Let's get out Occam's razor, dust it off, sharpen it up and do some shaving away of the BS to find some truth. Uncle (aka the "Government") is telling everyone that martial law is a good thing. He has even used the clergy to "teach" the masses this by peddling the idea about how good martial law is. It rates right up there with all the other wonderful ideas like building homes on sand, or building a home on stilts upon a steep hill in an earthquake zone.

 

But beware all ye ignorant heathen! According to Uncle the Lord has spoken and given all the righteous power to government! According to Uncle, this is all made perfectly clear within the first few verses of Romans 13. Read it and weep, for behold you day of deliverance is nigh! (Please pardon my sarcasm here, I cannot contain it):

 

Here is the source of Uncle's power, within the first few verses of Romans 13 straight from the Bible [1]:

 

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Where ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

 

WHAT? You didn't see divine government authority mentioned? Was the verse discussing ministers and not government? Didn't it make sense to you? Are you saying that in the above King James' passage there is no mention of divine man-made government authority? (In fact, it is clearly more of a warning to the congregation to obey God, His commandments and the ministers of the day.)

 

So where does Uncle get his divine right to martial law? Let's look at the super-twisted "New International Version" Romans 13  [2] (which clearly perverts the Bible's message into one of blindly obeying the new world order.) Maybe we can find Uncle's God-given rights here:

 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

Translation? Get down on your knees! This goes on for several more verses, but you get the idea. So here it is! It clearly appears that this "New International Version" is the tool being used to twist the arms of today's clergy. And like endless cattle filing into a slaughterhouse everyday around the clock, the clergy will obey and do exactly what they are told. (They will take the chip implant or mark, and convince themselves it isn't the mark of the beast, too. Just wait and see.)

 

In the new Romans 13:1 above we clearly see the perversion where clergy are referred to as "governing authorities." That phrase was never used in the original scripture.

 

Did you also notice that the NEW version of Romans 13 does not specify WHICH government is of God? Instead it claims ALL governments must be of God. It does not indicate that we are allowed to decide which governments are and are not of God. Wait - what's that noise ­ do I hear a howling coming from my computer, coming from you? Thou must not howl, for all is well here in the home of the slave and the land of the free. Our self-appointed dictator is reminding clergy everywhere that Romans is saying that HE is righteous.

 

But of course, I'm all wrong here. Clearly those in the former Soviet Union just didn't understand the "divinity" of Stalin, Lenin, etc These mass murders were not purges, but simply the government doing the Lord's work!

 

And then there is the dictatorship of Cuba which began with yet another revolution. Now we can understand that Castro is a servant of God, for the Bible has declared it so!

 

There were the Salem witch trials, too. We now know this wasn't hysteria, but simply the hand of God who tortured and hanged completely innocent men and women. You understand that these killings were all for the common good, right?

 

And we must not forget the failed house painter turned Austrian corporal, who catapulted himself to be leader of Germany. His killings, torture and genocide were nothing more than the hand of God. The new version of Romans 13 has told us this must be so.

 

Of course, there is Iraq. All that bloodshed must be a good thing, for the perverted version of Romans 13 has told us so.

 

We could go on for pages about all the wonderful loving governments in world history, including the proud new dictator's track record and his place in the world's long line of self-appointed governments. He's well known by staff to be waving the Bible in one hand, while seething with hatred from his pie-hole.

 

But the new dictator should also take notice of Romans 2­ which states that everyone shall be judged according to their deeds.

 

I hope that this message will be passed on to clergy who have and have not yet been brainwashed by one of Uncle's agents, or will be soon. It's time they realized that the beast is already here, and they should NOT roll up their sleeves for the chip.

 

All that clergy need do in Uncle's martial law brainwashing meeting is to hold up a copy of the King James Version, and ask the lecturer WHERE it clearly states martial law is good and of "divine origin." Oh, to be a fly on the wall!

 

Be sure to watch this 2 minute KSLA television station report- pay close attention to the bug-eyed man proclaiming Biblical support of martial law in ROMANS 13.

 

Here he is clearly quoting the twisted version of it: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDle-SWsyio

 

Ted Twietmeyer

www.data4science.net

 

[1] King James Bible

[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013

Comment
Alton Raines
altonraines@minister.com
9-7-07

Ted, your heart is in the right place, but your head isn't. Paul WAS speaking of worldly governing authorities (the state), specifically, and not clergy. No clergy at any time in Paul's life bore the sword to avenge, and certainly no Christian "authority" executed such powers. Paul didn't live to see the rise of the hideous Roman Catholic merger of church/state. Paul preached within the parenthesis of God's law -- always. He expects the reader to understand this, as he is writing to the believers. This same Paul was beheaded, unjustly, by "governing powers" which acted unjustly.

