Wednesday, May 15, 2013

A Church In Disguise

Matthew 18:20,  "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

*Note: When the author renders the word 'Church' as seen here, he is referring to our modern day, Business Entity, Main Stream, Man Made Institutional 'Church.' When he renders the word church in all lower case lettering, he is referring to Christ's Organic, Original, Authentic, Legitimate House church, which He created and continues to build.

This will Probably be the most radical piece I've written so far. Let me say to all those who are visiting this blog for the first time that I usually do not broach subjects such as these. With much hesitation do I offer this piece for one's deliberation. What you're going to read could be considered very controversial and even a little frightening. It will no doubt go against the grain of most everything we have been taught or believe about our American and 'Church' heritage. But, before you form an opinion that I am a kook, or I start getting hate mail from Quakers, I ask that you please hear me out until the end. But after you read this, if you're upset, you have my permission to throw ripe tomatoes at me. Please understand this; if this subject wasn't of vital importance, I wouldn't have written or posted it. If after reading this article, a decision is made not to return, I ask that you select another article in this blog first and read it to get the true spirit of what this blog is really all about. I thank you in advance for your objectivity. With that said, I'll begin.

Matthew 18:20 has been used by many as the 'proof text' to support the idea that whenever two or more Christians are gathered together in Christ's name, this is what comprises 'the church.' I've bought into this and most likely, so have most of us. I no longer subscribe to this 'idea' because of the points I will bring up in this article. This thought occurred to me after I received a YouTube video called 'Season of Treason' and an E-mail from the same friend stating his belief that a two or three gathering comprises the church. I urge everyone to watch the video because it brings to light that we are living in a society that is not what we think it is; nor is the 'Church' model we are in what we think it is. Here is a statement I will back up with Scriptural and historical evidence: Everyone in an Institutional 'Church' system, without realizing it, is a member of a 'Church' in Disguise.

Disguise verb. 1. Conceal the nature or existence of a feeling or situation.
2. Give (someone or oneself) a different appearance in order to conceal one's identity.
3. Make something unrecognizable by altering it's appearance, sound, taste, or smell.
4. The concealing of one's true intentions, feelings or identity.

We know that Satan is a master deceiver. He hides behind varying disguises to alter people's perception regarding himself, God, God's Word and God's church. I will address three points to show us that the 'Church' we know and grew up with is just another organization disguised to look like Christ's organic, authentic, and legitimate church. My first point is, Satan disguises God's church by distorting Scripture.

1. Where Two or Three...

To begin with, I will address where this '...two or three are gathered together in my name' constitutes a church belief. Nowhere in Scripture does this verse define Christ's assembly. It simply says that where two or three are gathered in His name, He will be in the midst of them. Let's look at Matthew 18 a little more closely and what context Proceeds verse 20. In verses 1-14 Jesus addresses His disciples regarding how to treat one another by using the example of behaving with the humility, honesty and innocence of little children. I guarantee you that when two little children are in disagreement, when Daddy shows up, they behave as little lambs. So, if we're together in a good spirit, (or a foul one) think of Jesus as being there in our midst. If we are misbehaving, that should warrant enough of an attitude adjustment. If we are agreeable towards each other, knowing He's there makes the experience all the more sweeter.

In verses 15-17, He stresses the point further by offering an example of how to deal with a matter of contention between two brothers. "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

In this case, whatever the infraction is, the one who is offended is to go to the offender and plead his case. If the offender doesn't accept the complaint, then the Lord says that the next step would be to get one or two others so that they'd be witnesses to what is said. It's important to notice that at this point, the church isn't even involved. That will only be necessary if the offending brother will not hear the second plea in front of two or three witnesses. The matter has to be brought through the first two stages before it is even brought forth to the church. Since this is true, then how can the two or three constitute 'a church,' since bringing it before the church is a last resort? The point is, the Lord here isn't defining what a church is, but how to conduct ourselves in a civil manner to clear up a dispute. He's also saying that when this meeting takes place, we'd better realize that He's there also and is witnessing everything that is being said. Why would anyone want to lie in the presence of God? That'd be kinda dumb, wouldn't it? But even that was tested in Acts when Ananias and his wife lied before God about the money they held back from the sale of a plot of land. We all know how that ended up! We also know that sometimes children will test their parents, right? So did they. Oh well,...die and learn.

