# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Jesus & Anarchist [Mod title update]

## James Redford

My following article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis. Below the aforesaid article is an article complimentary to it.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79.

-----

Very much related to the foregoing, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb.

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761.

----------


## Lucille

Yes, yes He is, as is our heavenly Father.

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

http://www.slideshare.net/JamesRedfo...ically-correct

http://alphaomegapoint.wordpress.com...of-everything/

Looking forward to reading them.

Don't just be a guest.  Join us!

"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified."
--Leo Tolstoy

----------


## Jackson

No Jesus believes in the rule of law [constitution].

Jesus rejects communism, fascism, anarchism, progressivism, socialism, atheism, secularism and other radical left anti-faith ideologies.

----------


## LexEtLibertas

> Yes, yes He is, as is our heavenly Father.
> 
> ...
> 
> Looking forward to reading them.
> 
> Don't just be a guest.  Join us!
> 
> "Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified."
> --Leo Tolstoy


Thanks, Lucille.

The latest version of my article "Jesus Is an Anarchist" is at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) website.

----------


## LexEtLibertas

> No Jesus believes in the rule of law [constitution].
> 
> Jesus rejects communism, fascism, anarchism, progressivism, socialism, atheism, secularism and other radical left anti-faith ideologies.


Hi, Jackson. My article "Jesus Is an Anarchist" (Social Science Research Network [SSRN], Dec. 4, 2011 [orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001], 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761) is logically complete on its subject, in the sense of its apodixis. See also my following article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79.

----------


## erowe1

I'd +rep the OP if I could.

What's with these "guest" accounts? Is this a new thing?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What's with these "guest" accounts? Is this a new thing?


Welcome to the new Guest Forum: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ew-Guest-Forum

Guest Forum: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...41-Guest-Forum

----------


## GunnyFreedom

God has opposed the formation of worldly states from the very beginning.  We were supposed to have 'no King but God.'  Indeed, time has proven Him right.  As the state slowly, inevitably strips those powers which rightfully belong to God alone, today too many religious Christians have conflated the state and God, and now not only cheer, but actively work towards the subjugation of God under the apparatus of temporal government.  Just look at the hard-core Christian Right fighting to keep marriage within the domain of the state rather than under the dominion of God.  The Church has lost their way because they have ignored God who opposed the formation of worldly states in the first place.  As God told Samuel, "they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No Jesus believes in the rule of law [constitution].
> 
> Jesus rejects communism, fascism, anarchism, progressivism, socialism, atheism, secularism and other radical left anti-faith ideologies.


Find me the word "Constitution" in the Bible.

There are different meanings of the word "Anarchism".  Some definitions thereof (Anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, etc.) are in fact left-wing.  Frankly I don't really know the difference between all the different "flavors" of left-wing anarchism, but they are all left wing, anti-property, and thus,  anti-Christian.

But, that's not  what we're talking about here.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Find me the word "Constitution" in the Bible.
> 
> There are different meanings of the word "Anarchism".  Some definitions thereof (Anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, etc.) are in fact left-wing.  Frankly I don't really know the difference between all the different "flavors" of left-wing anarchism, but they are all left wing, anti-property, and thus,  anti-Christian.
> 
> But, that's not  what we're talking about here.


I would say Yeshua's anarchism is neither "left" nor "right", as these terms come from divided opinions among men.  Christian anarchism just "is" (not "ought") because Yeshua speaks with the Authority of God.  Compared to earthly philosophies, Christian anarchism is more accurately called "left", if you want to think in terms of such a simple spectrum.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I'm a fan.

----------


## vinl

Jesus did not fight against the government as many thought, he simply tried to point out they were following the wrong god (Money and False Power) and yes he was murdered for his teachings!! he did not side with Barabbas because he knew deliverance would only be temporary. we need to realize that Christ mission was to prepare the way into the true life and existence that never ends. not fight in this present world. as he stated give unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's and to God that which is God's. violence brings forth violence so that is the wrong way to go. If you want to reverse the direction of our country then you have to get back control of what they use to run their operation (Money) our tax dollars. and that can only be done by We The People !! United We Stand but Divided We Fall  . unless we ban together in a large enough group and agree to hold back tax dollars from the government so they are not funded and say to the treasury that we the people will no longer pay the Governments bills unless We The People get to actually vote on the expenditures as a true democracy would.
 We have to truly want our freedom and liberty back before we will be able to Unite so we have the (power) for a lack of a better word, to back the government into a corner where they have to pay attention and start listening and doing as the people want as a majority.
 We have a major problem with to many crooked lawyers in government seats writing laws to fill their pockets and need to remove them from office by our right to vote by means of drawing up petitions and getting enough signatures on them to remove them. we do have the right to remove any elected official by petition  but finding enough people with backbone in this great country of ours seems to be a major problem.
 Remember that for Evil to Abound Good must do Nothing and that is exactly why we are in this condition is the Good People Did Nothing and so the Evil People took over.

 PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS !! THE GOVERNMENT IS A BUSINESS AND LIKE ALL BUSINESSES IT MUST HAVE THE FUNDS TO MAINTAIN IT'S BUSINESS AND LIKE ALL BUSINESSES WILL GO UNDER WITHOUT THE FUNDS TO OPERATE.

----------


## pcosmar

> PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS !! THE GOVERNMENT IS A BUSINESS AND LIKE ALL BUSINESSES IT MUST HAVE THE FUNDS TO MAINTAIN IT'S BUSINESS AND LIKE ALL BUSINESSES WILL GO UNDER WITHOUT THE FUNDS TO OPERATE.


Ok, I thought about that.

I LoL'd
I Frowned.

I reject that idea in entirety.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would say Yeshua's anarchism is neither "left" nor "right", as these terms come from divided opinions among men.  Christian anarchism just "is" (not "ought") because Yeshua speaks with the Authority of God.  Compared to earthly philosophies, Christian anarchism is more accurately called "left", if you want to think in terms of such a simple spectrum.


If we're going to play with the left/right label, I prefer being able to call myself right wing, precisely because of people like Jackson. There are a lot more people on the "right" that support limited government than the "left."  It doesn't follow through with the politicians, of course, but for the average joe it generally does.  Of course, I agree that this spectrum doesn't mean much, I'm simply going by  how Americans generally view those terms (ie. your average joe is going to think of Obama as "leftist" and Ron Paul as "right wing" even if the MSM tries to paint Ron as a lefty.)

And I agree that in reality, Jesus' anarchism wouldn't truly be "left" or "right."  



> Ok, I thought about that.
> 
> I LoL'd
> I Frowned.
> 
> I reject that idea in entirety.


I agree. Its absurd.  For one thing, businesses don't generally take their money by force.  And when they do, it is almost always with the aid of government (insurance companies, banks [bailouts] and the like)

----------


## pcosmar

I do not believe that God is an Anarchist.

in fact,, I do not believe that anarchy can even exist beyond momentary.

The Creator is very much the Creator of order. the ultimate authority,, though not generally Authoritarian.
Jesus is the King of Kings. And yet with him there is Liberty.



> Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.


I see him as a Benevolent Monarchist.

----------


## Lucille

bump

----------


## presence

> I see him as a Benevolent Monarchist.


Ok, well and true...  but of secular government?  




> Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology that claims anarchism is inherent in Christianity and the Gospels.[1][2] It is grounded in the belief that *there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable*, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies.
> 
> Christian anarchists denounce the state as they claim it is violent, deceitful and, when glorified, idolatrous.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

----------


## donnay

~Bump~

----------


## William Tell

Actually he is the King of Kings. The Almighty can do as he wishes with all of creation.

----------


## Ronin Truth

What an interesting idea.  

Do you think being executed by a church/state conspiracy combo just might have had anything to do with that attitude?

----------


## pcosmar

> No Jesus believes in the rule of law [constitution].
> 
> Jesus rejects communism, fascism, anarchism, progressivism, socialism, atheism, secularism and other radical left anti-faith ideologies.


I believe that our Constitution was the best written at the time. And I believe that a Christian Belief inspired much of it.

The founders (some of them) believed that government of man was inherently evil. And it therefore must be limited.

The Constitution was meant to limit the evil of government and protect the Liberty of the individual.
 It was the first and only country to attempt such. (a short experiment in the history of man)

Sadly it has been ignored and corrupted since.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Jesus is not an anarchist. He called himself the son of God and spoke about a kingdom, that is not anarchy.

----------


## Unregistered

First visit, first post; testing, testing.

Btw, where has Jesus been? After his transformation he showed up on a few occasions for others to see but hasn't been seen in awhile. Is he in hiding? One would think he'd pay a visit every 2000 years or so.

----------


## pcosmar

> First visit, first post; testing, testing.
> 
> Btw, where has Jesus been? After his transformation he showed up on a few occasions for others to see but hasn't been seen in awhile. Is he in hiding? One would think he'd pay a visit every 2000 years or so.


Scheduled for an appearance,, but I don't have an exact date.
Will arrive in Jerusalem.

----------


## jmdrake

At first I misread the title as "Jesus is an antichrist" to which I was .  Anyway, I wish the James Redford fellow had gone ahead and joined the forums.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Jesus is not an anarchist. He called himself the son of God and spoke about a kingdom, that is not anarchy.


An anarchist of Earthly HUMAN governments. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's more than good enough for me.

Read the essay.  *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## radiofriendly

Jesus doesn't conform to any of our isms - He's got bigger fish to fry - but this stuff is a fascinating conversation for the newbies...

----------


## anaconda

When you can turn wine into water with a snap of your fingers, or similarly summon up huge quantities of fish and bread loaves, you are not bound by price mechanisms that are prevalent in anarchy.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> When you can turn wine into water with a snap of your fingers, or similarly summon up huge quantities of fish and bread loaves, you are not bound by price mechanisms that are prevalent in anarchy.



Or was that turning water into wine?  

Which prevalent price mechanisms in anarchy, would that be?

----------


## anaconda

> Or was that turning water into wine?  
> 
> Which prevalent price mechanisms in anarchy, would that be?


