We the people of Almighty God—known Biblically by His memorial name Yahweh,1 the one and only Sovereign over all creation2—humbly submit ourselves as individuals, families, churches, and communities to His rule3 as Judge, Lawgiver, and King.4
Because all power and authority resides with Him,5 we acknowledge that liberty, justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare for ourselves and our posterity can only be achieved by His perfect law and righteous judgments.6
We hereby freely covenant together as His humble servants, bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ,7 into a civil body politic for the purpose of implementing His commandments, statutes, and judgments as the only standard for ordering our lives both individually and communally. We furthermore look to Him for wisdom, assistance, and protection in conducting His affairs here on earth as it is in heaven.8
__________________________
1. “…YHWH God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:15)
YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Regrettably, it was deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. “…[Yahweh] who is the blessed and only Potentate [Sovereign, NASB], the King of kings, and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:15)
3. “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, Counsellor, 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….” (Isaiah 9:6-7)
4. “For YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king; he will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22)
5. “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.” (Psalm 62:11)
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power [authority, NASB] is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” (Jude 1:25)
6. “The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)
7. “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:20)
“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23)
8. “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10)
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)
My proposed Preamble is certainly not perfect. I m therefore open to suggestions on how it might be improved.
I want to thank those who submitted their proposals the last two weeks in personal emails and to the previous blog article: “The Preamble: How Would You Write It?” They helped ME in fine-tuning today’s submission.
Just think where America would be today if only the late 1700 framers had initiated government on a similar foundation as this one or the ones you proposed. Perhaps our proposals will be something our posterity will be able to use to do it right(eous) the next time.
In the meantime, I think we all should be praying Habakkuk’s prayer “[Lord] in wrath remember mercy.” (Habakkuk 3:2)
Blessings!
I think of I Timothy Chapter 2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2. For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Ted you pointed out very well the leadership test at a conference…. that to hold public office you must be Christian. This verse would fit much better with that in mind for the kingdom vision and our leaders submitting themselves under the headship and laws of YHWH.
Ted: What’s wrong with;
“We the people of Almighty God—known Biblically by His memorial name Yahweh, the one and only Sovereign over all creation—humbly submit ourselves as individuals, families, churches, and communities to His rule as Judge, Lawgiver, and King.
Because all power and authority resides with Him, we acknowledge that liberty, justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare for ourselves and our posterity can only be achieved by His perfect law and righteous judgments.
We hereby freely covenant together as His humble servants, bought and paid for by the blood of Christ7 into a civil body politic for the purpose of implementing His commandments, statutes, and judgments as the only standard for ordering our lives both individually and communally. We furthermore look to Him for wisdom, assistance, and protection in conducting His affairs here on earth as it is in heaven.”
There’s always improvement to be made.
The Constitution was initiated on a similar foundation. The wording you desire is in the State Constitutions, written by the guys you rail against.
SOME similar wording exists in the original State Constitutions. While they were much better than the federal Constitution which is completely secular (the only mention of God or Christ is perhaps as the paper’s timekeeper in Article 7), they were still very much compromised contracts based upon the concept that power and authority resided in the people, not Yahweh.
Also, as a whole, they did not promote Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) as the law of the land, nor did they require their judges to adjudicate strictly according to Yahweh’s law and judgments. Without this, their Christian test oaths were essentially vain.
There was no compromise because responsibility rested with the States, given the State Constitutions prove biblical law was the law of the land. Of course the judges did not adjudicate according to Yahweh’s law; the NT abrogates it. Furthermore, the Constitution refers to Christian test oaths to the States.
John, your paradigm as stated in the following: “Of course the judges did not adjudicate according to Yahweh’s law; the NT abrogates it.” says everything as to why you stand where you do on both the federal and state constitutions.
I would recommend you consider the following New Testament passages:
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mathew 5:18)
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomian – lawlessness].” (Matthew 7:21-23)
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)
“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love….” (John 15:10)
“…truth [is] in the law.” (Romans 2:20)
“…by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)
“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)
“For we know that the law is spiritual….” (Romans 7:14)
“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:4)
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)
“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1 Timothy 1:8)
“For this is the [New] covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts….” (Hebrews 8:10)
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:2)
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3)
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17)
“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12)
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” (Revelation 22:14).
For more, see “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.
There is no need for me to consider the NT passages you refer to given there are many parts of the Law that are abrogated by the NT. I suggest you go over it again and find out what they are. If you aren’t aware of those parts of the Law done away with by the lord’s vicarious sacrifice on the cross for sin, I don’t see how you deride the founders in any sense?
I don’t recall Ted advocating a return to the offering of animal sacrifices. When did he do that?
