Self Defense

From PreparingYou
Jump to: navigation, search
The kingdom of God is in the moment and our guide is the Holy Spirit. We draw near that HOLY spirit through sacrifice of "self". So when we say we have a right to self defense we do not mean the egotistical "self" but only the self that serves others in righteousness.
The more you are filled with the Holy Spirit the less you will have to draw your sword.
A sword on the side of the righteous keeps the swords of the unrighteous in their sheath.

Self Defense


Part 1, 11-7-09
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense
Part 2, 11-22-09
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense
Part 3, 12-5-09
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense
Part 4, 1-2-10
Do Christians Have a Right to Self Defense

This series of article which appeared at News With Views after I read a Chuck Baldwin article on the same subject has been used for some time in a private run police academy in Florida as a part of their training courses. I was amazed when they approached me for permission to incorporate it in their curriculum.

There are two spirits working or warring in America today, even in the whole world. One is of the light and liberty and righteousness of the Kingdom of God the other is of darkness coveting and seeking the tyranny of Hell to bite and devour one another.

If God did not want people to use carnal weapons you would see that prohibition clearly stated over and over again as a precept in scripture. There is simply no evidence of such a prohibition. Not only did Jesus say to his disciples to obtain a carnal weapon and carry it along with their purse but when Peter used it to protect Jesus he was not told to get rid of it but "Put up thy sword into the sheath" because Jesus knew that the cup which His Father hath given Him he was willing to drink.

But the blood of the innocent or the weak who may die at the carnage of the mad mass murderers of the world is on the hands of the slothful man or coward who so often out of a false sense of self-righteousness refuse to arm themselves wisely as Christ told His disciples.[1].

If men will not wisely stand and defend others with the means that are within their reach are they good men? The man who refuses through his sloth, neglect or cowardness to arm himself to protect the innocent is as guilty of murderer and violence as the evil and wicked.

There is no greater power than the Holy Spirit but we have no right to tempt God by misplaced or arrogant claims to faith. Carnal weapons are only a tool for good or evil but to refuse to touch the tool because of a self-righteousness interpretation of scripture is refusing to accept a responsibility and the right granted by God and directed by Jesus.

While some will try to argue against an armed Christian asking where did Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, or even Origen advocate violence? But why would anyone suggest that using a tool to stop violence is violence? The truth is to fail to restrain a wild beast or a bull that pushes by any means within your power is violence by neglect and you can be held accountable as if you were the beast yourself.

A Christian is nonviolent. You seem to think that having a gun is violent. It is not any more violent than having a hammer which kills a lot of people. A gun is a tool like your hand. Even using it to stop a beast or crazed man is not violence.

It is strengthening the beast by not having the adequate tools at your disposal to stop evil when you could have... that is violence by neglect. That is why he said be armed to his disciples. It is common sense.

  • "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century Cesare Beccaria), criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician, who is widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. 1774-1776.

To say you love your neighbor and refuse to be prepared to come to his defense from a crazed beast or the demonically possessed by whatever means at your disposal is the definition of "dishonest hypocrisy" and by its nature apathetic violence.

It is fundamental to do what we can to protect our neighbor from unwarranted harm.

I have faced mobs and murders without a gun but I would never take away the right of people to use a little leverage. And neither did Christ. As far as Christ's doctrines are concerned if he didn't say it it isn't his doctrines but he did tell his disciples "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one". To use an imagined doctrine to justify personal apathy is "mental gymnastics "

We are supposed to believe in Jesus not Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, or even Origen, who did not contradict Jesus' statement to his disciples to be armed. How could those disciples as servants turn around and suggest a doctrine that Jesus never instituted that would disarm the people in free assemblies. And while certainly, those men did not recommend salvation through insurrection against even the semi-legitimate governments of the world but neither did they say or command the people disarm and let every thug, murder, robber, and rapist or rampaging beast violate your community.

Thugs and Beasts

Someone who read these News With Views articles conjectured that I actually never answered the very question I raised.

He attempted to summarize the articles with maybe a hint of sarcasm:

"Christians have the right to defend themselves, their family and their neighbor using whatever force is necessary against thugs bent on doing them ill. That is unless the thug represents the government, in which case they should take their copy of Black's Law Dictionary to the nearest law library, study the countless laws they've subjected themselves to determine what is permissible in the situation they encountered. Of course such an endeavor should only be undertaken with the guidance and discernment provided by the Holy Spirit as few mortals would actually be able to fully comprehend what they're reading without divine guidance. After completing such a course of study one would know what the morally correct thing they should have done all those decades ago."

Well I thought I would make a feeble attempt at a summary avoiding the step by step in depth look that may have encouraged the teachers at the police academy to approach me for the use of these articles. Maybe this will allow me to answer the question as to who is the real thug. Who resulted to force first? After all according to Mark Passio it is the one who through the first blow that is critical in deciding who is really the thug.


UNC Interview: Part 6: Capital Punishment and Self Defense] ~2 min

The question is answered in the first article which clearly states you not only have a right but a responsibility and, even an obligation to defend yourself and others.

The rest of the articles show you why you are loosing your right to obtain the means to meet this natural obligation because you will not gather together as one body bound in Faith , Hope and Charity by way of Freewill offerings of the people, for the people and by the people through the Perfect law of liberty in Free Assemblies. Instead you bind yourselves together by contracts with Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other including over your neighbor. This desire for benefits at the expense of your neighbor alters society makes you merchandise, curses children and it is all because your application to eat at the table of rulers is a snare and a trap.

