HisHolyChurch

LACKING LEGITIMACY
Was also posted at NewsWithViews

http://www.newswithviews.com/Gregory/williams101.htm

The reason we posted this article was because we see these events more as an omen of a shift in the thinking of Americans from its founders until today.
 

In the last article entitled “Lacking Legitimacy” I incorrectly stated that the this was the “first time in history the presidential oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of United States was not taken on the Bible.” I apologies for not checking that assumption before sending it out.

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a bible when he first took the oath of office in the home of Ansley Wilcox House after the assassination of President McKinley. In fact he was in such a hurry he wasn’t even dressed yet. LBJ, after the assassination of JFK, did not use a Bible, but he thought he was. He had picked up the wrong book which looked like a Bible. Both used them in their second inauguration

The point of the article was to report an interesting chain of events and a change in the attitude and opinions of people in America and their chosen leaders. We were not insinuating that the oath taking was not as binding as any other oath. The fact that Eisenhower, Truman, and Nixon each used two Bibles did not make their oath of office any more legitimate.

The president becomes president automatically. The purpose of an oath is to assure good faith performance between two parties. The oath creates a unity of intent, words, and conduct. John Quincy Adams also chose not to use a Bible, but instead used an American law book containing the constitution which was a personal expression of his intent.

Evidently with several Bibles in the White House it was no longer considered important enough to actually get one.

The purpose of an oath is to bind a man or his conscience and according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary it includes “a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his [God's] vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it.” [1]

I do not advocate taking oaths on Bibles or any other book. The practice of using a Bible should seem rather strange from the point of view of anyone who has read it, since it was the opinion of James in the Bible:

“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” James 5:12

James was just repeating the warning voiced by Christ when he said:

“But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” Matthew 5:34, 37

With such detailed warnings about not taking oaths “at all” coming from Jesus and James, it would seem surprising to find Christians taking oaths at all much less on a Bible. The early Christians were historically persecuted and even put to death for centuries for refusing to take an oath. Why was it important not to take any oaths and now we do it all the time?

Peace on your house,
Brother Gregory

http://www.hisholychurch.org/

We are broadcast on the internet..
Live every “Saturday Morning ”
8 AM Pacific time.
   9AM Mountain time
      10AM Central Time
         11AM Eastern Time
Keys of the Kingdom Radio shows.
http://www.hisholychurch.net/radio.html

 Many people will soon go down to the polls and vote. “The voice of the people” will be heard and a new leader will become the Chief Executive officer of the government of the United States.

He will then be allowed to sign laws into place over the people, appoint new federal judges through out the nation, nominate new Supreme Court Justices and send the military into battle as a Commander in Chief. The “voice of the people” will have been heard and all who are a part of that process will be under the exercising authority of their new ruler.

Most of the people will be dissatisfied with the winner. Less than half of the people who could vote will vote for the winner and many of those who did choose the winning candidate do so simply because they like the opponent even less. Some people will be elated and continue to believe in their candidate , imagining that they have elected God’s.

In the Bible we also see the phrase “the voice of the people”. In first book of Samuel, a prophet of Israel, a nation with no king, some four hundred years after their departure from Egypt, the people “rejected” God and elected a leader who would have power and authority.

They had men to lead them before, but they were not like other nations whose leaders “exercise authority” over them. Their leaders were true servants of servants, for in those days there was no central ruler in Israel.¹ This was the way God wanted it and based on what Jesus said we know that God still wants it that way today.²

Yet, the people continue to attempt to elect leaders like they did in Israel. They hope he will be a good Commander in Chief. These leaders may compel the people to contribute to their government with a compelled sacrifice or tax taking the first fruits of their labor.³ They will also be able to take their sons and daughters to serve his will.⁴

Of course Samuel said Saul had done foolishly and his government would perish because he forced the people to contribute.⁵ Samuel had given a concise detailed warning from God⁶ as to what to expect if they elected an executive officer who had the power to make law. God did not ordain such a government for the people but it was their own desire that brought them into condemnation.⁷

Prior to this election of a Commander in Chief Israel had appointed their “titular” leaders from the bottom up maintaining their God given rights in a voluntary system. They could decide who and what to give to their leaders, when and how they would serve. They could decide fact and law in their courts according to the laws and customs written in there own hearts.