Yes, I meant water into wine. Thanks for catching that. I was assuming that an anarchy would have freely negotiated prices that fairly reflected the exchange rate of goods in terms of other goods. It seemed like Jesus was doing an end run around this and perhaps playing by another set of rules than the earthly anarchists, as he did not purchase the usual factors of production for the wine production. He was not subjected to the same free market prices. But the more I think about it, Jesus was perhaps a very gifted entrepreneur by finding a wine making process that did not involve any usual or obvious grape production, harvesting, crushing, or fermenting. And, to be fair, we do not know if their were other costs that we are unaware of or that were hidden in some way. So the wine making incident may not disqualify Jesus as an anarchist.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Scheduled for an appearance,, but I don't have an exact date.
> Will arrive in Jerusalem.


We don't have an exact date, but, He did indicate the events of the Second Advent would happen sometime after the generation that saw the return of Jerusalem to control by the Israeli people. Per Revelation, the end of the age would also be upon us when it was logistically possible to track, monitor or permit/prevent everybody's economic activity (the Beast system), which appears to be about now. To many believers, Hosea 6:1-2 teaches Jews would be risen after "2 days" (prophetic speech for 2 thousand years), which corresponds to the 2,000 year history of the Christian church. 

Other (non-biblical) markers are the predictions of historic Christian figures (2nd century Barnabus et al) believed world history from Creation to the start of the millenium would be 6 prophetic days, with the final 2 'days' being the 2000 years of the Church. Since the church era started about 32 AD, that would place the Return by or before 2032 AD. Luther (circa early 1500's) likewise believed the Messiah would return in about 500 years after his time.

----------


## Theocrat

You know, when people assert that "Jesus is an anarchist," I have to ask them the simple question, "Do you New Testament, much?" Over and over in the New Testament, Christ talks about His Kingdom, and it's not "kingdom" as some abstract, spiritual ideal for a relationship with Christ (though there is an aspect of truth to that); it's "kingdom" in the sense of something tangible and historical, which grows and has its being throughout the course of the ages.

One such evidence of that reality can be found in a prophetic word, Isaiah 9:7, which reads, "Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Jesus, as King of kings, has His domain in civil governance, under which even the "kings" and "rulers" of our time must submit. Indeed, Jesus taught His disciples that very thing in "The Lord's Prayer," when He stated, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven." (Matthew 6:10)

So, I don't see how Jesus can be labeled as One Who is vehemently against the establishment of civil polities (such as government bodies of legislation and public policy served towards a particular group of citizenry), which is what anarchy stands for, when He appeals to a civil polity ("kingdom") as the very place where He will rule the nations. Unless I'm wrong about what "anarchy" is, I don't believe that there is any Biblical case to prove that Jesus was, in fact, an anarchist. But, as some have mentioned in this thread, the term "anarchy" can have multiple definitions, too.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You know, when people assert that "Jesus is an anarchist," I have to ask them the simple question, "Do you New Testament, much?" Over and over in the New Testament, Christ talks about His Kingdom, and it's not "kingdom" as some abstract, spiritual ideal for a relationship with Christ (though there is an aspect of truth to that); it's "kingdom" in the sense of something tangible and historical, which grows and has its being throughout the course of the ages.
> 
> One such evidence of that reality can be found in a prophetic word, Isaiah 9:7, which reads, "Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Jesus, as King of kings, has His domain in civil governance, under which even the "kings" and "rulers" of our time must submit. Indeed, Jesus taught His disciples that very thing in "The Lord's Prayer," when He stated, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven." (Matthew 6:10)
> 
> So, I don't see how Jesus can be labeled as One Who is vehemently against the establishment of civil polities (such as government bodies of legislation and public policy served towards a particular group of citizenry), which is what anarchy stands for, when He appeals to a civil polity ("kingdom") as the very place where He will rule the nations. Unless I'm wrong about what "anarchy" is, I don't believe that there is any Biblical case to prove that Jesus was, in fact, an anarchist. But, as some have mentioned in this thread, the term "anarchy" can have multiple definitions, too.


If Satan rules and controls the world's human governments, which ones does Jesus respect and adore? 

*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## Theocrat

> If Satan rules and controls the world's human governments, which ones does Jesus respect and adore? 
> 
> *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*


I don't accept the claim that Satan rules and controls the world's human governments, and such an idea gives too much power and credit to Satan, anyway (as if Satan has equal sovereignty in the world with Jesus Christ). Jesus has authority in Heaven and on Earth (cf. Matthew 28:16-20). His resurrection is the main justification that all of the nations belong to Him, theologically speaking.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't accept the claim that Satan rules and controls the world's human governments, and such an idea gives too much power and credit to Satan, anyway (as if Satan has equal sovereignty in the world with Jesus Christ). Jesus has authority in Heaven and on Earth (cf. Matthew 28:16-20). His resurrection is the main justification that all of the nations belong to Him, theologically speaking.


Anything else in the New Testament that you choose not to accept and/or reject? 

Luke 4:5-7
Hebrews 4:15
1 John 5:19
James 4:4-7
1 John 2:15-17
Matthew 20:25-26
Ephesians 6:12
Philippians 3:20
Hebrews 13:14
Acts 4:26
Revelation 19:19
Revelation 16:14
Revelation 11:15
1 Corinthians 15:24
etc., etc.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> You know, when people assert that "Jesus is an anarchist," I have to ask them the simple question, "Do you New Testament, much?" Over and over in the New Testament, Christ talks about His Kingdom, and it's not "kingdom" as some abstract, spiritual ideal for a relationship with Christ (though there is an aspect of truth to that); it's "kingdom" in the sense of something tangible and historical, which grows and has its being throughout the course of the ages.
> 
> One such evidence of that reality can be found in a prophetic word, Isaiah 9:7, which reads, "Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Jesus, as King of kings, has His domain in civil governance, under which even the "kings" and "rulers" of our time must submit. Indeed, Jesus taught His disciples that very thing in "The Lord's Prayer," when He stated, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven." (Matthew 6:10)
> 
> So, I don't see how Jesus can be labeled as One Who is vehemently against the establishment of civil polities (such as government bodies of legislation and public policy served towards a particular group of citizenry), which is what anarchy stands for, when He appeals to a civil polity ("kingdom") as the very place where He will rule the nations. Unless I'm wrong about what "anarchy" is, I don't believe that there is any Biblical case to prove that Jesus was, in fact, an anarchist. But, as some have mentioned in this thread, the term "anarchy" can have multiple definitions, too.


I would first say, briefly, that while God has a Kingdom, and it is definitely literal/historic or real, one *enters into* it and into His covenant on a voluntary basis. It is a voluntary order based on a recognition of His rightful authority an law, not a human civil government, that typically asserts authoritarian, monopoly control on everyone whether they consented to be under its rule or not. In this respect, it is an anarchist kingdom 100% free of false authority elements. 

Second, the God of the new Testament is the same God of the Old Testament, whose attitude towards human civil government is reflected through His prophet in I Samuel chapter 8. Rather than set up another human kingdom that would take their land and crops, turn their sons into horsemen and troops, loot the people through taxes, or erect monuments to its rulers, etc., Samuel said the people could simply continue the simple anarchistic, non-authoritarian system of judges that had served them for hundreds of years. This plea by a prophet of God clearly teaches there is a legitimate anarchistic alternative to civil government, even as He still permitted the people to choose the latter anyway.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Having entered the kingdon, can you then secede from it?


Sure.  Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and go straight to hell, and do not pass go.  Secession, successful.

----------


## TheTexan

> Sure.  Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and go straight to hell, and do not pass go.  Secession, successful.


Why does everyone assume that hell is such a bad place?  Sure, that's how it's written in the bible, but that's just like, Jesus' opinion, .. man.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why does everyone assume that hell is such a bad place?  Sure, that's how it's written in the bible, but that's just like, Jesus' opinion, .. man.


Actually, 'hell' is really just the end-state of nihilism.  It is nothingness and dissolution.  Ask an atheist "what becomes of you after you die?" and they will say, "nothingness" and they are actually correct.  While I personally prefer the Kingdom over eternal dissolution, you will note that in my post to which you have replied, I did not in fact make any value-judgement whatsoever on the nature of hell whatsoever.

----------


## TheTexan

> Actually, 'hell' is really just the end-state of nihilism.  It is nothingness and dissolution.  Ask an atheist "what becomes of you after you die?" and they will say, "nothingness" and they are actually correct.  While I personally prefer the Kingdom over eternal dissolution, you will note that in my post to which you have replied, I did not in fact make any value-judgement whatsoever on the nature of hell whatsoever.


Huh, neat.  I always thought Jesus was kind of an $#@!, but you make him sound like an OK guy!

----------


## erowe1

> I don't accept the claim that Satan rules and controls the world's human governments, and such an idea gives too much power and credit to Satan, anyway (as if Satan has equal sovereignty in the world with Jesus Christ). Jesus has authority in Heaven and on Earth (cf. Matthew 28:16-20). His resurrection is the main justification that all of the nations belong to Him, theologically speaking.


It doesn't put Satan on a par with Jesus. Satan's control over human kings is delegated authority. Satan himself is always underneath God's sovereignty. What Satan does with his minions who claim for themselves rule that rightly belongs to Jesus Christ alone ultimately serves God's purposes, although neither Satan nor those kings mean it to and they sin when they do those very deeds of tyranny through which God works out his purposes.

----------


## erowe1

> Having entered the kingdon, can you then secede from it?


Those who do enter the kingdom won't choose to.

"Your people will be volunteers in the day of your power." (Psalm 110:3).

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't accept the claim that Satan rules and controls the world's human governments, and such an idea gives too much power and credit to Satan, anyway (as if Satan has equal sovereignty in the world with Jesus Christ). Jesus has authority in Heaven and on Earth (cf. Matthew 28:16-20). His resurrection is the main justification that all of the nations belong to Him, theologically speaking.


Satan still walks and administers this present world.
Christ will put an end to it.. it is a done deal.. but time has not come to that point yet.