People fail to defend themselves and their neighbor from destitution through accidents, by unforeseen poverty and disease etc. Because people pray to government for social security, Medicare and Medicaid and other social and health benefits and care. Their provisions are of the Nimrods of the World who are taking on your responsibilities and are licensed by you to take from you and of course all your neighbors and thereby obtain a right to regulate your life.

You want to take from the rich because he is rich and it is your own possessions and rights which are forfeited. Your desire for One purse has captured you in a net of your own making. When you cry out because of your oppression you will not be heard by God.

Like the father who says if you live under my roof and eat at my table you go by my rules.

This is undoubtedly why Jesus said Call no man Father

What was Christ trying to tell us about fathers on the earth?

This is why article 4 states clearly, "While the State of Montana has recently made an attempt to protect individual rights by enacting state provisions, few understand that individual rights require individual responsibility. Gun rights advocates wait to see what the Federal reaction will be. The difficulty the Federal government faces will remain, as always, how will they maintain the delusion that US citizens still enjoy natural God given rights as free people, while continuing to regulate such rights as the privilege they have become?"

The liberal label is for those people who believe in the right to choose except your right to choose to not pay for their abortion, or free education or healthcare. They actually do not believe in the right to choose at all and the gun advocate has already decided that it is okay to force their neighbor to pay for government services ( Health, Education and Welfare) at the point of the government's gun. They have chosen, given consent, to take away the right of their neighbor to choose and have lost their own right to choose.

Americans have already proved themselves violent thugs and predators and unworthy of firearms when they through Covetous Practices apply for benefits from men who call themselves Benefactors but who exercise authority. So I continued to write "Americans have failed to retain those rights by failing to recognize the consequences of applications for and acceptance of benefits, along with pervasive participation in social schemes dependent upon mutual surety and debt as seen in Pharaoh's Egypt, Nimrod's Babylon, Caesar's Rome, or Herod's Judea."

And then finish with "If you will not take back the responsibility to govern yourselves, to care and protect one another, to live by faith with hope through charity under the Perfect law of liberty which is love, and the duty of every Christian and God loving man, then you are probably to irresponsible to own a gun without being regulated by one government or another."

Americans have become comfortable with the idea of taking a bite out of one another. They have become little benefit beasties. Bound together by contract they all have the Mark of the Beast and have created a Beast by their Covetous Practices that goes about devouring who it wills.

Assault vs Assault

EXCLUSIVE: Texas Massacre Hero, Stephen Willeford, an NRA instructor with his AR-15 stopped the shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Describes Stopping Gunman on Louder With Crowder. An exclusive interview with Stephen Willeford, the hero who ended the killing spree in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Stephen recounts the actions that lead him to confronting Devin Patrick Kelley outside First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. Time 37:50

The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but generally falls into one of these categories. Cornell Law School:

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to cause physical injury is not required, and physical injury does not need to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.
2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.
3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

Apprehension v. Fear

In this context, "apprehension" does not mean "fear." Rather, to experience apprehension, the victim must believe that the tortfeasor's conduct will result in imminent harmful or offensive contact unless it is somehow otherwise prevented. It isn't necessary that the victim believes the conduct will be effective in making such contact, only that he believes the conduct is capable of making such contact.

Definition of assault Merriam Webster

1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces an assault on the enemy's air base
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary) an assault on drug trafficking
2 law
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension (see apprehension 1) of such harm or contact — compare battery

The difference between assault and defense is the intent of the individual. There are millions of these rifles in America and almost all of them are not assault rifles but they are for defense. If you will not defend others you should not expect others to defend them.

Download Recording

Download Recording

An "assault weapons" is a politically inflammatory term used to demonize semi-automatic guns. An “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” nor “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

AR-15s accounted for 14.4 percent of all rifles manufactured in 2007. If that proportion held true in 2016, then more than 610,000 AR-15s were produced and distributed in the U.S. that year alone. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading clip fed rifles make up at least 3,000,000 guns while some estimates go to 10,000,000 or more.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year US rates 12th

Firearm-related homicides rate per 100,000 population per year US rates 17th

Most shootings in America are gang related or are in Gun free zones. Gun free zones kill people. Most people who use guns like automobile are done safely by good people. There is no logic in taking cars away from sober people because some people drive drunk.

Teachers that wish to arm themselves and can pass basic safety tests and gun courses should be allowed to bring their gun to work from the janitor to the principle with school approval if they are employed.

The right to self-defense is also the right to defend others. When you are in a gun free zone the only thing you can do is hide or run. When the whole country is a gun free zone there will not be any place to run to or hide.

The possibility of even few regular employees being armed and not just a guy with a uniform will begin to reduce deaths and probably shootings. We saw in Israel as an absolute success.

If 10% of the teachers and school employees desired to conceal carry that would be almost a half a million people in the schools capable of stopping a shooter or stabber.

That is not the only thing you can do but that is one of the quickest and cheapest way to make a difference. Just the possibility of armed resistance will stop even insane attempts to do harm. We know that mass shooters have chosen their targets because they were not likely to have anyone there to stop them.

Then there is also the fact that almost everyone who does commit mass murders of the kind we have seen at schools and in other gun free zones have been taking mind-altering drugs.

Millions of people own guns and hurt no one. In fact men like Stephen Willeford have confronted shooters with his own personal AR15.

Other hero's names disappear while the modern news media publishes the name of the murders over and over again. People who at the risk of their own lives and with the use of their own firearm confront and stop the carnage go unpraised because the truth that arms in the hands of good people is the greatest deterrent of crime does not fit the media agenda.