There would soon be a multitude of officers appointed from the top down to eat out their substance. They would make their instruments of war, take the sons of the people to run before their chariots and would even take their daughters⁸ to labor for them.⁹

The first fruits of their labor would belong to another like in the captivity of Egypt¹⁰ where 20 percent of the labor of the people was taken from them each year by the government.¹¹ The government provided for the needs of the people, yet, these welfare system were a snare.¹²

Moses knew that the people might be foolish enough to elect a man to rule them and warned them what elements they should put in their written constitution.¹³ He should not have treaty making powers or accumulate the gold and silver of the people in his treasury or establish a standing army. Israel was a republic in the sense of Webster’s definition where the leaders were titular. These new elected leader would have an “exercising authority” like the other nations who rule over the people. Israel was turning the world upside down with their own vote.

What is a vote?

According to Webster’s 1913 Dictionary the word vote can be defined as, ” An ardent wish or desire; a vow; a prayer. ”

A vote can be considered a vow or a prayer. It is an expression of your desire and wish and it is a form of application for that wish to become law. It is also participation in an attempt to “exercise authority” over all other voters, both registered and those merely qualified to vote.

“Often the terms ‘citizen’ and voter are confused. A voter is a person who is allowed by law to take part in the government.”¹⁴

That vote as a “vow” can be defined as, “Specifically, a promise of fidelity…” for what ever candidate wins. Fidelity is defined as, “Faithfulness; adherence to right; careful and exact observance of duty, or discharge of obligations.” Is voting an act of faith?

It is further defined as, “A solemn promise made to God… an act by which one consecrates or devotes himself, absolutely or conditionally, wholly or in part, for a longer or shorter time, to some act, service, or condition; a devotion of one’s possessions; as, a baptismal vow; a vow of poverty.” Webster’s 1913

In order to understand what a promise to God or god is we need to understand what is meant by the word god since the Bible tells us that “There are gods many” ¹⁵

If Jesus told us to not to be like the governments of the other nations who call their leaders benefactors but who also exercise authority one over the other then how can we say Jesus is our Lord? [see Luke 22:25...]¹⁶

To vote is an attempt to exercise authority over your neighbor through the agency of the elected. What is your vote, your vow, your prayer? Who are you going to pray to have as your ruler? Men or God?

Do we have an alternative? Is there another way to go? Is it the Kingdom of God under the perfect law of liberty? Can we seek that government as an alternative?

Is there a practical plan to move toward the liberty of Christ, Moses and Abraham?

What is that kingdom, how and why can it set men free?

Also:

Kingdom Newsletter, Which world? Series 2.3

To Pilate Jesus was King of the third part of Judea containing Jerusalem. To those who believed in Jesus, His kingdom was their kingdom, His government was their government, His freedom was their freedom. Jesus was the king and you were not required to obey the decrees of Caesar who was another king of a “world” that was not a part of Jesus kingdom.

“Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, [one] Jesus.” Acts 17:7

What did they mean? Some will tell you that Jesus was not actually a king because some of the Jews rejected Him and wanted him crucified. Those who said crucify him also said :

“But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.” John 19:15

Jesus was only rejected by men who had rejected God and his Kingdom. Even when the people of Israel chose to elect a leader to exercise authority over them it was called a rejection of God.¹ When some turned from that elected king they said “What portion have we in David?” 1 Kings 12:16

When the Pharisees, including their high priest, rejected Christ they also rejected the highest son of David and his kingdom.

Of course there were thousands who did accept Christ even though it meant they would have to give up their legal right to the benefits offered by the Pharisees through the government temple they were tending.

Pilate had been shocked by the choice made by the pharisees. He had miscalculated how much they wanted Jesus dead.

BarAbbas had been a revolutionist, not merely some common criminal. The government of Judea had every right to execute someone as a criminal, but not as a revolutionist. Rome had come to settle one thing.

