaration": a Bible perspective : The 1776 Rebellion of thirteen British colonies in North America, : called the American Revolutionary War, may be equated with the Bible : story of "Jehoboam's Rebellion" [representing the rebellious American : colonists in this analogy] against King Solomon?s son Rehoboam : [representing King George III of Britain in this analogy], which split- : up the Hebrew kingdom [representing Britain, the "mother-country", or : the worldwide British Empire in this analogy], hence, from the Bible : point of view, the American "patriots" were the "bad guys", and the : American "loyalists" were the "good guys", which is a valid : alternative concept of a way of looking at the "4th of July", 1776, : "Declaration of Independence". : Every year on the 4th of July America celebrates the 1776 Rebellion : against the British Crown. The editorials which appear in this : country?s newspapers on that date every year must bewilder all : American loyalists how the so-called American patriots were so : thoroughly blinded by the deceptive propaganda Satan disseminates. : Instead, the "4th of July" should be a celebration of a reconciliation : with the British Crown to right the wrong done by the unruly, godless : 1776 generation of American colonists. : Why should we give allegiance to the U.S. government which was : created out of a revolution? For, from the Bible we know that the Arch- : Angel Lucifer led the first rebellion, and has been the instigator of : all rebellions since, including the three rebellions against the : British Crown: the 1642-1649 Rebellion, the 1688-1689 Rebellion, and : the 1776-1783 Rebellion. It is a fitting question to consider; due to : the seriousness of the question. : The "Consent Theory", which America's so-called "founding fathers" : used to justify their rebellion, says that everyone consented to abide : by the U.S. Constitution that created the present government that sits : today in Washington, D.C., which provided for a democratic state. : Though it was not meant to be, but democracy has turned out to be the : tyranny of the majority over minorities. The whole concept of : democracy is the devil's doctrine, and may very well prove to be : Satan's great "end time" lie. The present government that sits today : in Washington, D.C. tells us that we today, that is, our contemporary : generation, are bound to the acts, decisions, and works of a godless : generation of American colonists who rebelled against their sovereign- : lord King George III, the "Lord's Anointed" (so-called); however, how : does each new generation grant its consent to be governed by the laws : of a state they did not create? The basis of the "Consent Theory" is : that everyone is free and therefore must individually grant his or her : consent to be governed, or otherwise remain an "outlaw", i.e., : "outside the community's protection", which has been the case ever : since Adam ate the apple. The story is well-known that God had told : Adam and Eve that they could do anything they wanted to do in the : "Garden of Eden" except one thing, to eat of the fruit of the "Tree of : the Knowledge of Good and Evil". As long as they refrained from doing : so, the "Supreme-Being", God, as the creator of all things, was their : master, but, when Adam and Eve disobeyed and did "that one thing" they : made themselves their own masters. For the essence of their sin was : the transference of the control of their lives from God to themselves. : Here, the human-race expressed its autonomy and independence of God?s : rule. Here, is the origin of "democracy" and "human rights"! Here, the : "divine monarchy" of God on earth was replaced by a "republic" or : "government of the people". The climax of man?s rejection of God?s : rule, doubtless, was when Pilate presented Jesus to "the people" as : their king, to which "the people" [i.e., first century Jews] : responded, saying: "we will not have this man to reign over us" (Lk : 19:14b), which reminds one of the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) : which says of America?s king [George III]: "we will not have this man : to reign over us" [paraphrase]. Now, can anyone see a correlation : here when you compare that phrase in the "Declaration of Independence" : to the verse in the Bible that has the same words? Well, do not : dismiss it out of mind but consider its ramifications morally, : religiously, and legally. : To be sure, the future government of Messiah on Earth, and Heaven : too, is a "monarchy", not a "republic"! In the Bible there is : reference to the Throne of God which indicates that in Heaven there is : a situation of absolute monarchy; can we extend this to a suggestion : that earth should mirror Heaven constitutionally? Heaven may be an : absolute monarchy, but, due to the fact that ever since Adam ate the : apple the human-race has been in a fallen state, thus, the : corruptibility