People like Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, James Strand, Tracy Bridges, Mikael Gross, Jeanne Assam, Donald J. Moore, Carolyn Gudger, Aaron Guyton, Nick Meli, Jonathan Baer, Clint Lund, Dr. Lee Silverman, Kenneth Hammond, Lisa Castellano and many other unnamed heroes who with their own firearms saved lives.

Sheriff Robinson stated “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school.” That deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school who with an unarmed school security officer and two administrators ran from the cafeteria to the library. The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff,” Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."

If a man is about to kill a thousand people with a bomb and the only way to stop him is shoot him which might kill him what do you do? If you do nothing you are complicit in the death of a thousand people. What if only one man will die unjustly if you do not stop the murderer?

Because Stephen Willeford needs to be able to confront a shooter to protect children and others the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The protection of an individual by the government is on condition of his submission to the laws of the lawmakers who rule over the people. When the government is charged with the totality of protection of the people who will protect the people from the government? The protection from want offered by the welfare state will eventually subject you like merchandise.

Protection Subjection

"Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection."[2]

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

It is the responsibility of the individuals of society to protect themselves and their neighbors. They are endowed with that right by God and all rights are responsibilities. The right to bear arms for centuries meant the responsibility to protect your community at your own expense and risk.

To allow or desire to disarm society is to war against God.

"To Conquer a Nation, First Disarm its Citizens" Adolph Hitler 1933[3]

There is no greater enemy of the people than those who wish to disarm them. And there is no greater alley in that evil endeavor and effort than the avarice and apathy of the people themselves.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.", Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

  • Turkey established its gun control laws in 1911, utilizing them to arrest and exterminate some 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
  • The Soviet Union prohibited citizen gun ownership in 1929 which in turn contributed to somewhere between 20 and 62 millions citizen “dissidents” being rounded up, imprisoned and exterminated.
  • In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate millions and million of people including women and children between 1939 and 1945.
  • In 1935 China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese. Many scholars agree that about one million people were murdered during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Yet, the Chinese government stated, “Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.” The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million often unarmed people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.
  • After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.
  • Gun control laws introduced in 1956 allowed Cambodia police and military forces to arrest around 21 million professionals and intellectuals and exterminate them.
  • In 1964 Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
  • In 1970 Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Governments with guns kill far more people than criminals and loan gunman.

Thomas Jefferson, after observing during the drafting of the Virginia Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” (1776) later asserted in correspondence to John Cartwright (1824) that “"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria, went on to say, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

James Madison, though best remembered for asserting in 1792 that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” also observed that (1788) “The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

Patriot Richard Henry Lee - renowned for calling for the independence of the colonies during the Second Continental Congress - is also remembered for warning that (1788) "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

The United States President George Washington made the timeless observation (1790) that "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington in the address to the 2nd session of United States Congress.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future." - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag

If you want your rights back you have to take your responsibilities back first.

Gun free zones are saying that in this area you do not have the right to defend yourself and others. Some people would like to make the whole nation a gun free zone but that would lead to disaster. Unarmed and Dangerous.

The Draft

How many rights other than delegated powers were reserved to the people?

The simple answer is "All of them."

Were citizens freemen or subjects?

"If the Militia was every able-bodied citizen then what happens when a citizen doesn't want to join your Militia?"


That is called freedom.

We know that is hard for people to wrap their heads around especially since they know very little about real freedom an what it takes to obtain and maintain that freedom.

You can only maintain rights, e.g. the right to chose or liberty, by exercising the correlative responsibilities connected to them. If we do not share the responsibility of freedom can we maintain or even claim a right to it?

  • "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."- Richard Henry Lee

No one should be compelled to come to his neighbor's aid when he needs assistance, yet he must be deprived of the means to do so. Without the practice of social virtue, the safety of society is diminished. Like the Amish, if you do not help when someone's house is burned down no one has to come and help you.

For centuries people formed local voluntary militias where there were no statutes or even kings and rulers.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment[4], “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it”.[5]

  • "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Supreme Court Justice Field

There were a few attempts to draft men into military service during the War for Independence, the war of 1812 and the Civil War but these usurpations were often met with fierce resistance.

Daniel Webster stated in an address to the House in 1814:

  • "The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion...Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not...Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?"

Today, “in the United States ‘it [citizenship] is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”[6]

We see today that any private person can bring an action in court for violations of the constitution as it's done every single day.

"Persons" are "members" and members may be "subject". Americans were not a party to the creation of the United States nor its constitution. Neither could a small group of men subject an entire nation to the whims of Congress with the stroke of a pen.

If you actually have a right to bear arms as a natural individual then you have a right to maintain rights by exercising the power of the sword with the lawful authority which you were endowed with by God. Before statutes there was law. Lawful rights are natural rights not connected to the administration of government. Legal rights are rights which can be regulated by statutes.

Since the militia has always been every able-bodied man in order to have a well-regulated militia it is essential that every able-bodied man also arm himself. It would seem that it is not only his right but his responsibility to himself, his family and his fellowman.


The right to defend life is a right delegated by nature and natures God.

  • "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

There is simply put nothing in the Constitution of the United States to delegate authority to the government to regulate the ownership of arms.

  • "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

By mere definition the militia being everyman it should be clear that the better armed any government force may be, whether foreign or domestic the right of the people to be armed shall be magnified not restricted nor diminished.