At this point.
Luke 4



> 5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
> 
> 6 And the devil said unto him, *All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.*
> 
> 7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.


Satan is working toward his throne in Jerusalem. But he holds all earthly governments.

ever since the very first human government.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Satan still walks and administers this present world.
> Christ will put an end to it.. it is a done deal.. but time has not come to that point yet.
> 
> At this point.
> Luke 4
> 
> 
> Satan is working toward his throne in Jerusalem. But he holds all earthly governments.
> 
> ever since the very first human government.


And this factor, along with the sin nature, of course, is why all attempts at human civil government have eventually failed. The only earthly exception has been the non-governmental, anarchistic theocracy of ancient Israel, and (presently) the millennial Kingdom to be instituted at the return of Christ. The Bible does not seem to indicate it is possible for even anarchism to work, without God at the center. The Lord, always and forever, is the secret sauce.

It has arguably been the point of biblical history, and the 6,000 years of human civilization to show that Man could not succeed at governance on his own, due to sin and demonic influence. As the rest of the history of the kings of Israel and Judah showed, even a special people chosen by God and advised by His prophets lived in near constant disobedience, war, and disaster over the centuries. The whole point of those six 'days' was to prepare the race to finally accept Christ as ruler of the earthly kingdom during the seventh 'day' of civilized history, where we will enter His day of rest during the Millennium.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So evidently, in addition to their being no way to amically secede - one also doesn't choose to enter the kingdom. I gotta tell ya, it certainly doesn't sound like anarchy.



Anarchy refers to human's government not to God's monarchy.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Ok, well and true...  but of secular government?  
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism


How is it I'm just now discovering this thread??  Of course Jesus was an  anarchist.  Of course we are all "anarchists" because that is the  unrecognized truth of our existence.  God did not grant authority to ANY  "government".  There is no "delegation order" from God to Obama to be  president of a legal fiction call "USA".  We currently live under  "anarchy" and we have ALWAYS lived under anarchy because there is NO  LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY for any man to "rule" over another man.  Each of us  individually have NO "authority" over our neighbor so it follows that we cannot "delegate" authority we don't have to any entity.  "Governments" only exist in the mind of the believers and when we stop "believing" in that false god it will cease to be an issue in our lives.  

We don't have "governments" we have gangs of goons with guns stealing and murdering.  That's "anarchy"...

----------


## robert68

> How is it I'm just now discovering this thread??  Of course Jesus was an  anarchist.  Of course we are all "anarchists" because that is the  unrecognized truth of our existence.  *God did not grant authority to ANY  "government".*  There is no "delegation order" from God to Obama to be  president of a legal fiction call "USA".  We currently live under  "anarchy" and we have ALWAYS lived under anarchy because there is NO  LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY for any man to "rule" over another man.  Each of us  individually have NO "authority" over our neighbor so it follows that we cannot "delegate" authority we don't have to any entity.  "Governments" only exist in the mind of the believers and when we stop "believing" in that false god it will cease to be an issue in our lives.  
> 
> We don't have "governments" we have gangs of goons with guns stealing and murdering.  That's "anarchy"...


Why do you have the authority to say who "God" did and didn't grant authority to?

----------


## TheTexan

> Why do you have the authority to say who "God" did and didn't grant authority to?


Yup.




> Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’


Bam!  Voting ftw.




> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed


Yay, Jesus loves our government!  Why do you hate our government... do you hate Jesus?

----------


## Theocrat

> It doesn't put Satan on a par with Jesus. *Satan's control over human kings is delegated authority.* Satan himself is always underneath God's sovereignty. What Satan does with his minions who claim for themselves rule that rightly belongs to Jesus Christ alone ultimately serves God's purposes, although neither Satan nor those kings mean it to and they sin when they do those very deeds of tyranny through which God works out his purposes.


Where does God reveal that Satan has control over human kings, though?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Why do you have the authority to say who "God" did and didn't grant authority to?


Actually you are correct and I certainly acknowledge that I DO NOT have any authority from God.  What I DO have is doubt that ANYONE has such authority and if they do, they need to prove it to me or I do not acknowledge it.  Since they have never provided any such proof to me or anyone else that I know of, I do not acknowledge that they have any such "authority".  If you can show me a delegation order from God to Obama with God's signature on it then we can talk...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Yay, Jesus loves our government!  Why do you hate our government... do you hate Jesus?


Not sure if this is directed toward me but I can certainly answer it.  I DO NOT hate "our government" simply because "we" don't have one.  Any form of "government" is a "legal fiction" (please look this up) and I cannot "hate" what does not exist.  I certainly "hate" that so many people actually "believe" in this fiction to the point that some of them will actually take my stuff or even kill me because they "believe" that their fiction has granted them such power.  In reality, they have no more "authority" than the mafia and their violence is just as sinful...

----------


## erowe1

> So evidently, in addition to their being no way to amically secede - one also doesn't choose to enter the kingdom. I gotta tell ya, it certainly doesn't sound like anarchy.


Evidently based on what?

And why would any of those things have anything to do with whether or not it's anarchy?

----------


## erowe1

> Where does God reveal that Satan has control over human kings, though?


Matthew 4:8-10



> 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
> 
> 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

----------


## TheTexan

> Not sure if this is directed toward me but I can certainly answer it.  I DO NOT hate "our government" simply because "we" don't have one.  Any form of "government" is a "legal fiction" (please look this up) and I cannot "hate" what does not exist.  I certainly "hate" that so many people actually "believe" in this fiction to the point that some of them will actually take my stuff or even kill me because they "believe" that their fiction has granted them such power.  In reality, they have no more "authority" than the mafia and their violence is just as sinful...


Not according to Jesus.  Romans 13:1




> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, *and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God*. *Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed*, and those who resist will incur judgment.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 
> for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 
> Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 
> *For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing*.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know, when people assert that "Jesus is an anarchist," I have to ask them the simple question, "Do you New Testament, much?" Over and over in the New Testament, Christ talks about His Kingdom, and it's not "kingdom" as some abstract, spiritual ideal for a relationship with Christ (though there is an aspect of truth to that); it's "kingdom" in the sense of something tangible and historical, which grows and has its being throughout the course of the ages.
> 
> One such evidence of that reality can be found in a prophetic word, Isaiah 9:7, which reads, "Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Jesus, as King of kings, has His domain in civil governance, under which even the "kings" and "rulers" of our time must submit. Indeed, Jesus taught His disciples that very thing in "The Lord's Prayer," when He stated, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven." (Matthew 6:10)
> 
> So, I don't see how Jesus can be labeled as One Who is vehemently against the establishment of civil polities (such as government bodies of legislation and public policy served towards a particular group of citizenry), which is what anarchy stands for, when He appeals to a civil polity ("kingdom") as the very place where He will rule the nations. Unless I'm wrong about what "anarchy" is, I don't believe that there is any Biblical case to prove that Jesus was, in fact, an anarchist. But, as some have mentioned in this thread, the term "anarchy" can have multiple definitions, too.


This gets at some important points.  erowe1 does not call himself "anarchist" for precisely this reason, and I've moved gradually away from calling myself one for the same reason.  "No rulers but Christ" and "no rulers" may temporally have similar applications... maybe... but they aren't the same thing and the difference isn't trivial.  I'm moving more in your direction on this point, in a temporal sense.

That said, I still suspect we'd disagree on some of these points.  I do not think non-voluntary, non-divine kings are able to be justified in the current era.   A Christian should not endorse such a position as one that exists in society.  Nor should he endorse the role of "President" or any other office in which some people rule over others without their permission.  Perhaps the key verse here would be Matthew 20:25-26.  The gentile pagan system of government is some people ruling over others with force, but this is not Biblical.

Part of this would be I don't agree with postmillennialism, and as such I don't believe humans are supposed to impose Christ's kingdom as a political entity.  I'm guessing you are postmil and do believe we should.

I support a system of private courts, private security, and so forth which I believe can perform governmental functions without a state.  This viewpoint is sometimes called "anarchy" but I suspect that's not how you're using the term.  I see the Isaiah prophecy as being fulfilled through Christ himself, so I don't see how any human king (aside from Christ) could fulfill it.  

I think most of our differences come down to two things:

1. Some of it is just technical/definitional

2. Some of it comes down to postmillennialism and theonomic reconstructionism, which I think you hold to and I don't.  I understand and respect those positions, but I don't agree with them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

someone please tell me bxm is trolling...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Satan still walks and administers this present world.
> Christ will put an end to it.. it is a done deal.. but time has not come to that point yet.
> 
> At this point.
> Luke 4
> 
> 
> Satan is working toward his throne in Jerusalem. But he holds all earthly governments.
> 
> ever since the very first human government.


This^^  also, if we follow Theo's reasoning, it makes God the ultimate author of Evil (as States are the greatest concentration of human evil).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Not according to Jesus.  Romans 13:1


Jesus did not write Romans, nor is that quote from Jesus.

*Rights, Liberties, and Romans 13*


> For centuries the book of Romans, chapter 13,  has been used to extinguish the flames of liberty. It has been misused  to such an extent in fact, that it has become the favourite passage of  dictators. 
>   When the State couldn’t beat early Christianity it decided to join  in. Soon the floors of Roman tax collection offices had Romans 13  inscribed, and slaughter in the name of Christ began. Hitler also used  the passage, claiming that churches should take care of heavenly  matters, leaving earthly matters to him. More recently, Mugabe’s  totalitarian government shamelessly played the Romans 13 card.
>   The Christian Right are using it right now, to exempt the State from  basic laws like "Though shalt not kill" — making it fine to slaughter  the innocent in wars around the world. (See "If God is Pro-War — He Lied")
>  At the same time, the Christian Left continue  using it to exempt the State from basic laws like "Though shalt not  steal" — making it alright for the State to take all it wants and  pretend tax avoiders and evaders are the thieves and cheats.
> *God Plus Country, King, Queen, Government?*
>  Whenever, in the minds of Christians, kingdoms of this earth are merged into the Kingdom of God (see "The Exclusive Kingdom of God"); inevitably their faith is compromised in favour of the earthly government’s will and doctrine:
>  Faith in God’s provision is minimised, faith in the State’s provision maximised. 
>  Faith in God’s created authority is limited, faith in State authority extended. 
>  Christian activity becomes influencing and expanding State activity, rather than supplanting it.
> ...

