The Police Officer

[reba]

I almost feel I need to apologize for a little disagreement there, Reba?

Nope no need to apologize we all have a right to our opinions.. Seeing things in different ways is a good thing..

 

[Kenny_ms]

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.

...the police power is not following God’s Law.

And the citizens ARE???

Bingo!

What did Jesus teach about the governments of men? Let us examine three parallel Gospel accounts. He himself explained:

Matthew 20:25, "...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. "

Mark 10:42, "...they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them."

Luke 22:25, "...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors."

By comparing these three parallel verses, Jesus stated the fact that the governing authorities (princes, rulers, kings, police) exercise authority over the Gentiles (those who do not believe in God). Note that the term "Gentiles" here cannot mean "Gentile Christians", because Jesus had not yet died to confirm the New Testament, and "Christianity" was not yet in existence. All the apostles were Jews, and Jesus commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were the enemy of Christ at this point (Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33, Luke 18:32). The Gospel was not preached to the Gentiles until at least 10 years after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1,18; 13:42,46-48).

Notice what Jesus says next. Does he say that his people will have other men rule over them? Most definitely not!

Matthew 20:26, "But it shall not be so among you:"

Mark 10:43, "But so shall it not be among you:"

Luke 22:26, "But ye shall not be so:"

Jesus said we shall not have leaders exercise authority over us like they do over the gentiles. We shall not be subject to governing authorities unless those in "power" are servants of God and his people. Read what Jesus said after he told his disciples that earthly princes, rulers, and kings will not have authority over his chosen:

Matthew 20:26-27, "…but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:"

Mark 10:43-44, "…but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all."

Luke 22:26, "...but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."

As we see, Jesus does not want man to have authority over man! He commanded that whoever is the chiefest and greatest among men, will be the servant of all. Unlike human governments which make their chief ruler the dictator of all. Man was not created to rule other men, but was given dominion over the creatures of the earth. This is confirmed in the very first chapter of the Bible, when God created the earth. When our Father created the earth. When he first created man, he commanded, "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26,28). Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man.

Now, Jesus was not condemning all authority, as is clear from the fact that Jesus himself exercised authority over his disciples and others (Matthew 11:27; 23:10; 28:18, John 13:13), and expected his disciples to exercise authority as leaders of his congregation (Matthew 16:19; 18:17; 24:45-47; 25: 21,23, Luke 19:17,19). What sort of authority then was Jesus condemning in this passage? What difference was there between the authority of the gentile ruler and that of himself and his apostles? Surely this, that the latter rested on spiritual ascendancy and was exercised only over those who willingly submitted to it, whereas the former was exercised over all men indiscriminately whether they liked it or not, and for this reason involved the use of the sanctions of physical force and penalties -- witness the OP. There can be no doubt that it was this fact that caused Jesus to tell his disciples: "It is not so among you."

When an earthly government believes it is "god walking on the earth," it has no true dominion (authority) but only force, and has fallen from the Grace of Almighty God. Dominion and force are opposed to one another. Force is false power.

Matthew 23:10, "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

Remember, the reason Jesus Christ was crucified was because the governing "authorities" at that time were afraid that they were going to lose their "place and nation," their political power, if the people believed on Jesus (John 11:47-48).

Compromising with temporal powers can never lead to redemption. Most "Christians" have accepted the unrighteous code of the State, instead of insisting that the State follow the Laws of Almighty God.

It is important to understand that the purpose of God allowing "Caesar" (i.e. ungodly government) to be in power is to test and prove his children, to see if they will keep the Laws of God or the laws of the heathen (Judges 2:21; 3:4).
.

 

[Deborah13]

Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man.

Agreed.

Surely this, that the latter rested on spiritual ascendancy and was exercised only over those who willingly submitted to it, whereas the former was exercised over all men indiscriminately whether they liked it or not,

Agreed.

Compromising with temporal powers can never lead to redemption. Most "Christians" have accepted the unrighteous code of the State, instead of insisting that the State follow the Laws of Almighty God.

What is it when one 'Insists' that the State follows the Laws of the Almighty God? Is this the same as 'Insisting' that the laws are written for all people, Christian or not.
And what man can be trusted to interrupt the Laws of the Almighty God? Just as an example, Gothard's interruption is not the interruption of many other Godly men.

So somewhere I think, I must be misunderstanding you. Please explain, in the simplest terms you can, what is the difference between: man was not given Dominion over other men vs "Insisting" that the state take Dominion over other men, with God's Laws that have been interrupted, by other men.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

What is it when one 'Insists' that the State follows the Laws of the Almighty God? Is this the same as 'Insisting' that the laws are written for all people, Christian or not.