In verses 19, Jesus establishes that if two shall agree on the same matter and shall ask, the Father will grant and give it. "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. This is not a parenthetical statement, but rather a continuation of the previous thought regarding how to humble ourselves before God in truth and humility in a time of disagreement. Then, Jesus ties the context all together in verse 20, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Again, this isn't the definition of what a church is, but rather a notice to all that Christ will be present when difficulties between two brethren are evident. 

Here's another angle to consider about God's presence. If I'm praying to Him by myself, He's in my midst as well. The same goes for any Believer. Does it take two or three people converging to summon His presence? I think not! Who was the Lord speaking to on the Road to Damascus? There were others around, but He only spoke to Paul. The Lord was indeed in Paul's midst that day. but clearly there were no other Believer's around. In fact, Paul himself wasn't a Believer at this time. If we think about it, the Apostle John was in God's presence while on the Island of Patmos. Where was his contingent of Believers? I think that we've been mislead by well meaning pastors and other members of the clergy regarding the meaning of this verse. Why? Because there are other verses in the Bible that show that Christ was referring to a method that enabled our words to be established publically. It had nothing to do with describing His church body.

2Corinthians 13:1, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

1Timothy 5:19, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."

Hebrews 10:28, "He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:"

These verses clearly show that establishing one's word was necessitated by having witnesses present. It was like having a notary witness a written or spoken statement for legal purposes. These verses have nothing to do with defining what a church is. The word 'church' is actually defined as, 'a called out assembly of people who have convened and does convene.' An ekklesia is an assembly comprised of people who meet on a regular basis. Pretty simple, huh? It's not a random meeting of those who happen to be Believers. Here's an example of what I'm getting at. If two or three Believers, who never met before, happen to meet at a gas station, and gather together, Christ Promises that He will be in their midst. This is a true example that backs up what He Promised. But, does that little group make up a church? No. Why? Because they may never meet again, at least not until the Lord takes us home.

Let me remind us that [all] Christians have never assembled, and until they do, they cannot be a true ekklesia. A church must be local, physical and be in the same presence of one another at an appointed place and continue to meet together (at least) at regular intervals as long as they are able. The first time all Christians will assemble will be at the Rapture. I haven't, as yet, assembled with the Apostle Paul, but someday I will. Since Paul and me haven't assembled, we cannot fulfill the definition as rendered by the word ekklesia.

This two or three theory only Promotes the idea of Universalism; that is to say, that all Christians 'everywhere' comprise the church. As a dear friend of mine often says, "Pass the bread; the baloney has already been around." This is a Catholic concept and is foreign to sound Biblical teaching. The reason why the above 'chance gas station meeting' doesn't qualify as Christ's church is because it doesn't fit the definition of an ekklesia. His church has to have convened (past tense) and does convene (present tense). The words church and assembly simply describes a local, physical body of people who meet regularly. It doesn't even have to be a religious type of a body.

Acts 5:17-29, "Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, 18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. 19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, 20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. 21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. 22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, 23 Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within. 24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

In my KJB Interlinear Greek~English N.T., the word for council in verse 27 is "Sanhedrin" translated from the Greek. This word literally means, 'sitting together' or 'council.' We know that the Sanhedrin of the Sadducees was local, physical and was connected to local government. Although they were a theocratic society, their actions, (policing, judicial and otherwise) proves them to be just as political as much as it was a religious structure. This is entirely different than what is described as Christ's local, physical assembly. Christ's organic church has no political agenda, nor do we impose strong-arm techniques as shown in the above underlined passage to enforce the governing of our body. The Institutional 'Church' however has a long history of this. Nooo,... the 'two or three theory' definition for a church is just that; a theory. Christ can be in our midst anytime and anywhere. If that means at a chance meeting with strangers, a lost person such as was Paul, or His authentic assembly, there are no limits as to who or where He will show up. But, to say that this verse defines His church, I believe that we are victims of a false assumption. Satan will twist and pervert Scripture to gain an advantage against a potent witness for Christ and His church. Second, Satan disguises God's church by utilizing political sleight of hand.