If the governing authority is evil, it no longer seeks the good of the citizenry, it's a given that it is then evil and to be resisted, in order for one to be obedient to God's HIGHER law. But in general, the governing authority is for the good, dispensing justice. Even the most brutal regime has had a basic system of government which sought to justly rule over the people, aberrations to this not withstanding..

Many simply can't understand Paul, because he thinks on several planes at once and was not self-censoring very often. This is why Peter said Paul's writings were "hard" and many had misused them to their own destruction. Paul was also quite capable of being wrong, and was at times. In infallibility of Paul/Epistles is as erroneous and nutty as the infallibility of the Roman Papacy. It's caused nothing but trouble. Here he is more misunderstood, than wrong.

Paul gave the slip to the "authorities" many times, escaping from prison, once with the help of angelic beings. You've got a point about the newer translation going overboard, but it is not as you suggest, a completely different interpretation. KJV is speaking of the same wordly ruling powers and not of the church/clergy, which did not then 'rule' over anyone. Neither did anyone pay 'tribute' to the church. Tithes and offerings are not 'tribute.' God and His government is superior to the government of men, and God will execute judgment upon those who are in positions of rulership over men, if they are unrighteous.

Paul's point (and likely the catalyst of his comment): Just because someone in a God ordained position of power over you is unjust, doesn't give you the right to be unjust also. This was the very teaching of Jesus, to be in subjection to authority -- but clearly, only authority which is righteously executing the law and not usurping divine law. Jesus opposed and defied unrighteous authority, directly. Though he never opposed the Roman government, which would have been an act of sheer stupidity, he did oppose the governing authority of the San Hedrin of his own people. As they are just, so you should be just -- if you do good, you have nothing to fear. If you do evil, fear. It should be glaringly obvious that the same rules apply to governing authorities from the divine authorities over THEM, which is God's own justice and righteousness, which grants them the power in the first place. They are stewards of the power, and If they abuse it, surely they will be dealt with. Just as we all will. Every deed shall be brought into judgment.

Paul out of context can be like a chainsaw turned loose in a pen of baby chicks!

Reply From Ted

Alton:

Thank you for your comments. Like most people, I take things literally as they are written in the Bible. That is the only way to do it. Not out of context, but simply going by what it states. As you already know, what Paul wrote in other chapters of Romans was a collection of various Christian topics. The most important issue here is that the clergy everywhere are being taught the New International Version of this passage, and Romans 13 is specifically referred to. It clearly shows the need for a connection of government to divine power. Even in Paul's time, he must have known that governments were corrupt and surely wouldn't equate them with a divine origin. Corruption in government has been around since the beginning of time.

When reading the KJV of the Bible, it's well advised for people to remember that it isn't the exact and complete Word of God, but only what Bacon decided should be included. This is an historical fact which upsets many people. I didn't really want to get into this in the article, but Bacon did have a significant impact on what the Bible says today. And if we look into who Bacon actually was, we find it's not a pretty picture. He was a criminal in his time who was charged with multiple felonies. I wrote all about Bacon in another essay here on rense.com. In reasonably accurate versions of the KJV Bible, we find numerous verses with words in italics. Most people don't realize that these words were added, possibly by Bacon himself, to "make it more readable." However, re-reading many of the verses omitting words in italics can completely change the meaning of the verse. The question is then raised - which version of a verse has the correct meaning? Who can answer it?

As one of many, I would like to see all the other 45+ missing Books of the Bible which the current version of the KJV references, but are not found anywhere. I've heard people say that "If we were supposed to have them, we would." Sure we would. I was at a funeral about 20 years ago of a young man who was killed while walking to work in a small town with no real crime. He was beaten to death by a baseball bat in the hands of a thug on a side street. At the funeral, it was stated that the way he said goodbye to his family before he began walking to work was interpreted as though he knew he would be killed. Someone at the funeral home made the comment, "It was his time to die," implying it was God's will. Was it God's will his life was to be cut short by about 70 years? Or was God warning the boy NOT to go? Was it God's will that the boy was not supposed to listen to God? This can become quite complex in no time at all. Another way to look at it is more logical - that a thug with evil intent cut the boy's life short. Period. It would be VERY hard to believe that it was "God's will" for the boy to die that day. Is it also "God's will" when innocent people die a sensless war? No, it's the will of those who issue the orders, pull the triggers and push the buttons that make it happen.

If we are to build upon the idea the boy was supposed to be killed that day, then everything government does will be of "divine origin." And the New International Version of the Bible is also the word of God. The question now remains - WHICH god is it?