----------


## TheTexan

> Jesus did not write Romans, nor is that quote from Jesus.
> 
> *Rights, Liberties, and Romans 13*


The Apostle Paul wrote Romans.  And what Paul wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  

Jesus vouches for that, and Paul, in Acts & Peter.

So, unless you want to throw out Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philemon, Phillippians, Timothy, and Titus... because they were written by Paul, along with Acts & Peter, because it says that Paul's written words are the Word of God, ..... the chapter stands as written, in the word of Jesus.

And your link is basically trying to re-re-re-interpret what is written down as basic English.  I can read it just fine, I know what it says.  The author of that article is bastardizing what's written down in Romans more than the supreme court bastardizes the Constitution.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Not according to Jesus.  Romans 13:1


If this questionable quote is your "delegation of authority signed by God" then I really can't argue with you in your mindset.  Yes, some people "believe" that "The Bible" (specifically edition "x") is written by the finger of God, I do not.  What you are quoting was written on some document (original not available for scrutiny) somewhere around 2000 years ago by an unidentifiable author (likely Paul) and then translated from it's original language to English.  You will have to do better than that to convince me.  When I ask for some delegation order "signed by God" I expect to see a signature on this order that can only be from our creator.  Maybe it's a signature of blazing fire that does not consume the paper but will consume everything that comes in contact with it?  I really don't know what God's signature would look like but I think we would realize it when we see it.  So far, I don't see his "signature" on that verse or on any other document.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> The Apostle Paul wrote Romans.  And what Paul wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  
> 
> Jesus vouches for that, and Paul, in Acts & Peter.
> 
> So, unless you want to throw out Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philemon, Phillippians, Timothy, and Titus... because they were written by Paul, along with Acts & Peter, because it says that Paul's written words are the Word of God, ..... the chapter stands as written, in the word of Jesus.
> 
> And your link is basically trying to re-re-re-interpret what is written down as basic English.  I can read it just fine, I know what it says.  The author of that article is bastardizing what's written down in Romans more than the supreme court bastardizes the Constitution.


I will "throw out" anything that seems to indicate that we have to be slaves to some fiction called "government".  God created us in His image and we are not to be "ruled over" by other creatures.  We have only ONE ruler, God himself.  Until God tells me I have to "pay taxes" then it's theft.  Until God tells me that I have to kill others in war then it's murder.  If your interpretation of any words written on paper is that such words give you or anyone else "power" to do that which is normally a sin, then you are deceived...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Apostle Paul wrote Romans.  And what Paul wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  
> 
> Jesus vouches for that, and Paul, in Acts & Peter.
> 
> *So, unless you want to throw out Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philemon, Phillippians, Timothy, and Titus... because they were written by Paul, along with Acts & Peter, because it says that Paul's written words are the Word of God, ..... the chapter stands as written, in the word of Jesus.
> *
> And your link is basically trying to re-re-re-interpret what is written down as basic English.  I can read it just fine, I know what it says.  The author of that article is bastardizing what's written down in Romans more than the supreme court bastardizes the Constitution.


No need to throw them out-they just have to be interpreted properly and with historical context.  


> To defy the civil government is to defy God, for God works in and through the governing authorities.  This principle holds true *so long as the civil ordinance* *is not in opposition to God, but promotes good works.  When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God*(see also Acts 4:19, 5:29)


There have been no regimes that were _not_ in opposition to God in recent history-which is why they have all been legitimately rejected by at least some people.

----------


## TheTexan

> No need to throw them out-they just have to be interpreted properly and with historical context.  
> There have been no regimes that were _not_ in opposition to God in recent history-which is why they have all been legitimately rejected by at least some people.


"To defy the civil government is to defy God, for God works in and through the governing authorities. This principle holds true so long as the civil ordinance is not in opposition to God, but promotes good works. When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God(see also Acts 4:19, 5:29)"

Seems like whoever wrote this is making it up as they go.  Acts 4:19, 5:29 do not support this argument, nor provide meaningful clarification to what's written in Romans 13.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "To defy the civil government is to defy God, for God works in and through the governing authorities. This principle holds true so long as the civil ordinance is not in opposition to God, but promotes good works. When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God(see also Acts 4:19, 5:29)"
> *
> Seems like whoever wrote this is making it up as they go.  Acts 4:19, 5:29 do not support this argument,* nor provide meaningful clarification to what's written in Romans 13.


Yes they do.  4:19 is Peter and John addressing the Sanhedrin.  5:29 says ""We ought to obey God rather than men".  It doesn't really get much clearer than this in literature of any time period, bro.

----------


## TheTexan

> Yes they do.  4:19 is Peter and John addressing the Sanhedrin.  5:29 says ""We ought to obey God rather than men".  It doesn't really get much clearer than this in literature of any time period, bro.


Romans 13 *is* about obeying God, by obeying his appointed authorities.

"The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted"

It doesn't get much clearer than that, bro.  

And btw, the "men" referred to in the context of 5:29, means men who aren't God's servants (e.g., the Sanhedrin).  Not all men, because the bible makes a point in many, many places that obeying men who serve God, is akin to serving God himself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Romans 13 *is* about obeying God, by obeying his appointed authorities.


Yes, but in a highly qualified manner.



> "The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted"
> 
> It doesn't get much clearer than that, bro.


Still out of context and doesn't support your argument when you include the rest.




> And btw, the "men" referred to in the context of 5:29, means men who aren't God's servants (e.g., the Sanhedrin).  Not all men, because the bible makes a point in many, many places that obeying men who serve God, is akin to serving God himself.


That passage is about both the Sanhedrin _and_ all men.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm not sure if bxm is trying to troll Christian statists with the purpose of convincing us to become non-Christian anarchists, or if he's trolling Christian statists despite knowing that Christianity doesn't lead to statism because its fun.

----------


## TheTexan

> Still out of context and doesn't support your argument when you include the rest.


Huh?  The rest _reinforces_ my argument...

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not sure if bxm is trying to troll Christian statists with the purpose of convincing us to become non-Christian anarchists, or if he's trolling Christian statists despite knowing that Christianity doesn't lead to statism because its fun.


I suspect the latter now that I've been through a few rounds with him.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Apostle Paul wrote Romans. And what Paul wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 
> 
> Jesus vouches for that, and Paul, in Acts & Peter.
> 
> So, unless you want to throw out Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philemon, Phillippians, Timothy, and Titus... because they were written by Paul, along with Acts & Peter, because it says that Paul's written words are the Word of God, ..... the chapter stands as written, in the word of Jesus.
> 
> And your link is basically trying to re-re-re-interpret what is written down as basic English. I can read it just fine, I know what it says. The author of that article is bastardizing what's written down in Romans more than the supreme court bastardizes the Constitution.


*"Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, which replaces Jesus' Gospel with a Gospel about Jesus - a religion that should rather be called Paulinism." -- Dr. Wilhelm Nestle, Church Historian

*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That doesn't sound like secession; it's more along the lines of expulsion. It appears that if one doesn't have a problem with the Holy Spirit and just wants to exit the kingdom, then there's no way to do it. You're trapped.


Well, you can think of the Holy Spirit as 'the border' and blaspheming it as 'exiting them.' Secession accomplished. 

I'm sorry, but it really is impossible to secede without exiting the dominion you oppose.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This^^  also, if we follow Theo's reasoning, it makes God the ultimate author of Evil (as States are the greatest concentration of human evil).


There are a few Calvinists who would say God is in fact the author of evil.  Most wouldn't, but there are a few who would.

I think this would be bad terminology in part because of its connotations.  God knowingly creates evil people (since after the Fall of Man, anyone who he creates is evil.)  He deliberately fashions people in a certain way despite knowing exactly which sins they will commit and when they will commit them if he creates them that way.  God predestines all actions, even evil ones.  Human autonomy is a myth.  Yet, still, man chooses to sin, and since he does make a choice, God is not responsible for the sin.

----------


## erowe1

> "To defy the civil government is to defy God, for God works in and through the governing authorities. This principle holds true so long as the civil ordinance is not in opposition to God, but promotes good works. When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God(see also Acts 4:19, 5:29)"
> 
> Seems like whoever wrote this is making it up as they go.  Acts 4:19, 5:29 do not support this argument, nor provide meaningful clarification to what's written in Romans 13.


I don't agree with that interpretation of Romans 13 either. You may not agree with me, but I wrote down some of my observations about that passage here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5199250

It comes up from time to time on these forums, so it's not like you've come up with some new silver bullet to disprove Christian anarchism.

----------


## pcosmar

> Romans 13 *is* about obeying God, by obeying his appointed authorities.
> 
> "The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted"
> 
> It doesn't get much clearer than that, bro.  
> 
> And btw, the "men" referred to in the context of 5:29, means men who aren't God's servants (e.g., the Sanhedrin).  Not all men, because the bible makes a point in many, many places that obeying men who serve God, is akin to serving God himself.


Governments of man are not ordained by God.. Never have been.




> 5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
> 
> 6 And the devil said unto him, *All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.*
> 
> 7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
> 
> 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.


Governments are ordained by Satan. He rules this world. 
We are to obey the governments of this world while we are here,, unless it is in conflict with God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't agree with that interpretation of Romans 13 either. You may not agree with me, but I wrote down some of my observations about that passage here:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5199250
> 
> It comes up from time to time on these forums, so it's not like you've come up with some new silver bullet to disprove Christian anarchism.


I go back and forth between this interpretation, and an interpretation that says Romans 13 is a subtle way of saying that the Roman government (and most if not all earthly governments) are illegitimate because they do not follow "a terror to evil works and not to good."