2. Wagging The Dog

Everything I'm about to tell you is a matter of public record and historical fact. One only needs to 'look it up' to verify what I'm about to say. I am going to build a little foundation referencing some events in American history to make my point about the Institutional 'Church,' so please bear with me. The following will no doubt be hard for patriotic Americans to swallow. But, if we weigh the evidences all around us with what is revealed in this second point, I'm confident that those with an open and objective mind will see the realities of what we are involved in. In the video mentioned above, 'Season of Treason,' we find that a de facto government poses itself as legitimate and authentic, when in reality it is a mere copy-cat version of the original. It is a fiat government that has 'grown legs.' It is in fact, operated by sleight of hand. It masquerades [as] legitimate, while covering up and shoving off to the side what [is] legitimate (also see my article 'De jure Versus De facto' for more on how our legal system works). Get ready, because I'm about to reveal the first of several shocking statements to this second point. This is hard for me to say, so I'll just say it. In 1861, our beloved U.S. Constitution was dissolved and rendered impotent. I told ya it was shocking!

The horrible truth is, it was replaced ten years later by a new constitution under a new management. The new constitution was just the shell of the old one. The old document was used, but it had been dramatically changed to serve and benefit the new government. What's interesting is that the original Constitution wasn't signed. It was witnessed. The difference being that the Declaration of Independence was signed. Every man who penned his autograph on the Declaration of Independence was staking his life to a document. With the Constitution, which came years later, there was no such heroic gesture. None was needed since the States had already gained their independence from the British. The old Constitution was a document of Law and only needed to be witnessed. Anyway, the video shows that in 1861, while Congress was in session, all of the seceding Southern State's representatives walked out. What the video didn't say was why they walked out. Actually, there were multiple reasons. One of the reasons was that Abraham Lincoln had just become the 16th President of the U.S. They didn't walk out because he was from the Northern part of the Union. There was no prejudice against the man himself except maybe that he was thought of as a unsaved heathen at the time of his election. We know that later on, while viewing the many lives lost at Gettysburg, he gave his life to Christ. Nonetheless, Lincoln being elected was an UN-Constitutional act. Why? Because the original 13th Amendment Prohibited any person with a title of nobility to hold any elected office; up to and especially including the Presidency.

Lincoln, as we well know, was an attorney holding the designation of Esquire, a title of nobility. Esquires, even today are loyal to a foreign entity called, 'the crown.' In fact, the BAR card that every attorney holds stands for, British Accredited Registry. But the crown I am speaking of isn't the Crown that depicts a monarch like Queen Elizabeth. The crown I'm talking about is a different crown altogether. This crown would be the beneficiary to the Profits made off of the new government. It is known as the "Crown Temple." It's the Rothschild Banking system who manages all finance and collects Profits for the Vatican. Anyway, those who have a title of nobility, like attorneys who hold office in any capacity, holds that office under the cloud of a conflict of interest. Why? Because their loyalty is to a foreign entity (the Crown Temple). I hope we can see why it was vitally important to the Founding Fathers not to let anyone who wasn't a natural born American, or one who had allegiance to another nation or foreign entity, hold 'office' in this country. Lincoln's affiliation with the crown disqualified him right from the start. This however wasn't going to stop Lincoln's political strategists from conceiving a master plan to get their man in office. Not by a long shot.

The very young Republican Party ignored the 13th Amendment and distracted many by utilizing a strategy known as 'Wagging the Dog.' This technique simply means that when someone wants to have an agenda met, they'll often create a distraction that will cause the voter's focus to be misdirected. While those opposed to the original agenda are chasing rabbits, the unwanted agenda is slipped through the cracks unnoticed. By then, it's too late. The one's who Proposed this agenda attains approval. Politicians have been doing this for hundreds of years and it still goes on today. Anyway, the 'rabbit chasing' issue the Republican Party pushed was a hot topic indeed; Emancipation. Back then, the public's vote did count, and Lincoln was voted in by the slimmest of margins. I'll elaborate more on the 13th Amendment a little later, but at the time of Lincoln's election, the Constitution was lawful (including the 13th Amendment) and needed to be upheld. When the southern State representatives saw what was about to happen, they pledged that if Lincoln was elected under these circumstances, they'd walk. And, that's what they did.