  • "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

Certainly, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunters or sport-shooters and everything to do with that natural right of defense. That defense of the community may include the rise of tyranny, the abuse of power, or foreign invasion[7] but more commonly the need to protect and the threat of harm is felt more dearly every day from lawless and malevolent elements of society itself. Until governments can guarantee the safety of every law-abiding citizen or benevolent member of society any attempt to restrict the right to defend life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness could hold the individual members of the legislatures morally and financially responsible for any damage or injury which may result.

  • "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century Cesare Beccaria), criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician, who is widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. 1774-1776

It is well known that "The best defense is a good offense" and the best deterrent to needing to defend yourself and your community is the ability to implement that offense by being armed and prepared. A well-armed society can be the best encouragement for honesty and respect among its members.

In a free society, the virtue of its members coupled with the means of protecting one another is the greatest guarantee of security and safety.

  • "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

What the militia does

But the question begs to be asked are citizens of the United States still free?

Have they become entangled again in the elements of the world selling their access to the exercise of rights because of their appetite for benefits and the wages of unrighteousness.

There are many situations where unpaid voluntary militias formed without legislatures but you won't learn about them much in public school. The militia was not only for the defense of community from invasion. They protected from gangs, fires, floods etc. but they also were found building roads, laboring at public projects, and even constructing schools with unpaid voluntary labor.

There might be a constable or sheriff but he was backed by the people through a Hue and cry.

All the things the militia use to do through volunteerism i now done by government and financed through taxes and borrowed money.

The so-called "mandate in the constitution under art 1 sec 8 cl 16" concerning militias is for the State militia. Unfortunately, the federal government can draft most people into the army now because the relationship of the people has changed from a free and independent people to one based on contract and dependence where your natural rights are no longer intact.

Many did not think the constitution was a good idea and most Americans opposed it for the same reasons. Early Americans did a lot of things the modern American does not know about nor understand.

It was through the "covetous practices" of the people that they became little more than human resources and subjects.

As subjects, you can now bring an action in court for violations of the constitutional "legal rights" because you know longer have access to your lawful or natural rights. This has come about because you thought it was okay to live at the expense of your neighbor. You imagine that it is okay to force your neighbor to fight for you, serve you, provide you with benefits like free education, social security and probably even healthcare. Those "covetous practices" are at home in the mind of many Americans and people of the world today even though they were forbidden by Moses and by Christ. Even Polybius said:

"The masses continue with an appetite for benefits and the habit of receiving them by way of a rule of force and violence. The people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others... institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch." Polybius saw the downfall of the republic a 150 years before the first Emperor of Rome and 175 years before the birth of Jesus Christ and John the Baptist.

Chapter 3. of the book The Covenants of the gods
Citizenship vs Citizenship
Citizen vs Citizen from the book "The Covenants of the gods"
Citizens of the world and in the world?

There is no reason to think that the apostles did not normally carry swords. Having a sword in itself neither qualifies as evil nor as violence.

Two swords

There are many false exegeses used by modern Christians to rationalize personal doctrines to fit more comfortably into the modern Churchianity eschatology instead conformity to Kingdom eschatology. Jesus preached the kingdom and appointed it to His called out.

Kingdom Eschatology is the study of the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Audio Broadcasts
Download Recording #1 or press play

Download Recording #2 or press play

The kingdom is not for the dead but for the living.[8]

The kingdom of God was a real government, that was at hand but was supposed to be separate from the world.

Jesus declared that he was going to take the kingdom[9] from those who sat in the seat of Moses[10] who were making the word of God to none effect and appoint it in real time to the little flock he had called out.

Because people often focus on what they think about God, imagining that is the definition of religion, they fail to attend to the weightier matters, another practice for which Christ condemned the Pharisees.[11]

Many even fail to practice Pure Religion unspotted by the world neglecting to seek the kingdom of God, his form of government, and the simplicity of the righteousness of God which often leads to works of iniquity.

The myriad of false prophets and false teachers[12] of the world who do not know what the kingdom is like[13] only contribute to the problem.

The modern Christian is given a historically filtered view of the early Church and how the community of Christians worked together to survive in a hostile world. The problems they would face in a none violent revolution that would change the world would call for extensive and even the ultimate sacrifice by many. This lack of knowledge concerning the details of the practical day to day ministration of a Christian community keeps the modern church from fully grasping how Christ had turned the world upside down.[14]

Christians were consistently and willingly excluded from the free bread offered by the welfare state of Rome. Early Christians were even persecuted for their separate system of Private welfare supported by the charitable Corban of Christ through the love of the people and the services of His Church.

Buy a sword

This lack of knowledge has led to many pseudo-doctrines that are not the doctrines of Jesus and some times promotes a false Christianity that does not comply with the Doctrines of Jesus. Jesus' directive to His apostles and disciples to buy a sword is no exception.

Was he talking to all the apostles and even others like the appointed 70 or the 120 we find in one accord in the upper room? Or did he just want them to have a couple of swords to fulfill a prophecy from the Old Testament as suggested by some?

Let us examine the text in context:

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing." Luke 22:35

Is Jesus speaking of metaphorically buying swords?

Or is he speaking of a real event?

Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,

Matthew 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they [twelve] should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them [twelve disciples], Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luke 10:4 [Seventy] Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

Jesus originally did not send the disciples nor the appointed 70 out as lone individuals but in pairs[15], what the Jews called Tanna and with the Holy Spirit. There were numerous conditions to follow meant to test the seventy disciples he chose to put their hand to the plough.[16] Jesus was getting lot of excuses from people who liked what he was saying but were putting off doing the work.