Who was the rightful King?

Pilate and even his wife were impressed by Jesus. The historical record says they became Christians and are considered saints by the early Church.

Pilate clearly pleads for Jesus (John 19:14) but to no avail. Pilate then did something that upset the Pharisees because it would turn their “world” upside down and take the kingdom from them forever.

“And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,

THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Luke 23:38

Pilate nailed an official Roman proclamation to the cross, which stated Jesus Christ was the rightful king of the citizens of that nation. Rome recognized the sovereignty of Jesus as the Christ, the Anointed king in Judea, the Messiah.

As far as the Romans were concerned Jesus and His appointed ministers could now openly claim that there was another King and another “jurisdiction”. They now had full access to the government buildings and worked daily in the temple doing the job of the government of the people with relative impunity.² Their right to be the government of the people according to the perfect law of liberty was sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The Pharisees might have objected violently, but they had appealed to Rome to decide who was the rightful king and had already proclaimed that they had “no King but Caesar”. There was a legal and lawful division of the government and if the Pharisees arrested any follower of Christ they might have to answer to Rome. The kingdom of God had been taken from them just as Jesus predicted and he accomplished this by the words of their own mouth.³

The laws passed by the Sanhedrin of the Pharisees and their misinterpretation of the old testament had been nailed to the cross and those who turned to Christ and accepted his ways were now free.

At Pentecost thousands of people entered a new citizenship. They entered God’s government of liberty preached by John the Baptist and fulfilled by the Christ and served by Peter and the apostles who boldly preached the kingdom and managed that government of the people, for the people by the freewill offerings of the people.

The people exited the “jurisdiction of sin” established by the Hasmonians and then by Herod the Great, and by the Pharisees, and were free to enter the Kingdom of God.

Everyone seems to have a solution for the economic problems facing the country and the world. The problem is not new nor is the solution out of our reach. Examining the whole problem will require us to step back far enough to see our own part in it. Solving the problem requires us to step back a lot further than most people will want to go.

To solve the present and future dilemma people will be required to reexamine their own relationship with the economy, government, and God.

Because of the present precarious state of the economy I have been regularly asked about the dangers and frailty of capitalism and its tendency to boom and bust. The present situation in the United States is not the result of capitalism.

We often think of capitalism as the antitheses of communism, but what is often called capitalism today is has more in common with the Communist Manifesto than anything resembling pure capitalism. While Capitalism or Communism may both lend themselves to corruption their moral outcome is dependent not upon the structure of each system, but upon the character of its members.

Communism is a “system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.”¹

Pure communism demands an altruistic nature in its members in order to function successfully. For communism to work, its members must diligently desire to labor for the benefit of their neighbors as much as they desire to labor for themselves, understanding what benefits the whole benefits themselves.

Communism is a grand concept, but it does not work without a reversal in the human character.

If people are basically selfish or slothful they will be willing to take advantage of their neighbor by taking advantage of the system. That power will weaken the people and corrupt the offices of government. Communist governments often obtain an unlimited power to extract the contributions of the people by force, therefore its public ministers will be men who often love power more than service, and the people will love their benefits more than freedom.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a “system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations².”³

Pure capitalism also demands an altruistic nature in its members in order to function successfully. For capitalism to work, its members must diligently desire to labor for the benefit of their neighbors as much as they desire to labor for themselves, understanding what benefits the whole benefits themselves.

Capitalism is a grand concept, but it does not work without a reversal in the human character.

America has been on a continuous journey away from capitalism at least since the Civil War, with major leaps taken in 1916, 1933, 1964, 1971 etc. Since the Federal Reserve type banks and fractional reserve banking systems became the pervasive economic means of conducting business in the “world” all so called “investment capital” has become nothing more than the evidence of debt loaned into circulation. Capital is defined as “any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.” What US citizens and their government use as money are actually debt notes or credit entries. Therefore the more notes in circulation, or the more credit entries on the “books” the more every member of that system is in debt.