What this secession did was dissolve our Constitutional Republic and rendered the original (Organic) U.S. Constitution inert. Why? Because the Southern Union-ship of that government had abandoned their posts. What was once a whole union of States had become a fraction of what it once was. The old lawful government ceased to exist because it was originally set up as a Constitutional Republic, and now, well, it was nothing! It's like if someone breaks a water pot. If the main pieces aren't in tact, it cannot hold water as it was designed to. Lincoln was right about one thing; "A house divided against itself cannot stand." And that's what happened to our then, Lawful government. It fell apart, crashed to the ground, was unable to stand! When the Southern contingent walked out, the House was divided both in form and function! To them, the Constitution was the glue that held the Union together. Since the Constitution had been violated by the election of Lincoln, and against the 13th Amendment's Provision against title of nobility, those in Congress reasoned that if the government would not honor the "Law of the Land," what's the point in continuing with a charade?

So, it wasn't until after a lot of American blood had been spilled on the battlefields north and south of the Mason~Dixon Line did a new form of government take shape. Actually, what they had formed was a Corporation and called it 'Government.' That's when our de jure (legitimate) government was replaced by a de facto (fraudulent) government. This new government didn't evolve from the old one. It was conceived from a new strand of thinking that took our country into a whole different direction. All they did was 'lift' patriotic sounding terms and phrases from the old guard and applied them to the new guard. After sufficient time had passed, most couldn't tell the difference between the old and the new, except they found that more of their liberties were gradually being replaced by more government control. But, for almost ten years after 1861, we actually had no real government to speak of. All we had were 'Departments.' They had operated under a 'Smoke and Mirrors' method more than anything else. They had convinced the public that everything was business as usual. In reality, everything was in shambles. It was easy to convince them that their fiat government had everything in control. Why? Because elevating the war, and the slavery issue in everyone's consciousness kept their focus occupied on something other than a clandestine takeover. This was 'Wagging the Dog' at it's best.

Also, not until 1871 did a new government constitution replace the original Constitution. The Civil War wasn't about slavery as much as it was a religious and political war. The southern faction had a strong sense of right and wrong, and they were fierce loyalists to family, honour, the Bible, 'Church' and the Constitution. After the dust had cleared and the smell of gun powder was gone from the battlefields of Gettysburg and others, it was time to clean everything up and rebuild. This war gave the new regime a chance to organize and formulate a new government. Who were the benefactors? The same one's who financed the war. Not only did they form a new Corporation, they adopted a new constitution. This new constitution looked and read like the original in most places, but that's where the similarities ended. Why? Because it was the original document. They used the document itself as a place card, but they treated it as a tool to make people believe it was still in force. The new government has used it to their advantage when they needed to and added new Amendments that were never ratified. If the public believed that the new Amendments were written into the constitution, they would naturally believe they were valid (ratified or not). Three of these are the new 13th, the 14th and the 16th Amendments. Neither of these were ratified. The last one had to do with income tax.

The new constitution was so well disguised that even today the vast majority of Americans still believe that the original Constitution still exists as an active set of laws as they once were. I've got news for us; it isn't. Not any more. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment is still in force is because the people still hold arms. And they won't give them up without a fight. The de facto government knows this. So instead of taking them by force, they've been disguising their own constitution by setting up laws, statutes and codes that would gradually pry the public's fingers from the handles of their side arms ~ legally. Legal and Lawful are two different terms with two different meanings. To simplify the difference, I'll just say this: Lawful is great. Legal,... not so much. But back in the day when this new constitution was 'Frankensteined' into existence, the public still depended on their guns to survive. The school of thought for everyone was that it was 'abnormal' not to possess a weapon. Plus, at that time, the new government wasn't powerful enough to enforce a whole lot. Even if they wanted to disarm Americans, there just wasn't the man power or the funds to do so.