Either one works with Christian anarchism unless you take Romans 13:6 to be a COMMAND for taxation (which I think it clearly isn't.)  But I'm still considering which is correct.  The one I mention here is easier to articulate but that doesn't mean its correct.

----------


## TheTexan

> It comes up from time to time on these forums, so it's not like you've come up with some new silver bullet to disprove Christian anarchism.


It's only a silver bullet against Christian anarchism if you take the bible at its word, rather than 'interpreting' it in a similar manner Justices do the constitution.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's only a silver bullet against Christian anarchism if you take the bible at its word, rather than 'interpreting' it in a similar manner Justices do the constitution.


Shut up.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> If this questionable quote is your "delegation of authority signed by God" then I really can't argue with you in your mindset.  Yes, some people "believe" that "The Bible" (specifically edition "x") is written by the finger of God, I do not.  What you are quoting was written on some document (original not available for scrutiny) somewhere around 2000 years ago by an unidentifiable author (likely Paul) and then translated from it's original language to English.  You will have to do better than that to convince me.  When I ask for some delegation order "signed by God" I expect to see a signature on this order that can only be from our creator.  Maybe it's a signature of blazing fire that does not consume the paper but will consume everything that comes in contact with it?  I really don't know what God's signature would look like but I think we would realize it when we see it.  So far, I don't see his "signature" on that verse or on any other document.





> I will "throw out" anything that seems to indicate that we have to be slaves to some fiction called "government".  God created us in His image and we are not to be "ruled over" by other creatures.  We have only ONE ruler, God himself.  Until God tells me I have to "pay taxes" then it's theft.  Until God tells me that I have to kill others in war then it's murder.  If your interpretation of any words written on paper is that such words give you or anyone else "power" to do that which is normally a sin, then you are deceived...


I guess bxm doesn't have much to say about these comments...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't agree with that interpretation of Romans 13 either. You may not agree with me, but I wrote down some of my observations about that passage here:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5199250
> 
> It comes up from time to time on these forums, so it's not like you've come up with some new silver bullet to disprove Christian anarchism.


I agree with the post you linked to.  IMHO, it's a more articulate version of what I quoted and you seem to disagree with. :/  Thanks.  ~hugs~

----------


## TheTexan

> I guess bxm doesn't have much to say about these comments...


You can throw out the parts of the bible you don't like.  That's your prerogative, nothing wrong with that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Apostle Paul wrote Romans.  And what Paul wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  
> 
> Jesus vouches for that, and Paul, in Acts & Peter.
> 
> So, unless you want to throw out Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philemon, Phillippians, Timothy, and Titus... because they were written by Paul, along with Acts & Peter, because it says that Paul's written words are the Word of God, ..... the chapter stands as written, in the word of Jesus.
> 
> And your link is basically trying to re-re-re-interpret what is written down as basic English.  I can read it just fine, I know what it says.  The author of that article is bastardizing what's written down in Romans more than the supreme court bastardizes the Constitution.


Greek, not English. And it is not nearly as statist as you think. Chuck Baldwin does an exceptional treatment of Romans 13. I highly recommend his take for folks who are struggling with this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You can throw out the parts of the bible you don't like.  That's your prerogative, nothing wrong with that.


Except that the Bible itself condemns anybody who adds or *subtracts* even a single word from itself.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It's only a silver bullet against Christian anarchism if you take the bible at its word, rather than 'interpreting' it in a similar manner Justices do the constitution.


Isn't it kinda hard to take the Bible at it's word, if you think it was written in English?

----------


## TheTexan

> Except that the Bible itself condemns anybody who adds or *subtracts* even a single word from itself.


Unless you throw out that part too

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Except that the Bible itself condemns anybody who adds or *subtracts* even a single word from itself.


Even the Dutero canon? (I happen to agree with you, btw)  Those books are subtracted by all Protestants, as I understand it currently.

----------


## LexEtLibertas

> My following article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis. Below the aforesaid article is an article complimentary to it.
> 
> James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6.
> 
> James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79.
> 
> -----
> 
> Very much related to the foregoing, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
> ...


Someone has censored this thread which I started. Its actual title is "Jesus Is an Anarchist", as can be seen from the below archives of this thread. Now someone has changed its title to "Jesus & Anarchism". Thus, someone is falsely attributing words to me. That is, the person who did this is lying, i.e., they are engaging in deception.

I request that this thread's actual title stop being censored and hence also words falsely attributed to me, and that this thread's title be changed back to its actual title of "Jesus Is an Anarchist".

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Ron Paul Forums, Sept. 11, 2013, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-an-Anarchist , http://archive.today/EbMCG , http://megalodon.jp/2015-0107-0358-4...ve.today/EbMCG , http://www.webcitation.org/6JgGIO6O4

----------

What follows are links to my above-said articles:

My following article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://archive.org/download/JesusIsA...-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/re...-anarchist.pdf

My article below is complimentary to my above article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/Libertar...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/re...rtarianism.pdf

Very much related to the foregoing, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysi...ics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpre...ics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physico...ics-of-God.pdf

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Except that the Bible itself condemns anybody who adds or *subtracts* even a single word from itself.


Ya, I wish I KNEW which books, words, or passages are written by the hand of God.  I see scholars have always disputed certain writings and I have to say I sure don't know.  I'm not "qualified" to make any such decision so I simply have to go by my heart.  My heart tells me that God gave us LIBERTY....  It's perhaps his most important gift, even greater than salvation because if he had not granted us liberty we would simply be robots and have no need for salvation.  If I see any "bible passage" that tells me I have to forgo liberty because of "x", I have to doubt the validity of such "passage".  It may not even be the passage itself that is the problem but rather the way that passage is interpreted.  Keep in mind that EVERYTHING we have is interpreted by someone.  Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were written down by someone after seeing it somewhere else.  No one had copy machines back then so it's all written by hand and EVERY time someone writes something it's subject to the writers "interpretation".  We can barely translate contemporary Chinese into contemporary English (believe me, my wife is fluent in both).  How then can we claim to have an accurate translation of ANCIENT languages into modern English?  

Sorry, the idea that "The Bible" is infallible is fallible in itself for the above reasons.  I do think that The Bible is extremely accurate for something written 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.  I will "guestimate" that the accuracy is somewhere over 80% which is amazing and a miracle in itself.

----------


## robert68

> I will "throw out" anything that seems to indicate that we have to be slaves to some fiction called "government".  *God created us in His image and we are not to be "ruled over" by other creatures.*  We have only ONE ruler, God himself.  Until God tells me I have to "pay taxes" then it's theft.  Until God tells me that I have to kill others in war then it's murder.  If your interpretation of any words written on paper is that such words give you or anyone else "power" to do that which is normally a sin, then you are deceived...


Where's the "proof" of that?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Where's the "proof" of that?


If you are looking for physical proof I can give you none.  What I have are teachings from antiquity and feelings in my heart that say it is so.  I cannot offer more...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No need to throw them out-they just have to be interpreted properly and with historical context.  
> There have been no regimes that were _not_ in opposition to God in recent history-which is why they have all been legitimately rejected by at least some people.


I doubt the Orthodox Church agrees with you on that second point.

----------


## euphemia

I do not believe Jesus taught anarchy.  Anarchy means that every individual defines appropriate social behavior according to his own standard.  That could not be further from what Jesus taught.  Jesus taught that we are guided by love for God and love for our neighbor.  Jesus taught that there is no greater love than when a man lays down his life for his fellow man.

That's not anarchy.  It is self-government at the highest level.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do not believe Jesus taught anarchy.  Anarchy means that every individual defines appropriate social behavior according to his own standard.  That could not be further from what Jesus taught.  Jesus taught that we are guided by love for God and love for our neighbor.  Jesus taught that there is no greater love than when a man lays down his life for his fellow man.
> 
> That's not anarchy.  It is self-government at the highest level.


Ugh... I hate these debates because a lot of times they are disagreements of technical definitions rather than anything of real substance.  I don't think any of the philosophical ancaps on RPF think that man gets to define appropriate social behavior for himself.

----------


## TheTexan

> I don't think any of the philosophical ancaps on RPF think that man gets to define appropriate social behavior for himself.


You'd be wrong

----------


## jmdrake

> You know, when people assert that "Jesus is an anarchist," I have to ask them the simple question, "Do you New Testament, much?" Over and over in the New Testament, Christ talks about His Kingdom, and it's not "kingdom" as some abstract, spiritual ideal for a relationship with Christ (though there is an aspect of truth to that); it's "kingdom" in the sense of something tangible and historical, which grows and has its being throughout the course of the ages.
> 
> One such evidence of that reality can be found in a prophetic word, Isaiah 9:7, which reads, "Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Jesus, as King of kings, has His domain in civil governance, under which even the "kings" and "rulers" of our time must submit. Indeed, Jesus taught His disciples that very thing in "The Lord's Prayer," when He stated, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven." (Matthew 6:10)
> 
> So, I don't see how Jesus can be labeled as One Who is vehemently against the establishment of civil polities (such as government bodies of legislation and public policy served towards a particular group of citizenry), which is what anarchy stands for, when He appeals to a civil polity ("kingdom") as the very place where He will rule the nations. Unless I'm wrong about what "anarchy" is, I don't believe that there is any Biblical case to prove that Jesus was, in fact, an anarchist. But, as some have mentioned in this thread, the term "anarchy" can have multiple definitions, too.


Oh really?

_John 18:36 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._

_Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you._

Yes Jesus will come again and destroy the wicked and establish the New Jerusalem, but in the meantime the kingdom of heaven is 100% a spiritual thing.  Great persecution and all manner of mischief has risen from those attempting to establish an earthly kingdom in the name of God.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"What has always made BOTH church AND state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven, ( through often savage and barbaric means )."*

----------


## jmdrake

I've read through some of your article.  What I found the most fascinating was the point that you made regarding the golden rule being incompatible with government.  It's interesting to note that it is incompatible with the way the U.S. currently runs its foreign policy.  Ron Paul, who supports the golden rule, was booed for pointing this out.  Barack Obama, who does not  support the golden rules, says our defense department could not survive its application.