of human individuals. This would not be a realistic : option for good governance, hence the checks and balances referred to : in the Bible that God put on the ancient Hebrew kings, which also : applies to the modern British monarchs. The republic which replaced : royal-government in America has a mandate "from the people", which : validity is questionable and open to debate, however, the monarchy the : 1776 generation of American colonists renounced its allegiance to, the : British Monarchy, has a "divine" mandate from God to rule, as : illustrated in its "origin-story", that is, the story of "The Sword In : The Stone", when a 15-year old squire, named Arthur, pulled the sword : "Excalibur" from "Vulcan?s Anvil", in AD495, which fulfilled the : "vision" and/or prophecy of St. Bryce, as well as the instructions : given by Pope Gelasius in his "Epistle to The Britons" to let God : decide, which he sent to the Britons in response to a letter the : Britons [gathered in a national convention during a vacancy of the : throne] had wrote and sent to him by an embassy asking him [the pope] : to make them a king. The episode was determined a miracle by the : British people, and, interpreted as a sign that God had chosen the : young lad [Arthur] to be the king giving him and his successors, the : British royal-line, a divine commission to produce the shepherds : [kings] for His [God?s] flock [sheep] in the British Isles and its : overseas colonies, which once included America until the 1776 : rebellion. This commission is still valid and will remain so until the : "Second Coming" of Jesus, The "Christ", that is, when "Messiah" : establishes the direct rule of God in person on earth incarnate in : Jesus, the future "world-king", who forever lives, and whose "kingdom" : will be an eternal absolute monarchy and theocratic state, and the : human experiment of "democracy" will prove a failure and disappear : forever from the experience of the human race. Meantime, the British : royal-line reigns "by the Grace of God", not "by the will of the : people", representing God?s rule, not man?s rule, while America, : rejecting the theocratic right of the Creator to choose the country's : rulers, elects its own rulers, the presidents, whom govern by a : "mandate from the people", which is a devilish concept from the Bible : standpoint, for who can give one man the right to rule over another : man, surely not a constitution written by a "congress" of men, nor : laws enacted by a "congress" of men who have no authority to do so, : for only God can give that right. Yea, people make presidents, : however, God makes kings. It appears that man in his rebellion against : God thinks he can exist apart from his Creator. Indeed, America, from : 1776, has been a country in rebellion against its divinely ordained : sovereign, remembering that the British royal-house descends from King : Arthur [through the Tudors], and descends [through the Stuarts] from : Christianity's "Holy Family", that is, the "Family of Jesus", the : "Jesus Dynasty", or more precisely from St. James, one of the so- : called "brothers" of Jesus. And, on some early royal genealogical : charts The "Virgin" Mary appears as the ancestress of the British : Royal House (2nd-6th Cent. AD), via Saint James, one of the so-called : "brothers" of Jesus! The 1776 Rebellion was not only against the Royal : Family but also against their ancestors, the Holy Family. How can a : Christian people rebel against the descendants of Christianity's Holy : Family? The Hollywood movie "1776", unsatisfactorily explains the : reasons for breaking-ties with the mother-country though : entertaining. : The phrase [in the 1776 "Independence Declaration"] "the inalienable : rights the Creator gave to man", that is, "human-rights", is a very : appealing idea, however, the truth of the matter is the whole idea of : "human rights" is a fantasy, for Jesus says "we are not our own, for : we are bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19b-20a), that is, His : "Sacrifice", hence, we "the people" actually have no rights. And, even : if King George The Third was an ungodly king, though for the 1776 : generation in America to question his authority was in essence to : question God?s purpose. He had a "mandate" from the Creator, called : "divine-right", therefore, the 1776 generation of American colonists : should have obeyed him in all things! : Is it possible to convince reasonable people that authority based on : a fantasy has any right to exist, much less one to govern? In the : first national convention the 1776 generation of America severed its : allegiance to the British Crown. That convention initially wanted to : crown George Washington as "King of America"; and, when he refused the : office, it was offered to the British Jacobite Heir, "Bonnie Prince : Charlie", who was invited to establish a rival royal court in America, :
...