Our Lord taught us to resist evil when he said, "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). Resist evil and it will flee from you (James 4:7). We are not taught to overthrow the government, but to throw the wickedness out of government. We are to overthrow that which is ungodly and wicked by speaking the truth, and establish in its place that which is godly and holy. The only lawful government is that which governs according to God's word.

There is no command in the word of God to confess the State to the glory of the State:

Romans 14:11-12, "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee [*including governing authorities] shall bow to me [*not to ungodly men, i.e. politicians], and every tongue shall confess to God [*not to legislators, lawyers, and judges]. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God [*not to the State, or men working for an ungodly government]."

Philippians 2:9-11, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus [*not the President, Governor, or the State] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [*not the State, or men using the artifice of the State] is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him [*not for self-willed men]:"

Proverbs 17:15, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD."

Luke 17:21, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you [*not on a sheet of paper with man-made codes, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes]."

The 20th century is the most violent century in recorded human history. Most of the violence has been committed by "governments." Most of the violence committed by "governments" has been against innocent, non-combatant civilians. Most of the violence committed by "governments" against innocent, non-combatant civilians has been against "their own" citizens, not external "enemies." Man-made laws make criminals out of honest folks (Isaiah 5:20), and these same laws reward criminals today.

The true bondman of Christ know the State is not God and that it must be controlled by laws rigidly defined according to Scripture. Even the heathen knows that all the laws of the State must conform to God’s Law:

"Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." Sir William Blackstone

"God alone is the lawgiver of eternity". Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432.

"The law is from everlasting." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, ‘Maxim’, page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13).

And what man can be trusted to interrupt the Laws of the Almighty God? Just as an example, Gothard's interruption is not the interruption of many other Godly men.

Scripture tells us many times to trust no man. Indeed, we should not trust any man including ourselves. The Bible says, "Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom" (Micah 7:5). It also says "Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders" (Jeremiah 9:4), "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered" (Proverbs 28:26), "But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:9), "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's" (2 Corinthians 10:7), "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD" (Jeremiah 17:5), and finally, "Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit." (Jeremiah 7:8)

So somewhere I think, I must be misunderstanding you. Please explain, in the simplest terms you can, what is the difference between: man was not given Dominion over other men...

...that is scripture; that is truth.

...vs "Insisting" that the state take Dominion over other men, with God's Laws that have been interrupted, by other men.

You've uncovered it; and there’s the rub. Rather, the born again believer has NO GODLY WARRANT whatsoever to be a partaker of any thing of the godless State. Yet today, the vast majority has voluntarily signed on in spades for such Caesarian “benefits” programs, the attached duties thereof ultimately leading to bondages, death and destruction --witness the OP (and its latest manifestation, the “police state USA”.) THIS is the message that NO ONE wants to hear, that they might actually be required to DO something i.e. for starters, REPENT, then AVOID the unclean thing (stop striking hands/contracting with heathen), and COME OVER to the Lord where the burden is easy and the yoke is light.

 

[Deborah13]

(stop striking hands/contracting with heathen)

One cannot live in the US without entering into some type of contract with the state.
The minute one takes a job where taxes and social security are taken from your paycheck, you have entered into a contract with the state.
If you get a driver's license you have entered into a contract with the state.
In most states if you get married you have entered into a contract with the state.
You cannot give birth in a hospital without entering your child into a contract with the state. 2

 

[Obadiah]

...And what man can be trusted to interrupt the Laws of the Almighty God? Just as an example, Gothard's interruption is not the interruption of many other Godly men...

And therein lies a main point where his interpretation breaks down and becomes unworkable.

 

[jasonc]

one is under your pastors authority. if you are male and the head of the home you have those under your authority. you answer to god for what you teach/lead. the nco is to lead, mentor, make a man of of the soldiers under his command. this is still done albeit enter the female soldier in the equation. I cant do my job without my soldiers. they are there to obey my orders as we collectively must do a mission under the orders of our superiors. we utilmately answer to the officer giving the orders but I more so as I am delegating the responsibility to lead the men to complete the mission. if I treat them like crap they will return the favor. a good NCO directs, asks and leads from the front to show what is to be done. He doesn't bark and growl it to be done. sometimes I have to do that but that is rare.

 

[jasonc]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05...vely-police-as-city-falls-to-criminals-208035

 

[Northman]

And therein lies a main point where his interpretation breaks down and becomes unworkable.

Sounds to me sorta like the idea behind time of the judges.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Deborah13, you do not know how much I appreciate your forthright response. It is a breath of fresh air. You’re asking the right questions.