Ted wrote “Also, as a whole, they did not promote Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) as the law of the land, nor did they require their judges to adjudicate strictly according to Yahweh’s law and judgments.”
If he means moral law, that’s fine. The second half of the above statement caught my eye and seems misleading. Anyway, where did they fail to do this?
Galatians 3:17-19 describes the law that was nailed to the cross–the law that was “added because of transgressions.” Jesus didn’t make it OK to murder people and perform Sodomite acts on them. Where did the framers fail? This question reminds me of the airplanes I used to build out of wagons and tricycles, with my sister pushing me down the road. They failed in every area where success was not achieved.
John, if you’re not familiar enough with Yahweh’s moral law to know that it’s represented in the 10 Commandments, the statutes that explain them, and the judgments that enforce them, and if you’re not familiar enough with my teaching to know that it’s only the moral law I promote under the New Covenant, I would suggest that you should do some more homework before coming here and making accusatory statements.
Furthermore, if you don’t know Yahweh’s moral law well enough to know that there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, against Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality, and that America’s Constitutional judiciary (from its inception) is replete with non-Biblical judgments, I would again suggest that you have some homework to do.
For further research, I would like to offer you free copies of the “Primer” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution” and “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” If you’re inclined to accept my offer, you can submit your address via our Contact Button on the bottom of our main site’s home page (http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/) or simply email it to me at tweiland@vistabeam.com.
You’re the one with all the accusations against the framers. You make the fallacy that the Constitution is secular because its wording isn’t what you want, but you already know the context is found in the State Constitutions. The paper its written on is not the issue, so said the Calvinists at the Constitution Convention.
I would have liked the working different but it wouldn’t have mattered. The Feds were to have no power over religion.
Further, you also make the false claim “they were still very much compromised contracts based upon the concept that power and authority resided in the people, not Yahweh.”
You provide no support of the above quote or that they quoted Rousseau or any other secularist. They wrote WE THE PEOPLE because they were human, not inspired and again, the context of the Bill of Rights is Christian. The guy that wrote the 1A in the House was Trinitarian and so was the guy in charge of the committee that pushed it through the Senate, as were almost all the others.
I didn’t read all of your writings; there’s too much to go through, so I expected quotes from you.
By the way, Calvin confirmed consent of the governed in Geneva, and he took it from Deuteronomy 1 and various other places in the O.T. This proves “consent” was not a secular contrivance. Through their writings, the Calvinists at the Convention, including Oliver Ellsworth, affirmed Calvin’s interpretation of the Republicanism of Exodus 18 and Deut 1.
Also, I see you bring up another fallacy about the “social contract” when it was the great Calvinist Samuel Adams who said we have a contract; a contract in perpetuity, however, not the kind you understand.
As a Christian, I would like to see more prima facie evidence for your claims.
God Bless
Well said, John. I think that you would enjoy reading my article We the People in which I trace the concepts of popular sovereignty, popular election the right of resistance from the time of Moses all the way up to Aquinas. You can find it online at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html
You give kudos to one who who clealy shows he has little understanding of God’s law? Would you go to ANY lengths to agree with one SOLELY based upon his disagreement with Ted? For the sake of your character and reputation, I pray this not to be the case. It would serve only to weaken your own standing and credibility.
“Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” all 565-pages which are available online at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
I’ve offered you the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC” and it’s companion 54-page book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” to you free. I don’t know what else I can do.
As for prima facia evidence: That’s what I’m asking for you to provide in my last post to you.
Keep in mind: Idols don’t die easily. In Acts 19 we’re told that the Ephesians cried out for two straight hours “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” Americans (ironically, particularly conservative Christians) have been crying out “Great is the Constitution of the United States of America!” for 225 years!
Here, you post either dishonesty or ignorance on your website, by giving Wilson’s quote a false coloring and distorting the context. You add the Bible to the context, when none is given, however Wilson clearly revealed in his Lectures, the Scriptures are superior to any human law. You should quickly take it down, as it gives a stench to some of the other good information on here:
“”Constitutional judges are required to render verdicts in agreement with the Constitution rather than the Bible anytime the two are in disagreement:
…when they … find it [any law] to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, it is their duty to pronounce it void.
James Wilson, Constitution Signatory and Supreme Court Justice””
Here is the full paragraph and the Bible isn’t even mentioned. Wilson is talking about Judicial Review.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_pa.htm
If you are that careless with posting false information; Ben Franklin’s words are apropos, “I should rather.. renounce the whole” and forget about reading the rest.
John, well said! I couldn’t have expressed it better myself: “THE BIBLE ISN’T EVEN MENTIONED!”