Blood and upheaval

Before Jesus began his ministry there had been a great upheaval in the government of Judea. No one sat on the throne in Jerusalem after the collaboration with Rome and the Roman form of government during the dictatorial rule of Herod the Great.

Menahem the Essene and many others walked out from the Sanhedrin. According to the Chagigah documents the Sanhedrin was illegitimatized when a majority "stalked out" to follow " the King's service, and there went forth [out] with him eighty pairs of disciples" with a royal covering.[17]

What Menahem appears to have done was follow after The Way of John the Baptist and Jesus who was the highest son of David, the Messiah, the Christ, the king of the government of God which he took from the Pharisees and the apostate Jews[18] and appointed it to the Jews who eventually were called Christians.

Institutions of men change over time. There is a vast difference between the early Church and the Modern Church. There is also a difference between the institutions of Moses[19] and those professed and established by the Pharisees or Sadducees.


Was Jesus' call to buy a sword just props to appear to fulfill of prophecy?

  • Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end."


Some will try and tell people that Jesus wanted them to get a few swords only to fulfill this messianic prophecy. They even say the word “transgressors” could be bandits, thieves, criminals, etc. It is true that the Greek word in the text is anomos [20] which in the Greek can mean "a violator of the law, lawless, wicked". But if this is the fulfillment of the prophecy From Isaiah 53[21] then the definition of the word needs to comply with the meaning of the Hebrew word for transgressors.[22]. The Hebrew word is pasha‘ which means "to rebel, transgress, revolt."


Judea was occupied by the Roman troops in 6 BC even though 60 years before Pompey had been invited into Judea to settle the question of who was the rightful King of the Jews.

Back in 66 B.C. Pompey the head of a Roman army had been invited to Judea to help settle a civil war between two brothers. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II were fighting over the Kingdom of God. One brother got the idea to invite Pompey and his legions for aid to settle this dispute.

Aristobulus had made the request to Rome seeking to use its might as a world police force. Pompey eventually sided with Hyrcanus and Pontius Pilate who eventually answered for Rome sided with Christ, Nailing it to His cross.[23]


The presence of Rome had led to a variety of revolutionary Messianic movements, and a desire for the Messiah. Some thought the Messiah was to be a great war leader not a propagator of peace. One political group, the Sicarii[24], emerged with a focus on the militant Zealot solution. These resistance movements targeted Romans and any collaborator. Their victims included Roman soldiers, tax collectors, Jewish women who fraternized with Romans or merchants who traded with them. Josephus writes that such a group attacked the Essene village of Jedi murdering hundreds of civilians.

Gordion knot

Alexander the Great divided the Gordian knot by pulling out his sword and cutting the rope in two pieces. This method left the rope useless and divided. Judea and the whole world was in bondage. Liberty was bound in a legal Gordian knot of Rome which dominated all forms of government with force and covetous practices.

Jesus said he was going to bring a sword. This was a metaphor but a sword did come which divided the people, the goats and the sheep.

Jesus was counted by some as a revolutionary attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of Judea. He did come to take[9] the seat of government away from those sitting in the seat of Moses[10] as the legitimate king the kingdom of God. But the kingdom of God is not like the governments of the world that use force to exercise authority one over the other. There is no central bank[25] or professional standing army[26], no legislature making more and more laws.

In the Kingdom of God every elder of every family is king in his own home.[27] For the kingdom to function every elder must attend to the weightier matters as listed by Christ

Roman Emperors feared the “union and discipline of the Christian community that was networking in the heart of the Roman Empire.”[28]

The early Christians were recognized by Rome through the proclamation nailed to the cross by Pontius Pilate. When Jesus rose from the dead to stand again upon the earth, so did His Kingdom which he appointed to his apostolic disciples.

No command to disarm

Did Jesus prohibit the use of arms in self-defense as claimed by some?

In translations of Tertullian's Apology we may read, “When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier.”

Is Tertullian correct about this?

What did he actually say?

Read it again.

Tertullian is talking about disarming soldiers using a term for professional soldiers. In governments where men rule one over another those who are called soldiers serve the ruler.

The five prohibitions for Kings of Israel including not having a professional army.

Remember, in the kingdom of God there are no kings, soldiers, legislators, ruling judges, tax collectors, etc. because every man is king and priest in his own house. He is the legislator of his own heart and tax collector in his own family through freewill offerings in free assemblies. Samuel, the prophet, made it clear that any king who forced an offering of the people to support a professional army had "done foolishly" because in the kingdom of God every man was part of the militia commanded to attend to the weightier matters.

Jesus never told the people to get rid of their natural right and means by which to defend themselves and others. His command to Peter was to put it back in His sheath, not throw it away nor disarm yourself.

He did not rebuke the Roman Centurian nor did John the Baptist tell soldiers to lay down their weapons nor leave the army.[29].

Doing violence is "to extort" unjustly "by intimidation". Doing violence is not the same as using the power of your arm or other tools to stop or restrain people from doing harm to others is simply attending to the weightier matters.

Being armed or holding at bay with a gun or sword a murderer bent on killing innocent people does not qualify as violence. Stopping someone with the use of physical force about to kill others is not violence either. Not doing something which you could do to stop murder makes you complicit in the murder and may qualify as violence by neglect.

Clearly, the Bible never forbids a Christian from owning a weapon. We are called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:10) and certainly, the presence of a weapon in the hands or even just at the side of a good man can and has brought peace where violence was occurring or about to occur.