Not that the concerns you’ve raised are trivial, but they are indeed based on misinformation -- by intelligent design.

I will casually reply to your comments from the perspective of my own situation, while adding a few comments to clarify.

One cannot live in the US without entering into some type of contract with the state.

That is not correct. I am contract-free. I do not participate in commercial activity (i.e. profiteering; the profit motive); that is the key.

The minute one takes a job where taxes and social security are taken from your paycheck, you have entered into a contract with the state.

Absolutely. Yet, a workman is worthy of his wages. So I labour, and am recompensed, but I do not pay taxes because, again, I do not partake of commercial activity.

Conversely, under commercial law, all employee-employer relationships are considered 'master-servant' relationships. When one works for, or is employed by, an individual or company that gets its privilege to operate from the State through business licenses, incorporation, etc., that person becomes, as the company has become, subject to regulation, taxation, etc. through the master-servant doctrine (rendering unto Caesar). Social Security Numbers, Drivers Licenses, Insurance Policies and all of the other indicators of commercial activity are required and made a matter of record for commercial tracking purposes.

There is a subtle difference between 'engaging in commercial activity' and 'labouring as a workman". The most important thing to understand is that the term 'commercial activity' is a created term governed by the Law Merchant (lex mercatoria - google it). Using the customs and usage's from that law is what determines whether you are in 'their' activity or not. The use of such modes and commercial instruments as a business license, profit and loss records, balance sheets, advertising, receipts, business cards, insurance policies, social security numbers, drivers license, commercial speech, extended credit, limited liability, "free" mail service, ownership, etc. makes you subject to the Uniform Commercial Code (a private copyrighted 'law' by the American Law Institute).

Buying, selling, or trading is not necessarily 'commercial activity' or contrary to Scripture. How, and for what purpose you transact, determines whether or not it is considered a 'commercial activity' and contrary to the Law of God. Creating a record, such as the giving or receiving of a receipt, constitutes commercial activity.

Calling yourself 'the owner' (which is a commercial term) constitutes commercial activity, for God is 'The Owner' of everything (Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 44:24, 2 Corinthians 5:18). Charging or paying interest through extended credit for such transactions constitutes commercial activity through 'suretyship' and is contrary to Scripture (Proverbs 6:1-2; 11:15, Romans 13:8, 2 Kings 18:23,31). Advertising to the 'general public' (the secular world, atheists, and other infidels), to sell a product or your labor, constitutes commercial activity and is not favored in Scripture.

It simply has to do with venue and jurisdiction. Are you living the Law in accordance with the One True God of Scripture, or the god of Mercury (the god of commerce)? When operating within your community and with brethren, the use of receipts, records, advertising, profiteering for abundant gain, free government benefits, charging or paying interest, etc., is not necessary and therefore should not be used if you wish to remain non-commercial. All bondmen of Christ should be operating by word of mouth within their community and supporting one another (Romans 13:8).

If you get a driver's license you have entered into a contract with the state.

Indeed you have! So why would a man of God do such a thing?

Liberty is given to us by God (Galatians 5:1). Liberty is the freedom to go from one place to another without interference. Jesus Christ already set us at liberty (Luke 4:18, Romans 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:17), and there are already restrictions in the scripture for using our liberty (Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16).

As Paul says, "…why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" (1 Corinthians 10:29-30). Why does government, "…spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Galatians 2:4). "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (2 Peter 2:19).

A license requires us to...

- make an image, a picture,
- accept a number (mark) from the government (beast),
- lie about being a witness to our own birth,
- deny our lawfully spelled Christian name and accept a fictitiously spelled name in its place,
- commit idolatry by giving allegiance and preference to the laws of man above the Laws of our Creator;

...all of which provokes God to anger.

Who do you place as Lord over your life? Who do you look to for your authority for doing the things you do? What do you claim is your authority for marriage, preaching, fishing, having pets, working, or driving a car? If you have a license from the government to do these things, then you look to Caesar for your authority to do the things you do. If you rely solely upon the Scriptures to do these things, then you look to God for your authority to do the things you do. Either you believe, "I can do all things through the government which strengtheneth me", or you believe, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). You cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13).

In most states if you get married you have entered into a contract with the state.

...only if you look to Caesar for his permission, and he then “permit$” you. And that is why CPS can barge into your castle, hold you squirming on the floor at gunpoint, while they take away your children, under whatever pretext they wish. Also, if you look to Caesar for permission to do what God has said is Lawful, and you’re a newlywed, then Caesar will also presume ownership over the byproduct of your State-sanctioned union i.e. your as-yet unborn children!

I have facilitated marriages where no Caesarian license was sought, and they are every bit as valid as a State-sponsored marriage -- in fact, even more so.