> Someone has censored this thread which I started. Its actual title is "Jesus Is an Anarchist", as can be seen from the below archives of this thread. Now someone has changed its title to "Jesus & Anarchism". Thus, someone is falsely attributing words to me. That is, the person who did this is lying, i.e., they are engaging in deception.
> 
> I request that this thread's actual title stop being censored and hence also words falsely attributed to me, and that this thread's title be changed back to its actual title of "Jesus Is an Anarchist".
> 
> James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Ron Paul Forums, Sept. 11, 2013, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-an-Anarchist , http://archive.today/EbMCG , http://megalodon.jp/2015-0107-0358-4...ve.today/EbMCG , http://www.webcitation.org/6JgGIO6O4
> 
> ----------
> 
> What follows are links to my above-said articles:
> ...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Interesting... I wonder why someone changed the title of the thread from "Jesus Is an Anarchist" to "Jesus & Anarchism"?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Someone has censored this thread which I started. Its actual title is "Jesus Is an Anarchist", as can be seen from the below archives of this thread. Now someone has changed its title to "Jesus & Anarchism". Thus, someone is falsely attributing words to me. That is, the person who did this is lying, i.e., they are engaging in deception.
> 
> I request that this thread's actual title stop being censored and hence also words falsely attributed to me, and that this thread's title be changed back to its actual title of "Jesus Is an Anarchist".
> 
> James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Ron Paul Forums, Sept. 11, 2013, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-an-Anarchist , http://archive.today/EbMCG , http://megalodon.jp/2015-0107-0358-4...ve.today/EbMCG , http://www.webcitation.org/6JgGIO6O4
> 
> ----------
> 
> What follows are links to my above-said articles:
> ...


FWIW, I second your request for changing the thread name back to the original one.

*"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton*

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...66.XVPQXhDpBbM

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> FWIW, I second your request for changing the thread name back to the original one.
> 
> *"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton*


I will vote in favor of that motion...

----------


## Bryan

> Someone has censored this thread which I started. Its actual title is "Jesus Is an Anarchist", as can be seen from the below archives of this thread. Now someone has changed its title to "Jesus & Anarchism". Thus, someone is falsely attributing words to me. That is, the person who did this is lying, i.e., they are engaging in deception.


It would also be deception to make a claim that is not proven, and there can be no proof that Jesus is an Anarchist, which of course all depends upon what you want to consider an Anarchist. Making such controversial claims is very problematic and against the guidelines, which state:

4) Be orderly with the content you share.
 _Topic titles should be descriptive and not use unverified information_, vulgar language or otherwise be sensationalist.
 *Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source* of the information or note that the information is "unverified".

Thread titles get changes all the time much like news headlines are not written by the author, often for such reason. If someone takes issue with such a change they can notify the site staff and a better resolution will be found. In this case, the name was changed back with a clear mod note.

Regardless, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and well thought out arguments.

Thanks.

----------


## LexEtLibertas

> It would also be deception to make a claim that is not proven, and there can be no proof that Jesus is an Anarchist, which of course all depends upon what you want to consider an Anarchist. Making such controversial claims is very problematic and against the guidelines, which state:
> 
> 4) Be orderly with the content you share.
>  Topic titles should be descriptive and not use unverified information, vulgar language or otherwise be sensationalist.
>  Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".
> 
> Thread titles get changes all the time much like news headlines are not written by the author, often for such reason. If someone takes issue with such a change they can notify the site staff and a better resolution will be found. In this case, the name was changed back with a clear mod note.
> 
> Regardless, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and well thought out arguments.
> ...


Hi, Bryan. I see that you are of a fascist mindset. That is, you seek lock-down and exclude information in order to protect delicate minds.

Heaven forefend that people be able to put forward their positions under their own titles. Why, some of the mentally slower among us might get the idea that this is the official opinion of the Ron Paul Forum!

Now, one would have to be either a real neophyte to the internet, or have to have some lamentable brain or mental condition, in order to reach such a conclusion, but apparently that's the highest common-denominator that we're shooting for.

Your real position is that because people are stupid, they cannot be trusted to know what ideas are good for them. And so indicators have to be given in the titles in order to let people know that the nomenklatura of the Ron Paul Forum officially disapprove of the idea imparted by the title.

Regarding verifiability, my following article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://archive.org/download/JesusIsA...-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/re...-anarchist.pdf

My article below is complimentary to my above article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/Libertar...rtarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/re...rtarianism.pdf

Very much related to the foregoing, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysi...ics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpre...ics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physico...ics-of-God.pdf

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

----------


## Bryan

> Hi, Bryan. I see that you are of a fascist mindset. That is, you seek lock-down and exclude information in order to protect delicate minds.


I would think that a fascist mindset is one who seeks to control what is not theirs, no? How would applying a rule-set to what one owns be fascist?





> Heaven forefend that people be able to put forward their positions under their own titles. Why, some of the mentally slower among us might get the idea that this is the official opinion of the Ron Paul Forum!
> 
> Now, one would have to be either a real neophyte to the internet, or have to have some lamentable brain or mental condition, in order to reach such a conclusion, but apparently that's the highest common-denominator that we're shooting for.
> 
> Your real position is that because people are stupid, they cannot be trusted to know what ideas are good for them. And so indicators have to be given in the titles in order to let people know that the nomenklatura of the Ron Paul Forum officially disapprove of the idea imparted by the title.


Actually, that isn't my position at all. The original title as it was can be seen as offensive to some of our members religious beliefs, and I was told as such. At that point, I examined the situation and given that the title made a non-provable claim and was seen as offensive to some I thought there could be a good middle ground solution by having the title changed to something that still conveyed the content of the thread but was not offensive. The thread content can stand on its own however. There can be many decisions like this that need to be made every day for the site, day in day out, for year after year, and they can tend to be done quickly which can mean that not everything is worked out to the finest detail. The title change however was not taken well, as previously mentioned and based on the discussion, the original title was the only solution. Unfortunately however, as he title was in violation of the site guidelines it had to be annotated as such. There have been other threads that have had mod comments such as "Rumor" or "Unverified" added to their title too, so this isn't the first time. I can appreciate the silliness of how things stand now, but it certainly wasn't what I would have chosen to have done on my own, but it is where the process has left us. That said, I'd be happy to rename it to something else that you'd prefer, so long as it is in agreement with the guidelines.





> Regarding verifiability, my following article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.


I greatly appreciate your analysis and line of thought here. I will however contend that there is a difference between Christ being an anarchist and the recorded teachings of Christ being anarchist in nature. The writings can stand on their own but there are some assumptions that would have to be made to conclude that Jesus is an anarchist. Maybe these are reasonable assumptions to have, and they can be commonly held assumptions, but they are still assumptions. So while possibly splitting hairs, I suggest to stick with positions of strength that can best drive your real points home.

Best,


Bryan

----------


## robert68

There’s no proven fact of any claims made about Jesus and usually none made about "God”, but his title was singled out and removed until he and another member objected to that being done. Putting the title of an article in quotes indicates there's an article title or opinion, and it’s essentially never done with titles in the religious subforum. It could have been done with his, as it can be with others where appropriate, rather than unpopularity of a title being grounds for its removal or having a special qualification added to it, which is how it is now.

----------


## Ronin Truth

***** Thank you for the correction. *****

The original name of the thread WAS the same as the name of the essay under discussion. As such, the thread was correctly and appropriately named from the beginning.





> [Mod note: this is a theory/claim, it is not a proven fact]


Is it also just a theory/claim, and not a proven fact that Satan rules and controls all human/secular governments, and has from the very beginning?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080809...anownsgov.html


*Read the book!

*
*READ THE ESSAY (Then decide)*: *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

I believe the case made for the essay's main contention is both persuasive and compelling.

*“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation” ~ Herbert Spencer*

----------


## jjdoyle

> How would applying a rule-set to what one owns be fascist?


Maybe when that rule-set is applied to some, and not to your protected, lying, repeat false claim making friend?

Here are SOME of your buddy's, David, Matt Collins', posts where his claims are NEVER verified and NEVER censored and deleted in whole. While others may comment and have ENTIRE POSTS deleted, by you and your (mod edit) moderating team trying to protect David, or Matt Collins:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702207
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702213
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702395
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702456
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702466
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5700351
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5697508
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5698537
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5698980
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5698994

Matt Collins, making controversial DISINFORMATIONAL claims 24/7 365 and getting excused for it. Never providing a shred of public evidence. Continue on Bryan, the hypocrisy is disgusting.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

I think everyone knew that it was simply an argument for and not an objective fact of Jesus being an anarchist.

Though if he practiced what He taught, He would have indeed been an anarchist.

It doesn't take Divinity to recognize that groups of people coming together to take the property of someone else, against their will, is at the least immoral, [ought be] criminal, and a sin.

----------


## Bryan

> ***** Thank you for the correction. *****
> 
> The original name of the thread WAS the same as the name of the essay under discussion.


I understand that, and if someone wrote an essay of "Everyone that is <some religion> is a <some ad hominem>" it wouldn't be OK either.  Along with this not being proven fact, we also have guidelines for religious discussion which includes:

2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
 Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.

Which is described in detail here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-lack-thereof

A better alternate title could have been "Essay: Jesus is an Anarchist" but even that is questionable. In short it was decided a long time ago we want to maximize discussion here but it's not a free-for-all, and if there are some topics that provide little to no value towards our Mission Statement yet drive others away, then it's not productive to have it. Thread titles like "God doesn't exist" don't sit well with some, but there is certainly room for respectful discussion on the existence of God. I don't think this one was much of an issue but it was flagged too. We do try to be minimal in what is done, but also keep the peace.





> Is it also just a theory/claim, and not a proven fact that Satan rules and controls all human/secular governments, and has from the very beginning?


I'm not saying it is or isn't, nor would there be any problem in discussing then, but making unproven claims in a tile is problematic.