When we see the account in Luke 22:38 "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords." it is clear that the apostles did not run out and get two swords. Either one or two apostles already had swords. Jesus undoubtedly knew that but was now instructing those who did not have a sword should get one even if they had to sell their cloke to do so.

And when he said unto them, "It is enough" surely Jesus didn’t intend for two swords to defend 12 men. Remember the swords they were to get were not for that night just as the purses they were going to need were not for then but later.

Jesus made it clear that when he sent them out in groups of two before they didn't lack anything But now, take some money belts, bags, and go even get a sword too. Yes, the prophecy about him would be fulfilled but the instructions were for later.

The statement “It is enough” in Luke 22:37-39 was clearly talking about that moment in the conversation and might not have been talking about the swords at all. He may have been talking about the fact that he was finished with his list of instructions about the appointment of the kingdom of God to His little flock there at that time because he immediately left.

Sound bite arguments

One individual clinging to the idea that a weapon is evil and that its use is always violent asks several questions about when Jesus says:

"don't resist an evil person"

But that is not exactly what he said:

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

What does he mean "Resist not evil"?

"do not repay evil for evil"

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
1 Thessalonians 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Stopping someone from murdering or raping or even just robbing them is not evil. You are doing them and the victim a favor, a kindness.

"turn the other cheek"

Murdering or raping or even just robbing someone is not slapping their cheek.

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

"blessed are the peacemakers"

What is a peacemaker?

"Do violence to no one"

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence[30], and the violent take it by force.
Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence[31] to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

What is violence?

"Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder."

"Pacifist a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."

"love your enemies"

Matthew 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

"bless those who persecute you"

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Romans 12:14 Bless them which persecute[32] you: bless, and curse not.

"my kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my servants would fight for me"

Or when Paul says in 1 Corinthians:

"For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds." Or in ephesians:

"for our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers and principalities"

Or in Romans:

"do not take vengeance for vengeance belongs to the Lord"

Stopping someone from murdering or raping or even just robbing them is not vengeance.


If you let predators harm your sheep or your neighbors you are not a pacifist.
A "Pacifist"[33] is said to be "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."

But if you are unwilling to defend others then you should not expect anyone to defend you. That would mean that if a pacifist will not come to the forcible defense of others he should not call the police for his or her own protection.

There is another hypocrisy more common among those who call themselves pacifists. A true pacifist would never use force to take things away from other people or want anyone to take things from others for his or her personal benefit. But many who claim to be pacifists look to men who call themselves benefactors but exercise authority using force to take from others to provide their social security, free education, and welfare.

In Christianity Jesus said we are to love our enemies and even asked for forgiveness on the cross for those who abused Him "for they know not what they do". But how far does this go toward modern versions of pacifism?

Jesus also said in Luke 22:36, "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Having a sword did not mean you would wage war, perform acts of militarism, or condone violence against others.

Pacifists with swords

Philo suggests that the Essenes were a pacifist group while others carried swords and even trained but were counted as being willing to take a personal blow without retaliation. He also describes the group in a way that suggests Pythagoreanism because of their rejection of taking oaths, and the keeping of slaves.

Philo claims that the Essenes abstained from animal sacrifices altogether.

At the time of John the Baptist, who many consider to be an Essene, there were welfare systems that depended upon taxation to finance them.

Jesus forbade the ministers to whom he appointed a kingdom[34] to exercise authority like the Benefactors of other governments but they were to supply benefits through charity, rather than force.

There was lots of welfare around in the Roman Empire but most of it depended upon membership in temple systems and the taxes that supported them. Israel had depended upon freewill offerings until the voice of the people rejected God and chose a king. 1 Samuel 8.

The voice of people have chosen kings like Saul and Nimrod and the Caesars of the world. Herod had started a system of Corban or welfare dependent upon forced offerings.

Many of these Modern Christians also talk about "The Kingdom Gospel that concerns the nation of Israel and the fact that the nations of the earth can be blessed by blessing Israel was not a mystery but in prophecy." But they deny the power of Christ and what he was really doing and look no farther than their private interpretation of the gospel that is void of the works of the early Church and its Daily ministration.

Nimrod to Now Series: Part 1 of 10 ~6 min

Yes, Moses and Gideon and Samson were leaders in a nation called Israel which was "the place where God prevailed". But they led their nation and the people according to the perfect law of liberty. There was no king and men were to learn to rule themselves according to the leading of God in their hearts while loving one another.[35]

Saul became king when the people sinned and rejected God. And he was told he would lose that kingdom because he forced an offering which was a "foolish" thing.[36]

All Saul had done was command the people to give him an offering to support his troops.[37] We see Samuel's reaction in 1 Samuel 13:11 asking him "What hast thou done?" with Saul making excuses that he feared the Philistines who gathered to make war.[38]

UNC Interview: Part 1 of 8 Introduction ~3 min

So what did Saul do?

He forced an offering to supply his army.[39] Israel operated according to the perfect law of liberty up till that point but God had warned them this would happen.

Nimrod to Now Series: Part 5: One Purse] ~4

The people were told that the government they wanted Samuel to create was a rejection of God[40] He told them that the ruler would end up taking and taking and taking and their sons would run before their chariots and war machinery of the king.[41]

UNC Interview: Part 3: The corpus or body of Christ established by Christ or by others?] ~10 min

And God would not hear their prayers because they wanted a ruler who could exercise authority one over the other.[42]

The rulers in the world today are like Saul because the people, including Modern Christians, have rejected God and His ways and even the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

So who should rule over you?