Marriage was ordained by God (Genesis 2:23-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4). Speaking of marriage, Jesus himself said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). Yet, this is exactly what the men of government do today by saying marriage is illegal; they put asunder the institution of marriage! Remember, if anyone does anything today without a license from the government, it is an illegal act; and there's a strong possibility of getting penalized, fined and imprisoned. Marriage is no exception. Marriage is illegal!

If it is God’s Will to bring two souls together in Holy Matrimony, what right does mere man have to say two souls cannot get married, until they ask the government for permission?! Until they pay the government their hard earned money to get a license to exercise God’s Will? Does mere man have authority, at law, to interpose himself, or his purported law, between God’s Will, and to bring punishment on a servant of Christ for exercising God’s Law? Could it be evil to execute the Law of God? Could it?

You cannot give birth in a hospital without entering your child into a contract with the state.

True! So why are Caesar’s transnational drug corporations the method of choice for birthing God’s children these days? Why, O why, are not the wise mothers mentoring the younger wives?

I have three offspring, all home birthed, all home schooled, all “unpapered” (no birth cert’s, etc.). They are not citizens of any earthly nation; they are sovereign in Christ, true ambassadors, sojourning in a land they’re not even citizens of. Recently, we boarded an international flight without passports or ID’s, with my heavily pregnant wife without any doctor’s “excuse slip” (Caesar's liability waiver). She gave birth to our third child in my father-in-law’s hot tub ten days after we landed.

Sounds to me sorta like the idea behind time of the judges.

Northman, you’ve said a mouthful!

Yes, indeed. When men fail to perform their God-ordained roles, then God may raise up women to fill that void. The very thought makes me cringe -- not that women couldn’t do it, but that men wouldn’t.

 

[Kenny_ms]

I have facilitated marriages where no Caesarian license was sought, and they are every bit as valid as a State-sponsored marriage -- in fact, even more so.

Marriage was ordained by God (Genesis 2:23-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4). Speaking of marriage, Jesus himself said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). Yet, this is exactly what the men of government do today by saying marriage is illegal; they put asunder the institution of marriage! Remember, if anyone does anything today without a license from the government, it is an illegal act; and there's a strong possibility of getting penalized, fined and imprisoned. Marriage is no exception. Marriage is illegal!

First, how is marriage illegal? People do it all the time and don't go to jail.

And if you mange to answer that question, then especially If one can get married without a standard marriage license and that marriage is valid, how then can marriage be illegal?

True! So why are Caesar’s transnational drug corporations the method of choice for birthing God’s children these days?

Because it doesn't hurt so much?

Why are Caesar's food corporations the method of choice for eating these days? Because people like to eat.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

First, how is marriage illegal? People do it all the time and don't go to jail.

The majority are in submission to Caesar. Thus, as one of Caesar’s subjects, they must obey Caesar’s law and pay Caesar to obtain Caesar’s permission to marry (permit/license). In this example, complying with Caesar’s legal requirement does not appear to be grievous. However, as mentioned previously, Caesar will presume ownership of your children if you went to him in the first instance for permission to marry/procreate. Also, in many third would countries, the selling of marriage licenses is not automatic. Knowing that the global elite institute eugenics policies, as they do not want their perceived superior genetic bloodline to become tainted, they sometimes will prevent a couple from marrying/procreating simply by refusing to issue a marriage license.

If your allegiance is to Caesar, and you attempt to marry without his permission, then Caesar considers that an illegal act and punishable, unless you bribe/pay him, then he will “permit” you. (A permit is a permission to do something that would otherwise be considered illegal.)

However, if your allegiance is not to Caesar but to a different master, then Caesar has no jurisdiction over what you do.

And if you mange to answer that question, then especially If one can get married without a standard marriage license and that marriage is valid, how then can marriage be illegal?

The confusion here would be the result of conflating Lawful (God’s kingdom) with legal (Caesar’s kingdom).

Lawful: "The principle distinction between the terms 'lawful' and 'legal' is that the former [Lawful] contemplates the substance of law, the latter [legal] the form of law. To say of an act that it is 'lawful' implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is 'legal' implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense 'illegal' approaches the meaning of 'invalid.' For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word 'lawful' more clearly implies an ethical content than does 'legal.' The latter (legal) goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former (Lawful) usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition, 1957 & 1968), page 1032.

‘Lawful’ has to do with the substance of Law. ‘Legal’ has to do with the shadow (or form) of Law. Similar to how 'character' is distinguished from 'reputation' ('Character' representing what is lawful, 'reputation' representing what is legal).