> : LOYALISTS &/OR PATRIOTS: > : the "4th of July", 1776, "declaration": a Bible perspective > : The 1776 Rebellion of thirteen British colonies in North America, > : called the American Revolutionary War, may be equated with the Bible > : story of "Jehoboam's Rebellion" [representing the rebellious American > : colonists in this analogy] against King Solomon?s son Rehoboam > : [representing King George III of Britain in this analogy], which split- > : up the Hebrew kingdom [representing Britain, the "mother-country", or > : the worldwide British Empire in this analogy], hence, from the Bible > : point of view, the American "patriots" were the "bad guys", and the > : American "loyalists" were the "good guys", which is a valid > : alternative concept of a way of looking at the "4th of July", 1776, > : "Declaration of Independence". > : Every year on the 4th of July America celebrates the 1776 Rebellion > : against the British Crown. The editorials which appear in this > : country?s newspapers on that date every year must bewilder all > : American loyalists how the so-called American patriots were so > : thoroughly blinded by the deceptive propaganda Satan disseminates. > : Instead, the "4th of July" should be a celebration of a reconciliation > : with the British Crown to right the wrong done by the unruly, godless > : 1776 generation of American colonists. > : Why should we give allegiance to the U.S. government which was > : created out of a revolution? For, from the Bible we know that the Arch- > : Angel Lucifer led the first rebellion, and has been the instigator of > : all rebellions since, including the three rebellions against the > : British Crown: the 1642-1649 Rebellion, the 1688-1689 Rebellion, and > : the 1776-1783 Rebellion. It is a fitting question to consider; due to > : the seriousness of the question. > : The "Consent Theory", which America's so-called "founding fathers" > : used to justify their rebellion, says that everyone consented to abide > : by the U.S. Constitution that created the present government that sits > : today in Washington, D.C., which provided for a democratic state. > : Though it was not meant to be, but democracy has turned out to be the > : tyranny of the majority over minorities. The whole concept of > : democracy is the devil's doctrine, and may very well prove to be > : Satan's great "end time" lie. The present government that sits today > : in Washington, D.C. tells us that we today, that is, our contemporary > : generation, are bound to the acts, decisions, and works of a godless > : generation of American colonists who rebelled against their sovereign- > : lord King George III, the "Lord's Anointed" (so-called); however, how > : does each new generation grant its consent to be governed by the laws > : of a state they did not create? The basis of the "Consent Theory" is > : that everyone is free and therefore must individually grant his or her > : consent to be governed, or otherwise remain an "outlaw", i.e., > : "outside the community's protection", which has been the case ever > : since Adam ate the apple. The story is well-known that God had told > : Adam and Eve that they could do anything they wanted to do in the > : "Garden of Eden" except one thing, to eat of the fruit of the "Tree of > : the Knowledge of Good and Evil". As long as they refrained from doing > : so, the "Supreme-Being", God, as the creator of all things, was their > : master, but, when Adam and Eve disobeyed and did "that one thing" they > : made themselves their own masters. For the essence of their sin was > : the transference of the control of their lives from God to themselves. > : Here, the human-race expressed its autonomy and independence of God?s > : rule. Here, is the origin of "democracy" and "human rights"! Here, the > : "divine monarchy" of God on earth was replaced by a "republic" or > : "government of the people". The climax of man?s rejection of God?s > : rule, doubtless, was when Pilate presented Jesus to "the people" as > : their king, to which "the people" [i.e., first century Jews] > : responded, saying: "we will not have this man to reign over us" (Lk > : 19:14b), which reminds one of the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) > : which says of America?s king [George III]: "we will not have this man > : to reign over us" [paraphrase]. Now, can anyone see a correlation > : here when you compare that phrase in the "Declaration of Independence" > : to the verse in the Bible that has the same words? Well, do not > : dismiss it out of mind but consider its ramifications morally, > : religiously, and legally. > : To be sure, the future government of Messiah on Earth, and Heaven > : too, is a "monarchy", not a "republic"! In the Bible there is > : reference to the Throne of God which indicates that in Heaven there is > : a situation of absolute monarchy; can we extend this to a suggestion > : that earth should mirror Heaven constitutionally? Heaven may be an > : absolute monarchy, but, due to the fact that ever since Adam ate the > : apple the human-race has been in a fallen state, thus, the > : corruptibility of human individuals. This would not be a realistic > : option for good governance, hence