Ted Twietmeyer

Response
Alton Raines

Though I would agree wholeheartedly that the misapplication of this scripture by government to bring clergy into subjection toward martial law, or any other attempt at control, is despicable and certainly 'corrupt' -- I don't think we should try to change what the scripture says or means simply because of the danger of a possible outcome. That has been the method of watering down and distorting the Word for ages from both extremes. People perpetually wrangle scripture to mean what they want it to mean, both from orthodoxy and from faithlessness. Or they adopt highly polluted concepts about the origins or veracity of scripture, ignoring centuries of exceptional scholarship for a new, keen idea that will render the Word ineffective, uninspired and suspect. I'm surprised Southern Baptists haven't issued their own translation where the word 'wine' is rendered 'grape juice.' Some just prefer to explain away what they cannot accept as the truth.

But the cold hard reality is, God has indeed ordained corrupt human governments in teh service of civilization. It's all we have. Ordained does not mean approved, it merely means authorized. That authority can be taken away by God as well. We've seen empires rise and empires fall. The level and extent of the corruption varies from minor to horrendous, but each and all will be brought into judgment. Just as God ordains marriage between two absolutely fallible human beings (we are all corrupt at heart), it's the material God is presently working with until that day that Christ rules in perfect righteousness. And even then, corruption will still be present, until the new heaven and new earth "wherein only righteousness dwells."

Romans 13 is merely a warning to evil-doers who might otherwise misconstrue scripture to authorize anarchistic lawlessness among believers. God has not called the believer to revolt, but to be the preserving salt of the earth. The first century church did not involve itself in aspects of the world such as politics; no Christian of that time fought in any wars, and there were many Roman converts who gave up the sword and joined the congregation of Christ in self-sacrifice to the brutal authority imposed by several insane Roman leaders. They did not resist evil, as Jesus commanded. They did not count the sufferings of life worth anything compared to the glory which awaited them in the life to come. The original precepts and practices of the first century church are long gone, one would be very hard pressed to find any church, anywhere in the world that lives today as they did then, with the exception of a few small congregations and individuals in places where Christian persecution continues unabated, such as China. For the most part, Christianity has settled into the world, found its religious niche, and is quite comfortable teaching pablum and a worldly Gospel.

The boy in your analogy -- why is it hard to believe that it was God's will that he suffer and die? That this was the fate God chose for him? The old bumper sticker "God Loves You And Has A Wonderful Plan For Your Life" is absolutely true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that in that plan there might not be ones seemingly untimely death, or suffering. "All things work for the good of them which are of faith," and that good might not be immediately recognizable in this sinful world.

Was it God's will that each of the Apostles suffer as they did and die the miserable deaths they did? Absolutely. Jesus taught that God knew the number of the hairs of a mans head, and knows every sparrow that falls to the ground. Nothing is outside of His absolute and complete control. Even forces of evil, which God can maneuver and shift to fit His plan, desire and will, just as he does good. In most cases, evil is merely the absence of good, just as cold is not a thing unto itself, it is the varying absence of heat, which IS a thing unto itself. The God of the Bible is the Prime Mover, the conscious and direct creator and manipulator of everything, both seen and unseen. "As heaven is higher than the earth, so are my ways and thoughts higher than your ways and thoughts," says the Lord God, who causes his sun to shine on both the just and the unjust.

One time the disciples asked Jesus, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered them, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." And Jesus healed the blind man. Too often we think we can know the mind of God, understand his will, but while we are in corruptible flesh, we can only hope to be granted God's peace, which brings patience, to endure, that we might see the completion of this redemptive work He is performing in the world of sin. Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. God is at work in every level of it. Thus, we must have faith and abide in Him. Especially when things baffle us completely. As Paul said, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Comment
RKG
9-8-07

By using Romans 13 to defend martial law, the government is committing a logical fallacy.

 

1st, unquestioning obedience to authority is what was formerly called the "divine right of kings," which meant that the king could do anything he wanted, since he received his authority directly from God. The Founding Fathers rejected this idea, replacing it with the belief that human rights, which come from God, are superior to government authority. Therefore, the people have the right to change or abolish the government if it doesn't uphold their basic human rights (this is expressed quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence).

 

2nd, if the government is correct in maintaining that we have no right to oppose it, then that means that the Founding Fathers had no right to declare their independence from Britain; by opposing the British government, they were in fact opposing God.

 

3rd, if the Founding Fathers were wrong, then the United States government has no right to exist, since it is contrary to the will of God as expressed through the King (the war of 1812 demonstates this).

 

Thus, by using Romans 13 to defend martial law and suppress opposition, the government is in fact challenging its own existence!

 

Logic is not a criteria for public office.