Today, we have a whole new mind-set. It's been built up in our minds that if one owns a hand gun, it's not socially acceptable. In most cases, people who "carry" are thought of as being "a danger to society." Anti-gun activists lobby for more gun control every year, and their voices are being heard. They've built up their reserves, dumb downed the public, and are ready to disarm America by using the United Nations as their hired guns. Andrew Carnegie did the same thing during the steel workers strikes. The government was too weak to help restore peace, so he hired the Pinkerton's. These were mercenaries who took baths, wore new clothes and were given rifles and guns. Basically, they were cleaned up hired thugs that squashed the resistance and are still in existence today. Today, we call them, "police." The Problem remains that most of the public are in the dark regarding the de facto governments history and schemes. When their plan is sprung, it'll be too late for 'John Q. Public: Patriotic American' to do anything about it. If they refuse to give up their arms, they'll just end up bleeding, dying or being imprisoned.

The United States became a Corporation, just like Walmart or McDonald's. No longer did this new government corporation dictate it's policies as taught in the original lawful Constitutional Republic. Rather, it dictates them by slight of hand. Here's how. It makes people think we are one thing when in actuality we are a part of something else altogether. This new constitution is bound by it's own legal system using UCC, U.S. Codes, statutes and compiled laws written by those who are in charge. Lawful and legal aren't two terms to express the same meaning. They are separate. 'Lawful' is a term used to describe a de jure government's policies that would ensure that the people were the beneficiaries of the Law of the land. 'Legal' is a de facto term used to label a specific precedent within their private guide lines and rules. Just as McDonald's might insist on a dress code for their employees, the U.S. Corporation also employs their own codes.

Let's say that McDonald's Board of Directors impose a nominal fee to be taken out of each employee's paycheck to fund a Program. If the employee want's to work there, he has to consent to this nominal fee deduction. If the employee doesn't abide by the code, he or she is in violation of the company's legal statutes. It doesn't matter if he agrees with the statute or not. If he wants to be a part of the organization, he has to pay. His only choice against paying the fee is to remove himself from the corporation. If this is the only employment opportunity he has, he may very well choose to remain and pay the fee after all. He figures that less pay is better than no pay. I guess we can now see how income tax comes into play. Since our original Constitution doesn't apply to us any more, our options are few. Our old Constitution gave us freedom to choose what policies were in place. It was a great system. But today, if we try to sight Constitutional Rights and choice, our voices fall on deaf ears. Go to any courtroom and try to evoke your 'Constitutional Rights' and you'll be threatened by the judge with a contempt of court charge. Why? Because they operate under the new constitution, which only recognizes their own statutes and codes. They don't have to recognize "our Rights." To them, 'our rights' are fiction. They don't apply in this case.

As a consenting member of the U.S. Corporation, we have given up our God given Rights. The corporation gives us privileges. Privileges can be granted, but can also be revoked. An inalienable right cannot be taken away by man because it was issued by God alone. For us to give them up, we need to consent to it. We have to voluntarily give them up. How does one do this? Easy! We were led to believe that the old Constitutional Republic is still intact. We've been duped into trading our Rights and liberty for security and government handouts. But by doing so, we gave up our Rights without realizing that a new constitution had taken the old one's place. The new corporation had forgone disclosure policies because they wanted the public to be unaware of what they were doing. This is just another example of 'Wagging the Dog.'

Let's see an example of how they did this. In 1871, the new version of the constitution had begun to take shape. The original 13th Amendment was pushed to the side in favor of a new 13th Amendment. The old 13th Amendment was ratified on March 12th 1819 and stated that no one with a title of nobility could hold public office in any capacity. This includes attorneys. My, how times have changed! The new 13th Amendment is the one we all know regarding the forbidding of slavery. But, it says nothing regarding title of nobility or natural born citizenship. What the new constitution says about natural born citizenship for the Presidency can and has been waived by the corporation that makes policy. If McDonald's wanted to hire a new CEO, and that new officer happens to have been born on foreign soil, or have a title, or has royal blood flowing through his veins, it's the prerogative of the board of that corporation to hire him. That's why all of this talk about Barak Obama's birth certificate is moot. It's just a distraction to get our eyes off of what he's really doing. And that is? He's wagging the dog! Do any of us need an aspirin yet?