Character: "Character consists of the qualities which constitute the individual, while reputation is the sum of opinions entertained concerning him. The former is interior; the latter external. The one is the substance; the other the shadow. Character is what a person is. Reputation is what people say of him." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary, (1948), page 138.

Character means something. Reputation means nothing; it's source is hearsay. What people say about you is worthless, because God doesn’t care what people say about you, he’s not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). Man sees the exterior, God sees the interior (1 Samuel 16:7, 2 Corinthians 10:7).

How will we know what is a 'lawful' word and what is a 'legal' word? How will we know which is the substance and which is the shadow? The giver of the Law will determine this. If the giver of the Law is God himself, then the words of that Law have substance, because they have their origin in Him who spoke all Substance into being. If the giver of the law is man, then the law has no substance, but is only an image, vapor, shadow, or form of law, because man really can never create law but only an image of the law, only a fiction in law, or as it is called in man's law, the "color of law."

...why are Caesar’s transnational drug corporations the method of choice for birthing God’s children...?

Because it doesn't hurt so much?

Many women would love to birth their child the way God intended for them. To have the mentoring and complete support, in their moment of need, of other Godly experienced women would be a dream come true. Sadly, the family unit itself is now an endangered species.

However, when one is not looking to the Lord's spirits of power, love and a sound mind (2 Tim.1:7) for the authority to do what they do (for whatever reasons), then reacting to the enemy's spirit of fear (e.g. the pain ploy) becomes the default position. We previously talked about how Satan uses trauma-based fear as a powerful form of mind control here.

Why are Caesar's food corporations the method of choice for eating these days? Because people like to eat.

People, if they knew better, would prefer not to eat junk.

 

[Deborah13]

Recently, we boarded an international flight without passports or ID’s

I don't know how you would have gotten that kind of clearance, but that's not something the average citizen would have been able to do, at least not on a commercial airlines.

 

[Obadiah]

...Recently, we boarded an international flight without passports or ID’s...

I don't know how you would have gotten that kind of clearance, but that's not something the average citizen would have been able to do, at least not on a commercial airlines.

Yeah, I'd like you to explain how you would pull that one off too. You simply can't walk through airport customs without the proper ID, passports, visas, etc just because you tell them you want to. The only way I can imagine you pulled that off in light of all the other things you have told us is that you took an illegal flight that took off and landed at clandestine airports. Is that what you did?

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.

I don't know how you would have gotten that kind of clearance, but that's not something the average citizen would have been able to do, at least not on a commercial airlines.

I am very “average, but I’m no “citizen” of any country on earth.

Let’s say you want to fly from New Zealand to USA Inc.

If you phone Air NZ and ask them what the requirements are to board that int’l flight, they will tell you that you need a passport (legal term; passport = passage of goods through a port i.e. a dead thing). If pressed, they will tell you that the Immigration Service (the strong arm of the bankers) will fine Air NZ $20,000 for every passenger (legal term) they allow on the plane without a passport. So fear is what motivates Air NZ to say what they would because, as you noted, it’s a commercial flight, and they’re a commercial operation.

However, what Air NZ did when you called them is to quote mere policy to you -- not the law. You are expected, like 99.9% of the sheeple, to simply suck it up and get in line like all the rest. What they don’t tell you is that the law says there are several other forms of “identification” that are just as acceptable. Those other forms, however, do not cause what is called “joinder,” that is, use of those other forms will not bring you into Caesar’s jurisdiction. Thus, Air NZ does not and will not advertise those other forms. You have to research that on your own.

So we did research it. When I came to the Lord, I asked the Lord to show me how Satan does it i.e. why is the majority hell bound? Obviously, no one would voluntarily sign on to a program that leads to destruction and death, so deception must necessarily be employed.

And the Lord began showing me the scams -- to this day. So I knew I could not get passports for my offspring, as this would be sin for me, selling off my offspring to Caesar’s jurisdiction

The real challenge comes in attempting to get someone in Caesar’s camp to actually stand for the law they would purport to enforce, to hold them accountable. Have you ever seen the movie,”The Wizard of Oz,” where, in the end, there’s nothing but an old man behind the curtain, pulling strings? As my wife phrases it, they play “Hide the Wizard.” What that means is, they protect their own; they do not like to be held accountable. Examples of Wizards would include politicians, law enforcers, bureaucrats, department heads -- anyone that actually has the authority to make a biding decision on your inquiry.

Recall when you phone a governmental agency for whatever reason. Typically, you get placed on hold forever. The perception is that they’re just a bunch of overpaid dim-witted bumbling bureaucrats. But that is the lie. That you would wait on the phone until you were disgusted, then hang up, is the intended plan. Back to that 99.9% of the sheeple who would eventually hang up out of frustration and jump back into line.