The present economy is not based on “investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth” but upon debt. No citizen of the United States has a right to the ownership of the “beneficial interest” or right to the “use” of the property by the very definition of “legal title”.⁴ All property of record has steadily become collateral for debt through a process of registration and hypothecation and they are therefore required to pay a “use tax”.⁵

There is another kind of capital a man may, own, use or invest.

“American labor, which is the capital of our workingmen.” ⁶

If you must pay a use tax or excise tax on your labor then you do not truly own the use of your labor either. Since 1933 citizens who apply for certain benefits of government are classified as “employees”. They are given a Federal Employee Identification Number and they only work for people who have a Federal Employer Identification Numbers. They are not only part of a corvee⁷ or statutory labor force,⁸ but are literally collateral for all debts, both public and private.⁹

When a nation owns nothing but debt there is no capital.

Where there is no capital there can be no capitalism.

The problem with both Communism and Capitalism is that people are by their nature selfish. Man’s altruistic image of God is an expression of hope and faith in a nature that is unselfishly concerned for the welfare of all. But the story of Adam and Eve, or Cain and Able, tells of a fallen nature with a less than altruistic nature.

“Under Capitalism man exploits man;

Under Socialism the process is reversed.”

The problem is, and has always been, that mankind has constantly exploited other men for personal gain and benefit. Men are consistently devising schemes to bind others to their own will and service. These systems involve giving consent¹⁰ through application, participation, and some form of contractual or statutory agreement¹¹ whereby by people go under the power of others¹² for what they believe will be a benefit and a gain, usually at the expense of others.

Plutarch said it, “The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.”

When the people desire their own comfort and personal prosperity before that of others they are easily seduced into praying for benefits even when those benefits are supplied at the expense of our neighbor. All history has warned us.¹³ Jesus said it.¹⁴ King David said it.¹⁵ Proverbs said it.¹⁶ Paul said it.¹⁷ Peter said it.¹⁸ Yet! “A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety ….” Pr 17:18

Christ and the early Church told us not to pray to these government rulers who ‘call themselves benefactors’¹⁹ but ‘exercise authority’. They told us not to swear oaths²⁰ or make any contracts or agreements with those unbelievers who sought to exercise authority. The early Church provided all the social welfare of a well organized, grass roots, self disciplined Christian community living by faith, hope, and charity and the perfect law of liberty despite the availability of extensive government sponsored welfare programs available through Rome or the government of the Pharisees.

The state of their economy depended entirely on the state of their own hearts, and in their heart was the Kingdom of God and His righteousness

The solution for their times and ours was and is to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all else will be provided.

Brother Gregory

Footnotes:

Kingdom Newsletter, Which world? Series2.2

Why is it important to know the truth about the story of Jesus?

Because the truth will set you free. Christ came to set men free by returning every man to their families and to their possessions, yet, almost no Church today bears any resemblance to what the early Church was doing.

Today, most nations and their religious institutions are more in servitude to their modern Pharaohs than the Israelites were back in Egypt. The Bible is about the relationship of man with the God of heaven or gods of earth and their governments.

“Those who will not be ruled by God,

will be ruled by tyrants.”

Whereas, God gave us Ten Laws by which to be ruled in our hearts and our minds, men make ten thousands laws by which to rule their neighbor for profit and gain.

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws.”¹

Our relationship with God decreases as our relationship with the government of men increases.

Is there a government ordained by God?

Israel was the government of God, although it is commonly misunderstood and regularly strayed from the plan. The “voice of the people”² eventually rejected God and called for a central government. That government became exactly what God said it would become until the people rebelled in a civil war, but only making matters worse.

The truth is so did Rome. Both governments had been republics where there was “no king” elected or otherwise. It is common for men in most cultures to choose to rule over their neighbor through governments they create for themselves and then become ruled over by those very governments they have created out of covetousness. Modern Christians of the world have been no exception, and the USA has repeated this same historical pattern.

The question is how do we get back to liberty under God?