Who ruled over the Christians?

Who was their king?

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

Who said he was the rightful heir of the throne of David.

  • Matthew 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

What did the Romans say about Jesus?

  • Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

How does His kingdom operate?

By the perfect law of liberty.

You need to read the book The Higher Liberty.

These false, do-nothing Christians who do not know the Gospel, God nor Christ use verses like Acts 3:19-21 that talks about those who "Repent" but they have not repented themselves. They are living like the Pharisees because their false preachers are not telling them the whole truth. Therefore they are not converted, nor are their sins "blotted out" because like Cain they have gone out of the presence of God.

These false ministers are not "his holy prophets".[43] Therefore there is no "Dispensation of the Grace of God" for them because they are not "true believers".

These false believers, who still pray to men who call themselves benefactors, are not forgiven because neither do they forgive their neighbors' debt. They are not doing what the Ephesian Christians were doing but what those who opposed Christ were doing. They are not covered in His Blood nor His grace.[44]

They also quote Colossians 2:13-14 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, HAVING FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

He has not forgiven them because they will not forgive others the debt that provides their benefits from those benefactors who exercise authority.

They like to excuse their continued policy of sins with statements like, "The fact is that we are all sinners and none of us measure up to God's Holy and perfect standards. Only by believing the Gospel can we be saved and have Christ's righteousness imputed to us."

But they do not know the Gospel, nor Christ, nor God, and remain workers of iniquity rather than seekers of the Kingdom of God and his righteousness not doers of the word.

Murderous Pacifist

Some pacifists say they would never use force of any kind. But that pacifism may negate the responsibility to attend to what Christ called the weightier matters.

If a thousand people are about to be killed and the only way to save them would be shoot the fellow who has his finger on the bomb, would you do it?

If you don't, many innocent people will die and you could be charged with criminal negligence because you could have saved them but did not.

If you saw your neighbor being attacked by murders would you call the police?

You are calling them not just for their badge, but because they will bring a gun.

In defense of defense

If the pen is mightier than the sword its use should be more guarded.

Elvia Díaz, the author of the opinion piece for the Arizona Republic, thinks the fact that "we know nothing about at least six other parishioners who also appeared to draw their handguns at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas... is terrifying."

What I think is terrifying, since the pen is mightier than the sword, is that Elvia Díaz and the media publish this kind of hit piece on the inalienable right to self and community defense with impunity.

Texas did not make the law that allows "armed security at houses of worship and allowing parishioners to bring their weapons to church" Jesus did.

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

Texas only reaffirmed this inalienable right in their statutes. That does not make Texas the source of the preexisting right.

And it is also not true that "The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms." God did. The second amendment restricts the government from infringing on the right of the people to obtain and bear arms.

Elvia Díaz seems wholely ignorant of where the rights of the people come from and what the original purpose of the constitution was intended to be. Judging by other articles she has published, ignorance may be her most prominent trait. Unfortunately, she is not alone in her ignorance.

Yes "that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere" as Elvia Díaz writes.

But again, that amendment is not the source of the people's rights. The Constitution was written to establish limitations and restrictions upon the government and this columnist for the Arizona Republic does not seem to understand that. And, evidently, the editors there and at USA Today are suffering from the same delusion—or ignorance or bias—as Elvia Díaz.

But they are still allowed to write and publish this nonsense. I suppose they think they have that right because the government granted them that right with the first amendment.

Yes, "We know firearms are readily available to anyone who wants one" but that is not "the problem." Firearms were more available when I was a boy in Texas in the 1950s and we did not have these mass shootings and stabbings. "Sunday’s shooting" isn’t just "about how Kinnunen got a hold of a weapon" illegally, but what brought him to this point of lawless behavior.

If you want to solve a problem, you have to seek the truth—the whole truth—and provide for it, even if you are a part of that problem.

Suggesting that the government should have the right to infringe upon people's right to keep and bear arms because some people are bad and might get a gun if the government is not granted the power to infringe upon the people's rights is like restricting the right of a free press because someone might write nonsense and make some of the same ignorant comments we see coming from Elvia Díaz and the media editors. Clearly, they are either ignorant or biased about where the rights of the people come from and the purpose of the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — " Declaration of Independence

Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links

Tithetext | Treasury | stones upon | Early Church tithe |
Wages of unrighteousness | Seeds of righteousness |
Tithing | Tens | Tithingman | Taxation | Tribute |
Pay tribute | Social Security | Corban | Home church |
Altars | Stones | Clay and Stone | Stones upon |
White stones‎ | Lively Stones of a Living Altar |
Church legally defined | Breeches | Red Heifer |
Corban | Tithing In Conscience | Self-Sacrifice |
Public religion | Stoning | Sophistry |

Religion | Pure Religion‎ | Private welfare | Fleeing Religion |
False religion | Public religion | Our Religion | Christian conflict |
Corban | Baptism | Benefactors | ThatWord | Daily ministration |
Modern Christians | Diocletianic Persecution | Christians check list |
gods | Judge not | Judge | Fathers | Deist | Damnable heresies |
Factions_at_the_altar |
Pharisees | Sadducees | Zealot | Essenes | Levites |
Messianic Judaism | Menahem the Essene | Sanhedrin |
Altars | Clay and Stone | Red Heifer | Golden calf |
Freewill offerings | Religion | Pure Religion | Public religion |
Christian conflict | Paganism | Denominations | Dispensationalism |
Benefactors | Corban | Daily ministration | Calendars |
Cult | Imperial Cult of Rome | Guru_theories| | Covet | Merchandise |
Mark of God | Mark of Cain | Mark of the Beast | Nature of the Beast
Section 666 | Benefactors | Biting one another | Cry out | Worship |
Church | Temples | Religious Orders | Priests | Kings and priests |
Hear | Bible Index | Network |