The new 13th Amendment being known as the 'Anti-Slave Amendment' is ironic because, as we'll see later, the 14th Amendment Provides a 'person' (citizen) with the status of enslavement. By the way, have you ever wondered how the 14th and 16th Amendments, which were never ratified, can still be legally enforced upon us lowly citizens? The fact is, under the new rules governing the new constitution, they don't need our approval or ratification as was mandated in the old Constitution. How could they do such a thing? Who gave them this power? The answer will undoubtedly shock you. We did. We did by giving our consent. When we register to vote, we give our consent to be part of the Problem. We become part of the corporation and must adhere to it's rules, regulations, statutes and codes; or else! It doesn't matter that we have the "Right" to vote, because we are voting with a token vote. Basically, we're shooting blanks. Our votes don't count and stopped being counted ever since we adopted the electoral college voting system. Anyone who paid attention to the 2012 Presidential election should realize this. Our votes never counted. As FDR once said, "Presidents are not elected. They're selected." Are all of the political shenanigans we've witnessed through the years beginning to make sense yet? Wow!

The policy makers of the new U.S. Corporation even gave themselves a name: 'We the People.' That's right! In the original Constitution, "We the People" meant every flesh and blood individual made in the image of God who walked this land. But, since the original Constitution was dissolved in 1861, we no longer have this distinction. The legal system we are in today defines the word 'People' as the elite, or the ones who make policy. A 'person' in the Fifth Edition of Blacks Law Dictionary refers to 'slave' or 'subject' bound by the dictates of the corporation. In the 14th Amendment we are referred to as a 'person' and or 'persons.' It goes on to say that these persons are "subject." Subject to what? Subject to those who make up policy. (I could be more specific as to who 'they' are, but I really would like you to view the video to find out). Their trick is to make the masses believe that they are governed by the original Constitution, which worked under a Republic. The Republic would dictate what government can do and how they could operate. Under the original Constitution and it's Republic, the government was subject to the people. The power to punish wrong doers in government was a powerful tool many years ago. Not any more. There is no such thing as "Power to the People" as we once knew it. Now, when it says 'People' it's not talking about the average American citizen. It's referring to policy makers in higher government. Now, the government holds the strings; and we gave it to them willingly! Not knowingly, but willingly.

This new government rolls under a much different political concept. It's known as a Democracy. The premise here is that the majority rules. The Problem is, if our individual vote is a token one, it doesn't count. Only those within the group called, 'We the People' will have their votes counted. Everything else is an illusion to make us believe that we have a voice. All of the political fights, drawing lines in the sand between conservatives and liberals, political candidate camps, birth certificate issues, 2nd Amendment Rights, acts of treason, etc, are all just a distraction for our benefit. If we're too busy fighting over these issues, we will miss the true fight. That is, who will rule over us and why. Under our current system of government, we will be disarmed, make no mistake. Blood will be shed and 'persons' will be placed in FEMA Camps labeled as domestic terrorists under the "authority" of NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). What's more, the U.S. Corporation has handed over our military to the United Nations. Our Police, Department of Homeland Security, Border Control Agents and TSA are all privately owned and operated by the Corporation. The sickening part is, we consent to pay for it. Unless there is a major military coup on the horizon, we're in big trouble. Okay, that's all I will get into concerning our government. If you want to know more, watch the videos (there are three segments in all) while it's still available on YouTube. The question though is, how does this apply to our 'Churches?'