the checks and balances referred to > : in the Bible that God put on the ancient Hebrew kings, which also > : applies to the modern British monarchs. The republic which replaced > : royal-government in America has a mandate "from the people", which > : validity is questionable and open to debate, however, the monarchy the > : 1776 generation of American colonists renounced its allegiance to, the > : British Monarchy, has a "divine" mandate from God to rule, as > : illustrated in its "origin-story", that is, the story of "The Sword In > : The Stone", when a 15-year old squire, named Arthur, pulled the sword > : "Excalibur" from "Vulcan?s Anvil", in AD495, which fulfilled the > : "vision" and/or prophecy of St. Bryce, as well as the instructions > : given by Pope Gelasius in his "Epistle to The Britons" to let God > : decide, which he sent to the Britons in response to a letter the > : Britons [gathered in a national convention during a vacancy of the > : throne] had wrote and sent to him by an embassy asking him [the pope] > : to make them a king. The episode was determined a miracle by the > : British people, and, interpreted as a sign that God had chosen the > : young lad [Arthur] to be the king giving him and his successors, the > : British royal-line, a divine commission to produce the shepherds > : [kings] for His [God?s] flock [sheep] in the British Isles and its > : overseas colonies, which once included America until the 1776 > : rebellion. This commission is still valid and will remain so until the > : "Second Coming" of Jesus, The "Christ", that is, when "Messiah" > : establishes the direct rule of God in person on earth incarnate in > : Jesus, the future "world-king", who forever lives, and whose "kingdom" > : will be an eternal absolute monarchy and theocratic state, and the > : human experiment of "democracy" will prove a failure and disappear > : forever from the experience of the human race. Meantime, the British > : royal-line reigns "by the Grace of God", not "by the will of the > : people", representing God?s rule, not man?s rule, while America, > : rejecting the theocratic right of the Creator to choose the country's > : rulers, elects its own rulers, the presidents, whom govern by a > : "mandate from the people", which is a devilish concept from the Bible > : standpoint, for who can give one man the right to rule over another > : man, surely not a constitution written by a "congress" of men, nor > : laws enacted by a "congress" of men who have no authority to do so, > : for only God can give that right. Yea, people make presidents, > : however, God makes kings. It appears that man in his rebellion against > : God thinks he can exist apart from his Creator. Indeed, America, from > : 1776, has been a country in rebellion against its divinely ordained > : sovereign, remembering that the British royal-house descends from King > : Arthur [through the Tudors], and descends [through the Stuarts] from > : Christianity's "Holy Family", that is, the "Family of Jesus", the > : "Jesus Dynasty", or more precisely from St. James, one of the so- > : called "brothers" of Jesus. And, on some early royal genealogical > : charts The "Virgin" Mary appears as the ancestress of the British > : Royal House (2nd-6th Cent. AD), via Saint James, one of the so-called > : "brothers" of Jesus! The 1776 Rebellion was not only against the Royal > : Family but also against their ancestors, the Holy Family. How can a > : Christian people rebel against the descendants of Christianity's Holy > : Family? The Hollywood movie "1776", unsatisfactorily explains the > : reasons for breaking-ties with the mother-country though > : entertaining. > : The phrase [in the 1776 "Independence Declaration"] "the inalienable > : rights the Creator gave to man", that is, "human-rights", is a very > : appealing idea, however, the truth of the matter is the whole idea of > : "human rights" is a fantasy, for Jesus says "we are not our own, for > : we are bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19b-20a), that is, His > : "Sacrifice", hence, we "the people" actually have no rights. And, even > : if King George The Third was an ungodly king, though for the 1776 > : generation in America to question his authority was in essence to > : question God?s purpose. He had a "mandate" from the Creator, called > : "divine-right", therefore, the 1776 generation of American colonists > : should have obeyed him in all things! > : Is it possible to convince reasonable people that authority based on > : a fantasy has any right to exist, much less one to govern? In the > : first
Brutus: Vindiciae, contra tyrannos: or, Concerning the Legitimate Power of a Prince over the People, and of the People over a Prince (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) (Hardcover) by Stephanius Jurius Brutus (Author), George Garnett (Editor)
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful: The Right of Revolution Vindicated..., April 29, 2002 By Ryan Setliff "InternetPundit.com" (VA, USA)
~Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos~ is best translated to "A Vindication of Opposition to Tyrants." It was written in response to French monarchy's slaughter of Fre