And so it is, bringing it back to the OP, that people sense a major disconnect with the current police power. Folks are up to their eyeballs in Caesarian bondage and don’t know whether to “obey all government, including the evil therein” (the lie) or to come out of the wicked thing and embrace God’s Law (the Truth).

Push is indeed coming to shove. And very soon.

Yeah, I'd like you to explain how you would pull that one off too. You simply can't walk through airport customs without the proper ID, passports, visas, etc just because you tell them you want to.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules, and regulations that ‘govern’ the areas of transportation apply only to natural persons, residents, corporations, and other fictitious entities. They do not apply to the servants of Christ. Notice that the traffic laws of a State only apply to those who are residents or travelers within that State, and not to foreigners, transients, or sojourners:

"The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws." 1 Bouvier’s Inst. of law (1851), page 38.

Notice that to ‘travel’ is synonymous with being a 'resident.'

"Within the meaning of ‘a right to travel’, means migration with intent to settle and abide." Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp. 1356, 1360.

"Nom de guerre - a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969); Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases, page 1202.

‘Traveling’ and ‘driving’ are purely commercial terms. Therefore, you should use the term "exercising my duty of movement on the Common Ways". As Scripture says, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). Only in this way can you bring God’s Law and your ambassadorship into a potential situation with the military police. Also notice that a Nom de guerre, a fictitious name, is a ‘traveling name’, meaning you are a ‘resident,’ and under the jurisdiction of the State.

And when you carry a license (which always has a fictitious name spelled in all capital letters on it), you are looked upon by these powers as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status, as a natural person, a resident, and not an ambassador and sojourner in Christ. The primary evidence of who and what you are is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the ‘road patrol’.

The police have the ability to use their discretion. If they feel that you are speaking the truth as to who and what you are (Matthew 12:37, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.") and are not a threat to the peace and safety of the public, they may respect those convictions and let you go. Or, they may take you to jail and impound your vessel, or they may not. It may appear to be a negative experience for one that decides to take this stand, but appearances can be deceptive. The important thing to remember is that it is for the Lord's sake; therefore:

Hebrews 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Ambassadors from other countries have full immunity from the laws of the country they're sojourning in; police have no jurisdiction to write ambassadors a ticket! And yes, we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20).

When I arrived on that int'l flight, my family and I walked through the Diplomat line -- because that's what a born again believer is in Christ.

When confronting police and other government employees, you should have the attitude to look upon them as a blessing, as well as an opportunity to witness to them. Answer all "law enforcement service providers" with the words of your Master, always and continually avoiding the general issue in Law. Speak slow, don't be quick to answer. Reflect the character of Christ.

Also, whenever any bondman of Christ goes anywhere, he should not go alone, but have another brother or sister with him (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, Matthew 11:2; 18:20; 21:1, Mark 6:7; 11:1; 14:13, Luke 7:19; 10:1; 19:29, John 1:35, 37, Acts 9:38). This not only meets the scriptural requirement of establishing every word in the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28), but it follows the examples of our Master sending out the apostles in pairs. Having another with you also gives you strength, because there is strength in numbers.

It is no sin to stand mute when questioned by government officials (Matthew 27:12-14, Mark 15:3-5). Silence cannot be misquoted. However, you are mandated to confess Christ to avoid the malicious plans of men (Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 10:9).

The only way I can imagine you pulled that off in light of all the other things you have told us is that you took an illegal flight that took off and landed at clandestine airports. Is that what you did?

ROFL! Hey, I won't say I never considered that option! But it is so much more exciting and rewarding to walk in the liberty of the Lord and his provision, than in the fear of the enemy.

We're to avoid, not evade, the things of the world.

Proverbs 4:14-15, "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away."
.

 

[Obadiah]

.

I am very “average, but I’m no “citizen” of any country on earth.

Let’s say you want to fly from New Zealand to USA Inc.

If you phone Air NZ and ask them what the requirements are to board that int’l flight, they will tell you that you need a passport (legal term; passport = passage of goods through a port i.e. a dead thing). If pressed, they will tell you that the Immigration Service (the strong arm of the bankers) will fine Air NZ $20,000 for every passenger (legal term) they allow on the plane without a passport. So fear is what motivates Air NZ to say what they would because, as you noted, it’s a commercial flight, and they’re a commercial operation.