Ministers | Why Minister | Minister of the world | Minister of the Church |
Elders | Deacon | Priests | Levites | Breeches | Hierarchy |
Altars | Stones | Stoning Daily ministration | Corban | Welfare |
Essenes | Disciples | Seven men | Church | Church legally defined | Christian |
Churches | Ministry Burnout | Religion | The Blessed Strategy | Widow |
Tens | Tithing | CORE | COM | Minister of Record | Benefactors |
Cain | Nimrod | Constantine | Christian conflict | Fathers |
Lady Godiva | Isaac Backus | Government and Liberty Described |
Monks | Lost_Monks | Married_Monks | Monasticism | Modern_Monastic_life |
Seek | Votive | Orders | Religious Orders | Rules of St Benedict |
Jesus | Was Jesus rich | Mendicant | Vow of poverty | Fervent Charity |
Denominations | Guru_theories | Iconoclast | Cult | Bible Index | First to do List |


  1. Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
  2. Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio protectionem. Coke, Littl. 65."
  3. Some claim that Hitler did not say this but he did say "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations with the English translation copyrighted 1953 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Cited passage, from Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942: The quote could be the work of a very liberal translation, which is why finding an original source is so elusive. But it is clear that Hitler wanted to disarm the Jews 1938 German Weapons Act just as democrats today want to disarm conservatives.
  4. “In the United States citizenship is defined in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.’”
  5. Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay ∓mp; Co. vs Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 (1854).
  6. Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492; etc. Black’s 3rd Ed. p. 95.
  7. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
  8. Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
    Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
  9. 9.0 9.1 Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
  11. Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
  12. 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
  13. : Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
    Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
    Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
    Matthew 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
    Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
    Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
    Matthew 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
    Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
    Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
    Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? 19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.
    20 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
    Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
  14. Acts 17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
  15. Luke 10:1 ¶ After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
    The Zugot were pairs, also called Zugoth refers both to the two-hundred-year period (c. 170 BCE – 30 CE) during the time of the Second Temple in which the spiritual leadership of the Jews was in the hands of successions of "pairs" of religious teachers. Tanna were repeaters or teachers while the Amoraim were "interpreters".
  16. Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
  18. Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
    Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
  19. Numbers 11:24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. 25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
  20. 459 ~ἄνομος~ anomos \@an’-om-os\@ from 1 (as a negative particle) and 3551; adj AV-without law 4, transgressor 2, wicked 2, lawless 1, unlawful 1; 10
    1) destitute of (the Mosaic) law
    1a) of the Gentiles
    2) departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked
  21. Isaiah 53:12 "Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
  22. 06586 ^עשׁפ^ pasha‘ \@paw-shah’\@ a primitive root [identical with 06585 through the idea of expansion]; v; AV-transgress 17, transgressor 9, rebelled 6, revolt 6, offended 1, transgression 1, trespassed 1; 41
    1) to rebel, transgress, revolt
    1a) (Qal)
    1a1) to rebel, revolt
    1a2) to transgress
    1b) (Niphal) to be rebelled against
  23. Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
    Matthew 27:11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
    Matthew 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
    Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    Mark 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
    Mark 15:9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
    Mark 15:12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
    Mark 15:18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
    Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    Luke 23:3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
    Luke 23:37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
    Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    John 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
    John 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
    John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    John 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
  24. Sicarii translates as 'knife-men' and were so named because they carried daggers hidden in their cloaks
  25. Golden calf
  26. : John 19:3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
  27. Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
  28. Comment on Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Rousseau and Revolution, Will et Ariel Durant p.801. fn 83 Heiseler, 85.
  29. Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse [any] falsely; and be content with your wages.
  30. 971 ~βιάζω~ biazo \@bee-ad’-zo\@ from 970; TDNT-1:609,105; {See TDNT 137} v AV-suffer violence 1, press 1; 2
    1) to use force, to apply force
    2) to force, inflict violence on
  31. 1286 ~διασείω~ diaseio \@dee-as-i’-o\@ from 1223 and 4579 shake or quake or move; ; v AV-do violence to 1; 1
    1) to shake thoroughly
    2) to make to tremble
    3) to terrify
    4) to agitate
    5) to extort from one by intimidation money or other property
  32. 1377 ~διώκω~ dioko \@dee-o’-ko\@ a prolonged (and causative) form of a primary verb dio (to flee; cf the base of 1169 and 1249); TDNT-2:229,177; {See TDNT 195} v AV-persecute 28, follow after 6, follow 4, suffer persecution 3, misc 3; 44
    1) to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away
    2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing, to run after
    2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs swiftly to reach the goal
    2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner)
    3) in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one
    3a) to persecute
    3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something
    4) without the idea of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone
    5) metaph., to pursue
    5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to acquire
  33. Pacifism is opposition to war, militarism, or violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud (1864–1921) and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901.
  34. Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
  35. Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
  36. 1 Samuel 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue:...
  37. 1 Samuel 13:9 And Saul said(translated command 30 times), Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
  38. 1 Samuel 13:11 And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and [that] thou camest not within the days appointed, and [that] the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;
  39. 1 Samuel 13:12 Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.
  40. 1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
  41. 1 Samuel 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
  42. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
  43. Acts 3:19-21 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
  44. Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;