Hilarious You-Tube video about the state of our nation.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on -
Christian, I tend to agree with your assessment.
Christian said:I would argue this:
We have EITHER a Monarchy, or in the absence of monarchy a shofetocracy / kritarchy - meaning rule by judges.
It's one or the other, with priesthood subservient in both cases.
The Monarchy, especially if it is an expression of true Ruach-guided Theocracy, has the right to be authoritarian and absolutist.
The Shofetocracy must be conservative and to a large degree follow the principles of small government, limited intervention, economic/capitalist non-interference, etc
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/shoftim-the-judges
As long as we only have access to sinful human kings, and by extension human autocracies and pretend democracies - would Shofetocracy not be a much better system?
I would never limit the power of the Messiah's government, but why give the same rights of authority to a human, as to the Messiah?
Monarchies, like unconstitutional democracies and socialist dictatorships, have much larger room for error, ungodliness and ability to damage it's people - I don't think I'm the only one who recognizes the much preferrable Shofetocracy as a system of government more (or fully) in line with free market principles and capitalist constitutional republics.
Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:lol, i suppose i was wrong about the order. actually, it seems the only flaw with the American system would be that Judges, Kings, and Priests are elected, whereas, it seems that Scripturally, they are not supposed to be elected unless it is necessary to elect them. when there are judges, a king, or priests, they are to choose their successors, not the common people.
I found the following that is claimed by sites I read: "While judge is the closest literal translation of the Hebrew term used in the masoretic text, the position is more one of unelected non-hereditary leadership[2] than that of legal pronouncement." "The Sanhedrin as a body claimed powers that lesser Jewish courts did not have. As such, they were the only ones who could try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and were the ones to whom all questions of law were finally put." So, you are right, it would seem the King had more power than the priesthood, but the Judges has more power than the king, or at least, that was how it was supposed to be.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Brauner on -
May 4, J. Jury said: "Yet I would like to see a system of government with no king, and a unified priesthood who judged with righteousness." Amen, and below:
May 4, by Anaiah: "but the Judges has more power than the king, or at least, that was how it was supposed to be."
We are not use the corrupt courts, but have a 'jurisdiction of Biblical wisdom' to judge matters.
Many have been taken for money by ' believers at churches' , or ones who speak God in their conversation.
It is like: locusts eaten, no recovery/restitution, shifting sands fallen through fingers.
Susan
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