When Jesus said His kingdom was not of “this world” in John 18:36 he was not talking to you, me, or Carl Sagan. He was talking to Pontius Pilate. He was telling him that His kingdom was not a part of the jurisdiction of Rome or like the government of Rome.

Pilate was impressed and turned to the Pharisees, who were standing outside of that court. He tells them “I find in him no fault” The word fault is far more often translated “cause” and is exactly what you would hear from a judge who has decided there is no case to be heard within his jurisdiction.

Pilate washed his hands of the whole thing.

“Case Dismissed”.

Why is it important to understand that Jesus was claiming lack of jurisdiction in a court of law? Why is it important to understand that the kingdom of God was recognized by Rome?

Jesus was a king. He was the only king that cared about the rights of the people and refused to oppress them. He came to set men free in spirit and in truth. Christians who repented and followed the ways of Christ could make the same claim. Few people today really understand what early Christians were doing.

“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:” Galatians 2:4

You cannot just say Jesus is your king, or get dunked in water, or file stacks of papers, or put a hyphen and a colon in your name and then claim you are from another jurisdiction. To find liberty under God, you must change. It was called repentance and requires that you must “turn around” and go and live another way. This means gathering together with other people and being that nation of peculiar people who actually care about their neighbor, his rights and liberty, as much as you care about your own.

Footnotes:

 Kingdom News-Which world? Series 2.1

The purpose of these Newsletters is to reveal the specifics of how Jesus’ “gospel of the kingdom” set the captives free in spirit and in truth. The people had been snared by what should have been for their welfare¹ and the whole truth of what Jesus was teaching and doing eventually freed the people, just as it can free the people today.  

  When Jesus said in John 18:36 that His kingdom was not of “this world”he was not talking to you, me, or Carl Sagan. He was talking to Pontius Pilate.

There are a half dozen different Greek words that are sometimes translated into the English word world in the Bible. We need to learn what these words meant when the authors wrote them down, not what we want them to mean now.

The word “world” from the Greek word kosmos did not mean planet at that time. The same word was used by the Greeks to produce the Homeric kosmeo, used in reference to the act of “marshaling troops.”¹ From the Greek and Roman point of view, “ The later word kosmos … meant originally the discipline of an army, and next the ordered constitution of a state.”²

Could the word we have been told means the world, as in the planet where you live, actually mean the government you have chosen to live under?

Modern church teachings would have to make some major adjustment in their thinking if this is true. Have we been deceived?

The Greek word kosmos comes from the word komizo meaning “to care for, take care of, provide for; to take up or carry away in order to care for and preserve; to carry away, bear off”. It was Nimrod who was a mighty provider instead of the LORD. It was the ability to provide benefits that drew Israel under the authority of Egypt.

“The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.” ³

The word used by Jesus in that conversation with Pilate about His kingdom is defined as “an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government”. Since, Christ was born a king, preached a kingdom at hand, proclaimed as its king by the people in Jerusalem, and was doing the work only the king could do in the temple, His statement to Pilate must be taken literally as it was written. Jesus’ Kingdom was not a part of the Roman world order?

The “government” of Rome provided for its needy by forced contributions. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus provided for their needy by freewill offerings. In this one precept alone Modern Christianity and the the Early Christianity preached by Christ and the apostles are seriously divided.

On one side we see the world of Christ, the kingdom of God, dependent on the perfect law of liberty, charity, hope and love, while the other we see the world of Rome and the Pharisees, dependent on men calling themselves benefactors, but exercised authority one over the other, forcing the contributions of the people.

If Jesus was telling that Roman court and Pilate that they lacked the jurisdiction and authority to judge Him and the faithful then modern Christianity has seriously departed from the gospel.

This radical profession and departure from what we have been told to believe will require more evidence. The evidence is there if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

The next Kingdom Newsletter.   Here comes the judge? #2.1

Footnotes:

Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not of this world: if my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my Kingdom not from hence.” John 18:36.

What world is Jesus talking about? Why, after preaching the kingdom is at hand and telling us to do the same did he say that his kingdom was not apart of the world we live in? Or did he?