> https://web.archive.org/web/20080809...anownsgov.html
> 
> 
> *Read the book!
> 
> *
> *READ THE ESSAY (Then decide)*: *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*
> 
> I believe the case made for the essay's main contention is both persuasive and compelling.


I am making no judgement on the merits of the essay.





> *There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation ~ Herbert Spencer*


There is no contempt, just an understanding that this can't be proven and is also based on ones particular definition set. Consider that you are trying to prove ones state of mind, that's problem one. Or did Jesus every say "I'm an anarchist"?





> Maybe when that rule-set is applied to some, and not to your protected, lying, repeat false claim making friend?
> 
> Here are SOME of your buddy's, David, Matt Collins', posts where his claims are NEVER verified and NEVER censored and deleted in whole. While others may comment and have ENTIRE POSTS deleted, by you and your (mod edit) moderating team trying to protect David, or Matt Collins:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702207
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702213
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702395
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702456
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702466
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5700351
> ...


I have no idea if those statements are true or not, but they are not a part of a message title that was contested either. This guideline apply to message titles, what is posted in messages is more open for discussion, which is the point of discussion threads. If something is dis-informational then you should be able to prove it.





> I think everyone knew that it was simply an argument for and not an objective fact of Jesus being an anarchist.
> 
> Though if he practiced what He taught, He would have indeed been an anarchist.
> 
> It doesn't take Divinity to recognize that groups of people coming together to take the property of someone else, against their will, is at the least immoral, [ought be] criminal, and a sin.


I do not disagree with anything you say.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The reason this is so hard to pin down is because of perspective.  Yeshua is decidedly NOT anarchist if your perspective/perception includes the realm of eternity, as there is a decidedly fixed order of governance in the Kingdom of Heaven, which (although currently relegated to the eternal realm) is clearly a 'government' with 'leaders,' and therefore does not qualify as anarchism.  If your perspective/perception _only_ includes the _temporal_ realm (that is, the space-time continuum), then He _could_ be described as 'anarchistic' as God never really held much fondness for worldly kings and such.  The exceptions that He did not hate, like King David, simply prove the rule that almost no human being is qualified to govern.

So yes, Yeshua is an anarchist -- ONLY if you do not consider the realm of Eternity and the Kingdom of Heaven as being real.  If you believe in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Realm of Eternity, then He could NOT be described as an anarchist, as He clearly supports the leadership of God, the Holy Spirit, and the Messiah.

So the _worldly_ perspective, when taken logically will render the idea of Yeshua as an anarchist; while the _eternal_ perspective, when taken logically, will refute the idea.  What I am saying is that both 'sides' of this question are accurately describing what they personally see.  The worldly minded are saying "He was an anarchist," while the eternal minded are saying "He supports a Kingdom government with leadership."  Both are correct _within their individual frames of reference_. 

Both sides of this question each have overwhelming and obvious evidence towards their own points, and the two positions pass each other without colliding because the point of contention is neither the 'anarchist' conclusion nor the 'Kingdom' conclusion, but the fundamental premises that make up the worldviews of the two opposing parties.

Until both parties have some common frame of reference, then any debate over the conclusions is really just an exercise in futility.

----------


## presence

*Mod note: this is a theory/claim, it is not a proven fact*lol

Jesus is not even a proven fact; we're deep in the realm of faith here.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I understand that, and if someone wrote an essay of "Everyone that is <some religion> is a <some ad hominem>" it wouldn't be OK either. Along with this not being proven fact, we also have guidelines for religious discussion which includes:
> 
> 2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
> • Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
> 
> Which is described in detail here:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-lack-thereof
> 
> A better alternate title could have been "Essay: Jesus is an Anarchist" but even that is questionable. In short it was decided a long time ago we want to maximize discussion here but it's not a free-for-all, and if there are some topics that provide little to no value towards our Mission Statement yet drive others away, then it's not productive to have it. Thread titles like "God doesn't exist" don't sit well with some, but there is certainly room for respectful discussion on the existence of God. I don't think this one was much of an issue but it was flagged too. We do try to be minimal in what is done, but also keep the peace.
> ...


If you haven't read it, I'd hafta say that you are judging merit (as in not worth reading nor even considering). 

If the only recognized legitimate authority over Jesus, is his Father in Heaven, then the obvious implications concerning Earth secular governments are?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080809...anownsgov.html

*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Wow... a lot of hubub about a statement being a "proven fact".  Don't know why that's even an issue.  If I had a thread that said "George Bush is a Lizard Man from Outer Space" would we need a disclaimer that it's just my theory and not a "proven fact"?  Come on now.  We are all adult here (I think).  We certainly know when someone is making a claim even if it's phrased as a fact...

----------


## fr33

Lol most topics in the religion forum should have that mod note if consistency is valued.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow... a lot of hubub about a statement being a "proven fact".  Don't know why that's even an issue.  If I had a thread that said "George Bush is a Lizard Man from Outer Space" would we need a disclaimer that it's just my theory and not a "proven fact"?  Come on now.  We are all adult here (I think).  We certainly know when someone is making a claim even if it's phrased as a fact...


Agreed.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I do not believe Jesus taught anarchy. Anarchy means that every individual defines appropriate social behavior according to his own standard. That could not be further from what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that we are guided by love for God and love for our neighbor. Jesus taught that there is no greater love than when a man lays down his life for his fellow man.
> 
> That's not anarchy. It is self-government at the highest level.


 It wasn't necessary for Jesus to explicitly TEACH anarchy. He lived it. His life events confirmed it. The church and state conspired to execute him. Where did he ever teach "Archy"? His behavior is a role model for all of his followers. There is ZERO conflict between anarchy and the Golden Rule. Can you say the same for any secular government anywhere in the world? If it's good enough for Jesus, then why isn't it good enough for you? 

Self government, isn't that called autarchy?

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified." -- Leo Tolstoy*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> [Mod note: this is a theory/claim, it is not a proven fact]


You show me your theory/claim/proven fact evidence, and I'll show you mine.  LOL!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Since we're all stuck on mod notes and procedural nonsense, I will again attempt to bring the thread back on topic. Unless nobody actually cares about the topic and are just using this as an opportunity to blow raspberries at the mods?




> The reason this is so hard to pin down is because of perspective.  Yeshua is decidedly NOT anarchist if your perspective/perception includes the realm of eternity, as there is a decidedly fixed order of governance in the Kingdom of Heaven, which (although currently relegated to the eternal realm) is clearly a 'government' with 'leaders,' and therefore does not qualify as anarchism.  If your perspective/perception _only_ includes the _temporal_ realm (that is, the space-time continuum), then He _could_ be described as 'anarchistic' as God never really held much fondness for worldly kings and such.  The exceptions that He did not hate, like King David, simply prove the rule that almost no human being is qualified to govern.
> 
> So yes, Yeshua is an anarchist -- ONLY if you do not consider the realm of Eternity and the Kingdom of Heaven as being real.  If you believe in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Realm of Eternity, then He could NOT be described as an anarchist, as He clearly supports the leadership of God, the Holy Spirit, and the Messiah.
> 
> So the _worldly_ perspective, when taken logically will render the idea of Yeshua as an anarchist; while the _eternal_ perspective, when taken logically, will refute the idea.  What I am saying is that both 'sides' of this question are accurately describing what they personally see.  The worldly minded are saying "He was an anarchist," while the eternal minded are saying "He supports a Kingdom government with leadership."  Both are correct _within their individual frames of reference_. 
> 
> Both sides of this question each have overwhelming and obvious evidence towards their own points, and the two positions pass each other without colliding because the point of contention is neither the 'anarchist' conclusion nor the 'Kingdom' conclusion, but the fundamental premises that make up the worldviews of the two opposing parties.
> 
> Until both parties have some common frame of reference, then any debate over the conclusions is really just an exercise in futility.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Since we're all stuck on mod notes and procedural nonsense, I will again attempt to bring the thread back on topic. Unless nobody actually cares about the topic and are just using this as an opportunity to blow raspberries at the mods?


*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)* It only says what it says. Keep it simple as possible.
*
"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."*

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Jesus is an anarchist (yes)  (no)

If no, Jesus is a statist (yes)  (no)

If you can't pick one then what is your "theory" as to what position he espoused???

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I do not believe that God is an Anarchist.
> 
> in fact,, I do not believe that anarchy can even exist beyond momentary.
> 
> The Creator is very much the Creator of order. the ultimate authority,, though not generally Authoritarian.
> Jesus is the King of Kings. And yet with him there is Liberty.
> 
> 
> I see him as a Benevolent Monarchist.





> Actually he is the King of Kings. The Almighty can do as he wishes with all of creation.





> You know, when people assert that "Jesus is an anarchist," I have to ask them the simple question, "Do you New Testament, much?" Over and over in the New Testament, Christ talks about His Kingdom, and it's not "kingdom" as some abstract, spiritual ideal for a relationship with Christ (though there is an aspect of truth to that); it's "kingdom" in the sense of something tangible and historical, which grows and has its being throughout the course of the ages.
> 
> One such evidence of that reality can be found in a prophetic word, Isaiah 9:7, which reads, "Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Jesus, as King of kings, has His domain in civil governance, under which even the "kings" and "rulers" of our time must submit. Indeed, Jesus taught His disciples that very thing in "The Lord's Prayer," when He stated, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven." (Matthew 6:10)
> 
> So, I don't see how Jesus can be labeled as One Who is vehemently against the establishment of civil polities (such as government bodies of legislation and public policy served towards a particular group of citizenry), which is what anarchy stands for, when He appeals to a civil polity ("kingdom") as the very place where He will rule the nations. Unless I'm wrong about what "anarchy" is, I don't believe that there is any Biblical case to prove that Jesus was, in fact, an anarchist. But, as some have mentioned in this thread, the term "anarchy" can have multiple definitions, too.