However, what Air NZ did when you called them is to quote mere policy to you -- not the law. You are expected, like 99.9% of the sheeple, to simply suck it up and get in line like all the rest. What they don’t tell you is that the law says there are several other forms of “identification” that are just as acceptable. Those other forms, however, do not cause what is called “joinder,” that is, use of those other forms will not bring you into Caesar’s jurisdiction. Thus, Air NZ does not and will not advertise those other forms. You have to research that on your own.

So we did research it. When I came to the Lord, I asked the Lord to show me how Satan does it i.e. why is the majority hell bound? Obviously, no one would voluntarily sign on to a program that leads to destruction and death, so deception must necessarily be employed.

And the Lord began showing me the scams -- to this day. So I knew I could not get passports for my offspring, as this would be sin for me, selling off my offspring to Caesar’s jurisdiction

The real challenge comes in attempting to get someone in Caesar’s camp to actually stand for the law they would purport to enforce, to hold them accountable. Have you ever seen the movie,”The Wizard of Oz,” where, in the end, there’s nothing but an old man behind the curtain, pulling strings? As my wife phrases it, they play “Hide the Wizard.” What that means is, they protect their own; they do not like to be held accountable. Examples of Wizards would include politicians, law enforcers, bureaucrats, department heads -- anyone that actually has the authority to make a biding decision on your inquiry.

Recall when you phone a governmental agency for whatever reason. Typically, you get placed on hold forever. The perception is that they’re just a bunch of overpaid dim-witted bumbling bureaucrats. But that is the lie. That you would wait on the phone until you were disgusted, then hang up, is the intended plan. Back to that 99.9% of the sheeple who would eventually hang up out of frustration and jump back into line.

And so it is, bringing it back to the OP, that people sense a major disconnect with the current police power. Folks are up to their eyeballs in Caesarian bondage and don’t know whether to “obey all government, including the evil therein” (the lie) or to come out of the wicked thing and embrace God’s Law (the Truth).

Push is indeed coming to shove. And very soon.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules, and regulations that ‘govern’ the areas of transportation apply only to natural persons, residents, corporations, and other fictitious entities. They do not apply to the servants of Christ. Notice that the traffic laws of a State only apply to those who are residents or travelers within that State, and not to foreigners, transients, or sojourners:

"The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws." 1 Bouvier’s Inst. of law (1851), page 38.

Notice that to ‘travel’ is synonymous with being a 'resident.'

"Within the meaning of ‘a right to travel’, means migration with intent to settle and abide." Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp. 1356, 1360.

"Nom de guerre - a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969); Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases, page 1202.

‘Traveling’ and ‘driving’ are purely commercial terms. Therefore, you should use the term "exercising my duty of movement on the Common Ways". As Scripture says, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). Only in this way can you bring God’s Law and your ambassadorship into a potential situation with the military police. Also notice that a Nom de guerre, a fictitious name, is a ‘traveling name’, meaning you are a ‘resident,’ and under the jurisdiction of the State.

And when you carry a license (which always has a fictitious name spelled in all capital letters on it), you are looked upon by these powers as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status, as a natural person, a resident, and not an ambassador and sojourner in Christ. The primary evidence of who and what you are is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the ‘road patrol’.

The police have the ability to use their discretion. If they feel that you are speaking the truth as to who and what you are (Matthew 12:37, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.") and are not a threat to the peace and safety of the public, they may respect those convictions and let you go. Or, they may take you to jail and impound your vessel, or they may not. It may appear to be a negative experience for one that decides to take this stand, but appearances can be deceptive. The important thing to remember is that it is for the Lord's sake; therefore:

Hebrews 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Ambassadors from other countries have full immunity from the laws of the country they're sojourning in; police have no jurisdiction to write ambassadors a ticket! And yes, we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20).

When I arrived on that int'l flight, my family and I walked through the Diplomat line -- because that's what a born again believer is in Christ.

When confronting police and other government employees, you should have the attitude to look upon them as a blessing, as well as an opportunity to witness to them. Answer all "law enforcement service providers" with the words of your Master, always and continually avoiding the general issue in Law. Speak slow, don't be quick to answer. Reflect the character of Christ.

Also, whenever any bondman of Christ goes anywhere, he should not go alone, but have another brother or sister with him (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, Matthew 11:2; 18:20; 21:1, Mark 6:7; 11:1; 14:13, Luke 7:19; 10:1; 19:29, John 1:35, 37, Acts 9:38). This not only meets the scriptural requirement of establishing every word in the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28), but it follows the examples of our Master sending out the apostles in pairs. Having another with you also gives you strength, because there is strength in numbers.

It is no sin to stand mute when questioned by government officials (Matthew 27:12-14, Mark 15:3-5). Silence cannot be misquoted. However, you are mandated to confess Christ to avoid the malicious plans of men (Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 10:9).