Institutional 'Churches' are run by political slight of hand just as the government is. I'm not just talking about 'Church' politics either. Both government and local 'Church' members are involved, but most just don't realize it. Politically, they're a mirror image of one another. How do we know this? By comparing basic Bible doctrine, Scripture and our own political history with 'Church' history. If we do that, we'll see some interesting similarities. In fact, the early 'Church' Fathers accomplished the same thing that the authors of the new U.S. Corporation had. They made the common people believe that the original church was (in the consciousness of the common man at least) still in place, when in actuality, they had created a knock-off version in it's place. The difference is, Christ's original church has remained through two millennium, and will never dissolve. Praise God for that! But, in Acts 5 we've seen an example of how the religious establishment controlled the people. They made the people believe that they were a part of God's true church. In reality we know that wasn't the case. The men running this scam were power hungry automatons only interested in the bottom line.

Because of the advent of 'Apostolic Succession' in the second century, we were led to believe that the so-called 'Church' Fathers were on a path that Jesus wanted us to be on. They would reference Scripture and twist them to say what they wanted them to say. An example of this is what most Institutional 'Churches' teach regarding funding the building, Programs, pastors and staff. They teach that if one wishes to be a part of their 'Church' (corporation), they must pay the 'Church' ten percent of their income. They even give it a religious sounding name for this policy. It's called tithing. If the member refuses to 'tithe,' they're out the door! This is exactly the same thing as the poor employee discussed earlier who had to pay the nominal fee to support a Program at McDonald's. There is absolutely no difference! The truth is, what the 'Church' Fathers were teaching was polar opposite to what Jesus and the Apostles taught. It sounds like how the new U.S. Corporation treated the old lawful Constitution, doesn't it? The 'Church' Fathers were the ones making policy. We bought into their lies with our own consent by participating. We didn't bother to (or couldn't) scrutinize the Bible for ourselves, so we trusted those who had all of the religious education and apparent credentials. Anyone need a barf bag yet?

The Problem is, just like the de facto government who flashes their shiny badges to feign authoritative stature, the clergy has done the same thing with their degrees, Bible Colleges and Institutions. We've bought into this religious machine hook, line and sinker just as we did with our government. How? We've consented to it. In a sense, we can see how America could be seen as one big 'Church'-State. At one time in most people's minds, the house church was authentic and legitimate. Now the Institutional 'Church' is thought of as authentic and legitimate while the house church has become relegated to "a movement." The old Constitutional Republic with a Lawful Constitution has faded away and was replaced in our minds by a democracy and a constitution that has given Provision to foreign entities. We've all been drawn into discussions regarding 5010(c)3 status, separation of 'Church' and state, dress code issues, charismatic behavior, music and what day of the week we should worship on. Most of these are argued within an Institutional 'Church' setting. These issues are just distractions to take our minds off of the authentic church, just like the de facto government did with their new constitution, policies, codes and political Side Shows. The truth is, none of these apply to Christ's organic assembly.

Satan uses political sleight of hand to give the illusion that our current Institutional 'Church' System is authentic. But, there's nothing authentic about it. Institutional 'Churches' are run just like the corporations of our day. They submit to the rules of a Banking System (FDIC), they draw up their own little constitutions and statements of faith. They have a Board of Directors called a Board of Trustees. Actually, it doesn't even matter who the pastor is because they are replaced just about as often as a U.S. President! Folks, pastors are elected and some are politically selected! Find that Process in the Bible? It's all political sleight of hand. What a mess! Is there a way out? Sure. For the government part, I'll let one watch 'Season of Treason' for that remedy. For all those ensconced in the Institutional 'Church' System, I'll address the remedy here.

If one wants out, all one has to do is recognize that we're in a state controlled, bank leveraged, business entity with a Christian sounding name on a sign. All the Institutional 'Church' has become is another example of political sleight of hand. When we realize that it is just a disguise of the Devil, we can take off our masks and withdraw ourselves from the masquerade. We physically remove ourselves from the Institutional walls and ask Christ to lead us to His model for church. We're out there. We may not advertize ourselves in the Yellow Pages, but we're out there. Christ's model for His assembly has no masks. We aren't tied to a bank, a government issued 502(c)3 status, a Board of Trustees, a Senior Pastor or a building. We are a living, local, physical organism. A family that meets in homes, just as the Bible describes. This brings us to our last point. Satan disguises God's church by giving us the wrong physical appearance.