> An anarchist of Earthly HUMAN governments. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's more than good enough for me.
> 
> Read the essay.  *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*


Yeah, I think that most Christian "anarchists" are actually not anarchists per se. They might more accurately be described as ademarchists/ademocracists. Against the rule of people, but not the rule of God if directly. But the term "anarchist" has so many uses that there's no point crying over one more.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Jesus is an anarchist (yes)  (no)
> 
> If no, Jesus is a statist (yes)  (no)
> 
> If you can't pick one then what is your "theory" as to what position he espoused???


I've already answered this in exquisite detail, but most people seem afraid to address it.  So I will break it down.

Depends.  Are you temporal-minded or eternal-minded?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yeah, I think that most Christian "anarchists" are actually not anarchists per se. They might more accurately be described as ademarchists/ademocracists. Against the rule of people, but not the rule of God if directly. But the term "anarchist" has so many uses that there's no point crying over one more.






> *anarchy (n.)* *1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).* 
> Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you! [Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)]


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=term

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I've already answered this in exquisite detail, but most people seem afraid to address it. So I will break it down.
> 
> Depends. Are you temporal-minded or eternal-minded?


 Well, I kinda doubt that it was really all that exquisite. 

How about avoiding the false dichotomy, by being both-minded?  Temporally - anarchist, eternally - monarchist.

*“I am such an anarchist as Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount have made me.” -- Leo Tolstoy

*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, I kinda doubt that it was really all that exquisite.


It was.




> How about avoiding the false dichotomy, by being both-minded?  Temporally - anarchist, eternally - monarchist.


Well, yes.  That's the point.  The people freaking out that it must and can only ever be one or the other, are stuck in one realm unable to even imagine the other.  In the temporal realm, He is anarchist.  In the _eternal_ realm however....

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of _the increase of his government_ and peace _there shall be no end_, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. [KJV]




> *“I am such an anarchist as Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount have made me.” -- Leo Tolstoy*

----------


## TheTexan

Shouldnt thread title be changed to 'Jesus *was* an anarchist'?

He died long time ago, for our sins..

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Shouldnt thread title be changed to 'Jesus *was* an anarchist'?
> 
> He died long time ago, for our sins..


And then ........

*IS* is correct (according to the book).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Shouldnt thread title be changed to 'Jesus *was* an anarchist'?
> *
> He died long time ago, for our sins*..


And rose from death on the third day.

----------


## Danke

> And rose from death on the third day.


I was gonna bring that up.  But I didn't want to spoil it for bxm042 thinking someone actually died for his sins.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> I've already answered this in exquisite detail, but most people seem afraid to address it.  So I will break it down.
> 
> Depends.  Are you temporal-minded or eternal-minded?


Of course I'm talking about the here and now on the 3rd (we think) planet from sol.  I hope that is clear enough...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Of course I'm talking about the here and now on the 3rd (we think) planet from sol.  I hope that is clear enough...


I tend to consider the Eternal realm more real and in many ways immanent than the temporal.

----------


## TheTexan

> And rose from death on the third day.


Whered he go... ?

----------


## TheTexan

> I was gonna bring that up.  But I didn't want to spoil it for bxm042 thinking someone actually died for his sins.


If I understand this correctly, Jesus took a 3 day metaphysical vacation, for our sins?

That just doesnt seem to have the same significance.

----------


## moostraks

> Of course I'm talking about the here and now on the 3rd (we think) planet from sol.  I hope that is clear enough...


Is not the here and now not also part of the then or more specifically the then to be?  Seems as though gunny needs to give another lesson on time theory here...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Is not the here and now not also part of the then or more specifically the then to be?  Seems as though gunny needs to give another lesson on time theory here...


It's all a dream... I'm hoping to wake up soon...

----------


## DamianTV

*Tongue in Cheek Post*

If Jesus were alive today, I think he'd probably end up being a Pot Smoking Gamer with no interest in Politics!

This conclusion would be based on the idea he was 20 something.  But just for fun, what if Jesus were alive and he were a Baby Boomer?  Would he have been corrupted by the system to collect Social Security and retire?  Would he be a text messaging zombie that walks off piers or into oncoming traffic?  Would he be 40 and live in his parents basement?

----------


## Biblefundyfun

I suppose he is an anti-CHRIST as well.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I suppose he is an anti-CHRIST as well.


No, that's Paul.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

I declare this thread totally derailed... but still Jesus IS an anarchist... (fact, not theory   )

----------


## TheTexan

Anarchist?  I'm not sure about that, but
This man died for our sins.. the least we can do to show the deceased some respect is to not just throw labels on him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Whered he go... ?


Read the synoptic gospels for the details.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Jesus is an anarchist (yes)  (no)
> 
> If no, Jesus is a statist (yes)  (no)
> 
> If you can't pick one then what is your "theory" as to what position he espoused???


By that dichotomy Matthew 5:17 says he was a statist, a theonomist to be exact.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

If I created the universe, I created you, I did not give you any power to create your own universe or yourself, and the only way for you to exist is under my universe house and rules ... what do you call that?

Am I simply being a good capitalist because anything unowned I mix with my labor I own?  Do I owe you any duty as you are just my robot created property albeit possibly with a free will?  My universe property, my universe rules, and if you don't like them you can leave?

I am not seeing what Gunny's eternal/temporal point is ... since when did anarchists stop believing in property, property rights, and their enforcement?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> By that dichotomy Matthew 5:17 says he was a statist, a theonomist to be exact.


No king but King Jesus.

Some dues are coming around.  Lives will change.  The world will change.  We will change, and we will be changed.  But Yeshua will always be the same.  The Law will come to fruition, and the Lord will reign over all the Earth.  If the Law also bears fruit in us, then we will reign with Him in His Kingdom.  When everything fails, the Messiah is the Rock.  The Law is the material that Rock is made out of.  Find there a way when every way is lost.  Fix bayonets and prepare to repel boarders.  I believe it is going to accelerate. The demons will be growing cross soon.  I believe things will get a lot more surreal in the next 20 months, such that the awakened will think that a joke is being played on them when people act like they don't notice.  And then realization that the people are really just too afraid to notice.  And then the wicked one being revealed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No king but King Jesus.
> 
> Some dues are coming around.  Lives will change.  The world will change.  We will change, and we will be changed.  But Yeshua will always be the same.  The Law will come to fruition, and the Lord will reign over all the Earth.  If the Law also bears fruit in us, then we will reign with Him in His Kingdom.  When everything fails, the Messiah is the Rock.  The Law is the material that Rock is made out of.  Find there a way when every way is lost.  Fix bayonets and prepare to repel boarders.  I believe it is going to accelerate. The demons will be growing cross soon.  I believe things will get a lot more surreal in the next 20 months, such that the awakened will think that a joke is being played on them when people act like they don't notice.  And then realization that the people are really just too afraid to notice.  And then the wicked one being revealed.


Unfortunately, ancaps who say this are being inconsistent pacifists, and they really lack an answer for Romans 13, or for how there were good kings in the OT.

Even still, they are more right than the religious right of today.

But Biblical law is not strictly libertarian.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I am not seeing what Gunny's eternal/temporal point is


It all boils down to what is anarchy, or what is government.  Jesus Christ came to announce the Kingdom, of which Kingdom He is King.  If "a kingdom" is a government, then no, in the classical sense, He is not an anarchist.  There is a Kingdom with a King, and He is that King.  Therefore no, He is not an anarchist.  Unless you are looking at temporality only.  Either by discernment or by ignorance, if one is considering only the temporal as real (to the neglect of the eternal), then He will appear as an anarchist, for the archons of His Kingdom are all eternal, and not temporal.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> If "a kingdom" is a government, then no, in  the classical sense, He is not an anarchist.  There is a Kingdom with a  King, and He is that King.  Therefore no, He is not an anarchist.


I am only pointing out any such "kingdom" has a creator and just owner in that same Bible story.  Unless God is a member of a confederation of gods or there is some other authority or bureaucracy above God then God must be an anarchist as the creator, owner, and defender of his/her/its property rights.  Any such "kingdom" is merely God's property, God's rules.  The "kingdom" would be justified by a just owner(s) which is not analogous to any government that has no just owner(s).  Naturally we are presuming God as owner of the universe is a just owner because we are also presuming God justly created it.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Wow... you mods (or at least one of you) sure have a problem with this thread.  It must be important to have to change the title TWO times (or has it been more)!  Really, it should have been left alone and it STILL has nothing to do with the O.P.  It's supposed to be about a publication who's title is "Jesus Is An Anarchist".  It's not with the addition "note: this is just a theory".  It's also not "Jesus and Anarchist".  It's a thread about a document that some mod disagrees with.  Hey, the mod is welcome to post his opinions about the topic just like anyone else.  The mod can also just delete the whole thing because he finds it vulgar or offensive or "just because".  It would be pretty petty to do so but hey, it's "private property" here and the owners can and will do as they see fit.

Still, the original title of the thread is most descriptive and that is: "Jesus Is An Anarchist..."

----------


## fr33



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


I am approve

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified." -- Leo Tolstoy*

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> *"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified." -- Leo Tolstoy*


Sounds like "anarchy" to me...

----------


## TheTexan

> Sounds like "anarchy" to me...


Note: the above is just a theory

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Note: the above is just a theory


Haha... I see what you did there...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified." -- Leo Tolstoy*


I agree with that,  but not for the reason Tolstoy said that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified." -- Leo Tolstoy*


Tolstoy was correct about that.  Rather dry novelist, though IMO.

----------


## Ender

> Tolstoy was correct about that.  Rather dry novelist, though IMO.


I consider Tolstoy one of the greatest writers in history. JMHO

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I consider Tolstoy one of the greatest writers in history. JMHO


I agree that his literary accomplishments are staggeringly great.  I just don't find his fiction too compelling.  I like his non-fiction better.  Rather like Pushkin.  A writer of great brilliance and the father of Russian literature (pretty much), but not a style to my liking.  ~shrugs~

----------


## piyaliguha90

Jesus is everywhere

----------


## Ronin Truth

Title update by a mod is another busy body frickin' mistake.

*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Title update by a mod is another busy body frickin' mistake.
> 
> *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*


Yes, I believe he is...

----------

