> : 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, > : ...