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1Co 3:19)

People are constantly being deceived from the beginning of time by the sophistry of the adversary. Have we been fooled? Could it be possible that Jesus was telling Pontius Pilate that his Roman Court lacked jurisdiction over the Kingdom Jesus was preaching?

Jesus had come to take the kingdom from those¹ whose ordinances and traditions were making the word of God and His law to none effect.² He had said he would and did appoint that kingdom to His little flock,³ instructing them to be benefactors who served the people, but they were not to ever force the contributions of the people in order to supply the benefits of his government.

The truth is Jesus, Moses and Abraham all taught a form of government that set men free and provided for them to remain free even through hard times. It does take a special kind of person to make such a system work, but history is ripe with such governments if we look beyond the spoon fed “free” education offered by governments of the world.

In the following series of posts to the Kingdom New we will not only reveal the lies that bring men into subjection, but the truth that will set men and women free if they will seek righteousness and liberty.

• Not of this world…Not of which world?
• http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/notofthisworld.html
• Why did Jesus tell Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world?

• In 8×5 Booklet form
• Not of this world…Not of which world?
• http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/worldkingdom.pdf

• Standard printable 8 1/2 by 11 form
• Not of this world…Not of which world?
• http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/worldkingdomst.pdf

He came preaching “the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

It was His gospel, the good news of His government.

How does the Kingdom of God differ from other governments?

What was this thing called the Church?

How does the Church relate to this thing called the Kingdom of God?

And why was it persecuted?

How does it relate to the people who are seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness?

What should it look like, and what should it be doing to fulfill its mission?

There are thousands of opinions as to what the Church is and what it should be doing, but there is only one opinion that matters, and that is the opinion of the Man who appointed it.

 The Church was established by a man called Yahushua the Messiah, a.k.a. Jesus the Christ. Only He can define the purpose and nature of this thing called the Church. It is His creation, His appointed institution. It is His Holy Church.

 It is up to each of us to strive and seek to find out what the Church is or is not.

Many churches have been reestablished according to the traditions, doctrines and ordinances of men by application to, and participation in, the schemes and governments of the world, and a failure to follow the directions laid down by its founder, Jesus Christ.

The Church may only be bound under that original appointment of Christ, under the perfect law of liberty. If a Church is bound under any other authority, it ceases being the Church established of Jesus Christ, His Church and becomes some other type of organization despite what it may call itself.

The world gives us a consistent definition of a Church in Black’s Law Dictionary:

• “In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances.”
• “A body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of one faith, and the observance of the same rituals and ceremonies.”

The introduction to John Wycliffe’s 1382 translation of the Bible stated that “This Bible is for the government of the People, by the People, and for the People.”

While Edward Gibbon praised “the union and discipline of the Christian republic.” in his classic History of the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” He also pointed out that “it gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire.”1

The early church did not apply to Rome of the Pharisees working in the temple of Herod for the needs of their society. The Christian community was self disciplined and organized from the bottom up in a system of charity rather than forced taxation. In about AD 150, Justin, and early apologist of the Christian community, hoping to clear the misconceptions and prejudices surrounding Christianity, wrote the Emperor Antoninus Pius in defense of the Christian allegiance to Christ’s kingdom of God:

“And the wealthy among us help the needy … and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.” (Ch. 65-67)

This was pure religion as described in James 1:27.2 In Jesus’ Kingdom the needs of society are fulfilled through freewill offerings as John the Baptist described in Luke 3:113 with sharing of surplus with those who do not have enough. But if these acts of social charity are not done voluntarily then the liberty of society will be damaged and freedom will die. The nature of the beast is to offer benefits provided at the expense of neighbor until the members of society are sufficiently estranged and divided so that the people may be consumed one by one.

The only answer or solution for any society to return to lost liberty is to return to a form of self government that is reliant on the free application of aid an assistance in a substantive way. This simple truth of caring for one another is the key to all free societies which is why Moses and Jesus both emphasized the law of liberty requires that we forgive and give to one another, “loving our neighbors’ as ourselves.”