james 1523, I will correct you in love yet one more time.
I myself did not say "all authority", God Himself said it :
Rom 13:1...
Parroting your copyrighted per-version, you said, "governing authorities." It was I,
not you, who corrected your post with the
proper rendition ala the KJV's
higher powers.
But the original KJV was copyrighted. Down the bottom of the title page of the New Testament can be seen the words "*** Privilegio", which means Copyright.
What "original" KJV? In any case, you are incorrect. It does not mean "copyright." I will leave it to you to flesh out the facts about "
Letter Patents" -- NOT copyright! The Crown has never 'refused' anyone. Why do you think the KJV Bible is virtually always cheaper to purchase? Because there is no profit in the KJV for copyright seekers!
Like others in these forums, I have neither the time nor the unction from the Lord to cast any more pearls before you. wikipedia and its Satanist owner were never the issue; you will continue to utilize it AND ANY OTHER MEDIA
if it will support your preconceived agendas. (One can, however, safely follow-up on some of the references only, usually listed on the bottom of each page.)
Here is what my Holy Bible, the KJV, says (bold and underline emphases are mine):
LICENSE.
In terms of the
Letters Patent granted by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria to Her Printers for Scotland, and of the instructions issued by Her said Majesty in Council, dated Eleventh July and Twenty-eighth December, Eighteen Hundred and Thirty-nine, I hereby License and Authorise WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED, One Hundred and Forty-four Cathedral Street, Glasgow, to Print and Publish, as by the Authority of His Majesty King George the Sixth,
but so far as regards the Text only, an Edition of the Holy Bible in Fontana type, Decimo-sexto size, to consist of Fifty Thousand Copies, as proposed in their Declaration dated the Twelfth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty Seven, the terms and conditions of the said Instructions being always and in all points fully complied with and observed by the said WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED. Dated at Edinburgh, the Thirty-first day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-seven.
T. M. COOPER,
Lord Advocate.
Notice that the given pemission is for THE TEXT
TYPE ONLY.
There is nothing wrong with Christians using their legal rights as a citizen of the country in which they live. Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to Caesar before Festus.
...and read what happend to Paul when he partook of the Caesarian benefit:
We should
never appear in court
voluntarily, because that would cause joinder and give them jurisdiction over us to take away our physical liberty. This is what happened to Paul in Acts 25 through 26. Paul's life was in danger, and he appealed to Caesar's courts (Acts 25:11-12, 21, 25; 28:19), and we see the possible outcome otherwise:
Acts 26:32, "Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at
liberty, if he
had not appealed unto Caesar."
In other words, the king himself, Agrippa, wished the apostle's immediate liberation; but this was now rendered impracticable, because he had appealed to Caesar. The appeal was no doubt registered, and the business must now proceed to a full hearing. If Festus had decided before Paul had made his appeal, he would have been released; but as the appeal had now been made, to Caesar he must go.
Now, with Paul in this case, we must remember that it was a "special" circumstance, as we now know from Scripture. It was the Lord's will that he go to Rome. But, as Paul wrote, we are specifically prohibited from going to courts before the natural man:
1 Corinthians 6:1, "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to
law before the
unjust, and not before the
saints? But brother goeth to
law with brother, and that
before the unbelievers."
The terms "unjust" and "saints" in the above verse are referring to
unbelievers as opposed to
believers.
How incredible that the just should go before the unjust for justice! Why set them to judge who are least esteemed (i.e. the heathen) in the Christ's assembly (1 Corinthians 6:4)?
Even Jesus said, in Luke 12:11, "When
they bring
you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers..." Notice
we are not to bring
ourselves voluntarily to their courts, but
they are the ones who must bring
us to their courts. And do not worry about how you should answer them once in court, because we have these promises from God, as Luke continues:
Luke 12:11-12, "When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For
the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say."
Luke 21:14-15, "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I
will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist."
What is the purpose for being "brought" to court? Peter states the purpose:
1 Peter 2:15-16, "
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."
So, yes, you are going to be taken before the magistrate, but it’s the will of God that you appear before magistrates, and it’s also the will of God that you speak the
Truth to them, so that they also will understand and come to the knowledge of God, through Christ Jesus.
Matthew 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
This is bearing witness to the world. When the world attacks you, you bear witness to the Truth. We are to bear witness of Christ Jesus in us that the world may see who He is, and have that evidence in the works that we do and the words that we speak. This is how we are the
light of the world (Matthew 5:14). We are
not the salt of the world, as others have told us, we are only the
light of the world. The world has no salt. We
are "the salt of the
earth" but not of the
world (Matthew 5:13). The terms ‘world’ and ‘earth’ have different meanings. Jesus certainly made a distinction between ‘world’ and ‘earth’ when he said, "I have overcome the
world" in John 16:33. This would not make any sense if he said, "I have overcome the
earth."
There is nothing wrong with Christians using their legal rights as a citizen of the country in which they live.
Like james1523, the first objection people usually say is that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a
"citizen".
Acts 21:39, "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."
Some people might say, "Well, it must be okay to be a citizen because Paul said he was a citizen." On the surface, that looks like a tough argument, but it's not, and we'll see why it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century; in the first century, "citizen" did not have the same maning it has today. At that time, all it meant was that you were a citizen of a particular
city, and it required
no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the French word "cite," which means "city." Here is further evidence from the
Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.
Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city."
City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?"
Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman."
And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:
Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.
Note there was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, and it only meant protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "license" (Acts 21:41). A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth on it. This was only a verbal "license" or permission. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions on words that were used in the first century, and this includes the terms "license" and "citizen."
"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and has no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."
In Smith's handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election, or by some form of naturalization."
Notice that citizenship
may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are
conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does
not make one a citizen of that country, one must
also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
This is easily explained by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is
not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law that the parents have
submitted themselves to.
How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of our mouth, but it also has to do with our walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you serving the State (by partaking of its benefits)? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster, the heathen, like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.
Just because one is born in a country it does not make one a citizen of that country; especially when it comes to ambassadors:
"Citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens. The exceptions are 1) children of foreign ambassadors..." Bouvier's Institutes of Law, 1851.
Bondservants of Christ fit this description. We are children of God, and we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20). Therefore, this is further evidence that ambassadors are not considered citizens of a country, even if born in that country. Also, as ambassadors for Christ, we can not participate in the politics of the nation.
To put this citizenship thing in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:
"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.
This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which Christ says is impossible.