Take a few moments to let that resonate and perhaps you will understand my point that you identified as either dishonest or ignorant. Add to that Wilson’s comment “the superior power of the Constitution” as in the “supreme law of the land,” and my point should become even clearer. As someone whom it would appear claims to be a Christian, would you EVER make either of those statements about anything other than Bible or, at the very least, without a caveat giving super superior acknowledgment to Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified His perfect law (Psalm 19:7) in the same statement? I would hope not.
If after contemplating these points for a little while, you still want to persist in your position that the Constitution and its judges, such as James Wilson, promoted Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments), it then becomes incumbent upon you to provide anything from Wilson or any of his contemporary judges or any constitutional judge since (or anyone from the Legislative or Executive Branches) who, for example, employed Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:9, etc.) in their decisions (or legislation)–for example, two to five times restitution (depending upon the nature of their theft), lex talionis, stoning, mandatory death penalty for murderers, next-of-kin participation in punishment, mandatory witness participation, etc., etc., etc.
Without such evidence you have no point. And without such evidence, you’ll hopefully begin to see that these men didn’t even come close to establishing a government of, by, and for Yahweh based upon His immutable morality as codified in His perfect (superior) law, as did our TRUE 1600 Christian American founders. And, hopefully, in what should then amount to an epiphany moment, you will also realize that in promoting the Constitution, you’re promoting sedition against Yahweh.
There’s nothing in your preamble about baptism. Would a government under this preamble be open to those who claim to be Christians but have not been baptized?
Naaman is your kind of guy, isn’t he?
It’s a legitimate question, David. Ted seems to believe that baptism is a requirement for one to become a Christian, but there are many people who claim to be Christians who do not share this belief. If Ted were to set up a government under the above preamble, it would eventually become necessary to establish whether one must be baptized in order to be part of this community of “the people of Almighty God.”
What was so illegitimate about the answer I gave you to this very same question a while back? Here it is…again:
First Peter 3:21 says, “…Baptism doth save us…” It seems to me that anyone who wishes to be saved would also wish to be baptized. Peter J. Peters’ book The Greatest Love Story Never told gives a thorough explanation of why baptism is necessary. But if you don’t have time to read that book, here’s the short version: Yahweh was a husband to Israel (Jeremiah 31:32). He divorced her (Jeremiah 3:8). He said He would remarry her (Hosea 2:19). He couldn’t do that at the time because it was against the law (Deuteronomy 24:4). But that law applies only to those who are still alive. So He died and then remarried her(2 Corinthians 11:2). The proper response for her is to die for Him. Hence, baptism. It’s the greatest love story never told.
Of course there are extenuating circumstances that might require some mercy for those who can’t easily take a splash. For instance, if you are hanging on a cross and won’t be near any water before you die, it is still possible to go to Paradise.
If you are asking me if I would nominate someone to be a judge, who utterly refuses such a small request as to be baptized in the name of Jesus, after what Jesus did for him, the only response I can give to a question that silly is: Are you kidding?
Indeed, Bill, it is a very legitimate question. However, before getting to it (in a followup post), let me clearly state my position on baptism/immersion so that there’s no ambiguity as to where I stand on what is often, tragically, such a contentious issue.
I unequivocally accept all of the following passages (all which are at odds with what many of today’s preachers are teaching but harmonize perfectly with each other–that alone, speaks volumes) for exactly what they say:
“…he said unto them [His apostles], Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
“…when they [three thousand Judahites] heard this [the gospel
and that they were responsible for the death of Jesus], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.… Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them [the early church comprised of the apostles] about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:37-41)
“…now [Saul of Tarsus] why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16)
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4)
“…by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body… and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)
“…ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27)
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (Colossians 2:11-13)
“…God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein … eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (…the
answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:20-21)
Regardless how often these passages are ignored, explained away, or pitted against other passages, when taken at face value, the Bible unequivocally asserts the following about baptism (which, of course, must be preceded by faith and repentance/surrender):
Baptism is when we are saved in Jesus the Christ.
Baptism is when our sins are forgiven.
Baptism is when our consciences are cleansed.
Baptism is when we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is when we begin to drink of the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is when our hearts are circumcised.
Baptism is when we begin to walk a new life in Christ.
Baptism is when we are quickened in Christ.
Baptism is when we become children of God.
Baptism is when we put on Christ.
Baptism is when we are added to the church of Christ.
None of those statements are interpretations of the previous passages. They are merely restatements of what those passages declare themselves. Read them again if you question this.
Furthermore, those who reject the previous passages for what they literally declare about baptism, usually teach one or any combination of the following doctrines about baptism, NONE of which can be found in the Scriptures (I would encourage everyone here to check yourself and see if you teach any of the following):
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.
Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace.
Baptism is just an act of obedience.
Baptism is a work of man.
Baptism is a witness to others.