3. There's No Place Like Home

If we think about it, when we die, Christ will take us to His 'Home' in Heaven. He went there to prepare a place for us in it, didn't He? Today, we think of church as having certain physical characteristics. Steeples, stained glass windows, elaborate architecture, auditoriums, altars, platforms, pulpits, choir lofts, classrooms, offices, bookstores, academies, nurseries, music rooms and more. Actually, the Bible describes none of these characteristics for Christ's church; not even close! These are amenities of man's design. What is their purpose? To distract. Distract from what? Christ's true model for church. More wagging dogs, you say? Yep!

Christ's church met in homes, worshipped in homes, grew in homes, spread from town to town, city to city and country to country in homes. They prayed in homes, worshipped in homes, broke bread in homes, married in homes, delivered their young in homes, raised their children in homes, grew old together in homes, and died in homes. What will we do when we arrive at His Home in Heaven? We'll worship, praise and fellowship in His Home. Why would we want to change His simple way of doing things down here? Because we believe that we can improve upon it. No we can't. Home is where the heart is, and Christ's heart for His children is centered around the home. What's so hard to understand? We still have homes, don't we?

When Christ was on this Earth, He was born in a home.* He held a full meal for His Last Supper in a home. In Heaven we'll have full meals in His Home as well. The Institutional 'Church' disguises it's Lord's Supper by having a token meal disguised as a cracker and an ounce of grape juice in an auditorium. That's not a meal and an auditorium isn't a home! One thing going for the Institute is, during their version of the Lord's Supper, folks there get dinner and a show! The 'show' is the formal dispensary of the token meal. "Oh, the solemness, ohhh, the piety, ohhh, the decorum!" Ohhhh, brother!

If this next illustration doesn't hit home with us, nothing will: Christ began His church in homes, He went to prepare us a place in His Home, He will bring us back to His Home and we'll be there forever having church in His Home. He said, "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, didn't He? So, if His church began in a house, and ends up in a House, and it is clearly His will that church meetings be held in a house today, then why do we insist in changing His plan for church when He said, "on earth as it is in heaven?" His will is to have church in homes, whether here on earth or in heaven. It was that way when He walked this earth. It will be that way when He gathers His elect. Why would He want to change the 'in between' to an Institutional model? It doesn't make sense! Doesn't it stand to reason that Christ meant for His church to meet in homes? I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it; especially if He made it!" Why? Because the things He makes are meant to last. That includes His church model. And ya know what? We have lasted for about 2,000 years! The Institutional model isn't His model for church. It never has been and it never will be.

The physical disguises and distractions Satan Provides disables us from being the church Jesus intended. Is this on purpose for most within the Institute? I do not believe so. Yes, those who have trusted Christ alone as their personal Saviour are His children. But, just as we've consented to our status as a 'person' within the confines of the U.S. Corporation, we have become slaves to the Institutional 'Church' Corporation of Satan's design without realizing it. It is the Religious Structure of the world that is in question, not the sincere people inside of it. May the Lord use this to open the eyes of many, both politically and spiritually. His will be done. We've learned that Satan disguises God's church by altering Scripture, using political sleight of hand and Providing an alternative for it's physical appearance. God bless, and thanks for visiting.

* See my post, 'Was The Inn In Bethlehem A Hotel?' for more on where Jesus was born and why.


  1. Bobby,

    I was disappointed with this article. After conducting some research, (IMO) I come away finding it flawed and full of errors. I have no desire to debate this with you. I just want to go on record as saying I disagree on several points.

    Your friend,


  2. That's okay, Paul. I can take criticism. It wasn't easy writing this article, but be it known that I have done my research. I'm sure it wasn't where one would normally go to find these things out, but nonetheless, the deed is done. Not sure what IMO stands for. Perhaps you can elaborate. I hope you'll like my next article better. It'll be up soon. Thanks for your honest and sincere comments. They're always welcome.

    1. IMO= "In my opinion." Got it!