ROFL! Hey, I won't say I never considered that option! But it is so much more exciting and rewarding to walk in the liberty of the Lord and his provision, than in the fear of the enemy.

We're to avoid, not evade, the things of the world.

Proverbs 4:14-15, "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away."
.

And with all that, you STILL didn't explain HOW you did it. You said you can use other ID, which in rare cases between some countries is true, but you didn't say what ID you used since you reject using most or all of the forms of ID that would be accepted. I have more knowledge of how these things work than the average person and I can say without any doubt that a lot of what you are talking about here simply will not work. If you or anyone else were to actually do these things you would get into a lot of trouble very quickly. Seriously, you expect me to believe you get away with these things by claiming diplomatic immunity as an "ambassador of Christ"??? I don't think so! I sure hope no one reading this is influenced to try any of this.

 

[Deborah13]

Recall when you phone a governmental agency for whatever reason. Typically, you get placed on hold forever. The perception is that they’re just a bunch of overpaid dim-witted bumbling bureaucrats. But that is the lie. That you would wait on the phone until you were disgusted, then hang up, is the intended plan. Back to that 99.9% of the sheeple who would eventually hang up out of frustration and jump back into line.

I know this to be true. I helped a young man having this problem with a state agency. Don't settle for it, move on up the order of authority. I called the state governor, it was taken care of before the day ended.

Notice that the traffic laws of a State only apply to those who are residents or travelers within that State, and not to foreigners, transients, or sojourners:

I think the issue there would be that if you broke the laws of that state, as a transient, etc. they would be within their authority to escort you to the state line and tell you not to come back.
As far as driver's licensing goes, I know for a fact, that if one will research and take the time, one doesn't not have to have a government issued driver's license. I personally know people who don't and have seen what they do have. I've forgotten now what it is called but it is by common law quite legal and must be accepted by law enforcement. One of the woman got stopped for speeding, she paid the speeding ticket but they could not issue one for not having a government issued drivers license.
These same people gave me the name of a constitutional attorney in order to help a family member who was being railroaded. I learned enough that all charges were dropped. In the US, common law jurisdiction is the key even if you do make contracts with the state.
The constitutional attorney, that I speak of, has never been licensed. He passed the bar but refused to take the oath. He said something like, the oath binds the attorney to the rules and regulations, thus nullifying their duty to uphold the Constitution and Common Law. He wasn't about to do that. I'd really like to have an in depth discussion with him now, 30 yrs. later. I could do that and should. His insights into what is going on in Washington and elsewhere today would be very interesting. He's rather well known in the western part of the midwest as he has taken on the federal government more than once.

I have more knowledge of how these things work than the average person and I can say without any doubt that a lot of what you are talking about here simply will not work.

The state trooper, that stopped the woman for speeding, didn't have any idea what he was looking at when she handed him her ID. When he called it in was when he found out he had to accept it, just as any government issued driver's license is accepted.
So what sojourner is saying may not be so farfetched.

 

[jasonc]

I know this to be true. I helped a young man having this problem with a state agency. Don't settle for it, move on up the order of authority. I called the state governor, it was taken care of before the day ended.

I think the issue there would be that if you broke the laws of that state, as a transient, etc. they would be within their authority to escort you to the state line and tell you not to come back.
As far as driver's licensing goes, I know for a fact, that if one will research and take the time, one doesn't not have to have a government issued driver's license. I personally know people who don't and have seen what they do have. I've forgotten now what it is called but it is by common law quite legal and must be accepted by law enforcement. One of the woman got stopped for speeding, she paid the speeding ticket but they could not issue one for not having a government issued drivers license.
These same people gave me the name of a constitutional attorney in order to help a family member who was being railroaded. I learned enough that all charges were dropped. In the US, common law jurisdiction is the key even if you do make contracts with the state.
The constitutional attorney, that I speak of, has never been licensed. He passed the bar but refused to take the oath. He said something like, the oath binds the attorney to the rules and regulations, thus nullifying their duty to uphold the Constitution and Common Law. He wasn't about to do that. I'd really like to have an in depth discussion with him now, 30 yrs. later. I could do that and should. His insights into what is going on in Washington and elsewhere today would be very interesting. He's rather well known in the western part of the midwest as he has taken on the federal government more than once.

The state trooper, that stopped the woman for speeding, didn't have any idea what he was looking at when she handed him her ID. When he called it in was when he found out he had to accept it, just as any government issued driver's license is accepted.
So what sojourner is saying may not be so farfetched.

State id.

 

[Deborah13]

State id.

No, the ID is not government issued. Not by the feds or any state.

I have both a CO ID and a CO driver's license.