These doctrines about baptism often include the teaching that a person can be saved by “accepting” or “asking Jesus into his
heart” or by “praying the sinner’s prayer.” But these statements cannot be found in the Bible; and no record exists of anyone performing these acts to be saved. In other words, all of these non-Biblical teachings are used to replace the clear Biblical teaching about baptism and its relationship to salvation.
Now, please, don’t accuse me of teaching baptismal regeneration. If that’s what I’m teaching by merely sharing with you the previous passages, then you must accuse Christ, the apostles, and others of teaching that as well. The fact is, in over thirty years of preaching I’ve yet to run across ANYONE (the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 included) who teaches baptismal regeneration–that is, that the act of baptism regenerates, saves, redeems, forgives, or justifies a person. Instead, those passages teach (as I do) that it’s Christ and His redeeming blood sacrifice and resurrection from the grave that regenerates, saves, redeems, forgives, and justifies us, through the means He designed for it to occur, which clearly includes baptism in the former passages.
If by teaching the previous passages, I’m teaching baptismal regeneration then anyone who teaches John 3:16 is teaching belief regeneration, and anyone who teaches Luke 13:3 is teaching repentance regeneration, and anyone who teaches Matthew 10:32 is teaching confession regeneration. The point being, the accusation of baptism regeneration is a straw man (bogus) accusation in order to pigeon hole someone so you can ignore him.
For anyone interested in pursuing this subject, let me recommend “Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More,” in which, among other things, I address fifty objections that I’ve encountered over the years as alleged justification for not taking the former passages for what they literally say. It’s free for the asking. If I don’t already have your address, email it to me at tweiland@vistabeam.com and I’ll be pleased to get a copy right out to you, along with an audio message on the same subject.
Now, as for your question. I will not get into a lot of detail as to how I perceive this issue will be handled because I simply don’t know. If by Yahweh’s providence, some day such a Preamble will be used to establish a government of, by, and for Him, this issue will have to be handled by the generation He has chosen for that task. Furthermore, as people come to a greater epistemological understanding (Ephesians 4:13), who’s to say that there won’t be a much greater unity (or even complete unity in the Christian community) on this issue at that time.
I will say this that although the Preamble is specifically Christian, this does not mean that both Christians and non-Christians cannot live under it’s banner, provided all agree to it and all other stipulations, much the same as non-Israelites strangers did under the Mosaic Covenant.
I’m glad that you envision a society under this preamble that welcomes both Christians and non-Christians, but I am still curious about the interaction that you envision between them. Will there be activities that Christians can participate in which will be denied to non-Christians such as holding public office? If so, could you provide some idea of what activities you think should be included in that restricted category?
I agree 100% that neither the Constitution for nor the Constitution of the United States are Christian documents. I did, however, want to get some feedback from y’all as to what you think about the Confederate preamble. As it is reproduced on the Avalon Project website:
“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”
Now let’s keep in mind that the preamble to any lawful/legal document is not the actual meat of the document, if you you can understand what I am trying to say. The words of the preamble are not the governing words, but merely introduce the reader to sort of the spirit of the document, like where are the authors coming from and where are they going, that sort of thing. I do understand that many, many people invoke words from
the US preamble when developing their political, and sometimes religious, philosophies. I also know that to be wrong.
Basically I’m just looking to get a constructive conversation going. I know that many of the debates in the Confederate congress regarded important issues of Christian philosophy. (When was the last time the present US congress had a real theological debate?) Y’all should look into the record of how the Confederate motto, “Deo Vindice” came about. I also wonder if most of what is contained in the Confederate constitution
could be retained by a truly Christian nation, or if the whole idea of constitutionalism generally is one which is Greco-Roman in thought-origin, which would make it altogether bad no matter the words. FYI: the Roman code of Justinian, which is at the very foundation of US legal practice, derives most directly from the ancient Babylonian
maritime code. The “legal”, not lawful, system that developed over the centuries, first on mainland Europe and then spread to England by the Norman invasion, has been associated with being the “whore of Babylon” by many theologians throughout the centuries, many of those theologians being martyred.
Michael, thank you for joining us in discussion.
Whereas the Confederate Preamble is heads and shoulders better than US Constitution’s Preamble from the mere fact that it invokes Almighty God, there are, nonetheless, some of the same problems in it and in its Constitution as are found in the US Constitution.
If you were to read “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective (http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html), I think you would understand why I say this.
Rather than beginning with the complete 565-page book, if you take our Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html, I’ll send you complimentary copy of the 85-page “Primer” of the complete book.
[…] (1 Timothy 5:17-18) 17. 1 Samuel 14:26-45; 1 Chronicles 21:1-14; 1 Timothy 5:22 Related Posts: Preamble Article 1 Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant Bible Law vs. the United […]