Originally Posted by
Chex
Thanks for this verse MJ.
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
Check this one out...from the vault...
U.S. Supreme Court
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
Briscoe v. LaHue
No. 81-1404
Argued November 9, 1982
Decided March 7, 1983
460 U.S. 325
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Held: Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. V) does not authorize a convicted state defendant to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial. Pp. 460 U. S. 329-346.
(a) The common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. Section 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against private witnesses. Similarly, judges, Pierson v. Ray,386 U. S. 547, and prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman,424 U. S. 409, may not be held liable for damages under § 1983 for the performance of their respective duties in judicial proceedings. When a police officer appears as a witness, he may reasonably be viewed as acting like any witness sworn to tell the truth, in which event he can make a strong claim to witness immunity. Alternatively, he may be regarded as an official performing a critical role in the judicial process, in which event he may seek the benefit afforded to other governmental participants in the same proceeding. Nothing in § 1983's language suggests that a police officer witness belongs in a narrow, special category lacking protection against damages suits. Pp. 460 U. S. 329-336.
==================
Cops don't lie - never seen one lie yet. And yet EVEN STILL folks place their trust in this house of death. What a farce. Slaves have no say so in their masters affairs. The creation is not greater than the Creator. It really is just that simple. Subjects need licenses or permission to marry. Which is to say to Contract.
Still want shade under that tree?
Christ is the ONLY way out. Thus curse which we live under has been placed in totality upon Christ. This is foretold and signaled by Moses raising up the brazen serpent in the wilderness -
Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
"The Way" is the straight and narrow path. It has nothing to do with religion. Nevertheless men continue to feed a system that hates them. Furthermore, the government being in and of itself a political system [a legal personality - a fiction] can only understand fictions. Yet men as brute beasts continue to lay down and die before the Alter of Baal in worship of that which they cannot obtain. So they seek to understand the Statutes, Laws and Commandments to appease their rulers - maybe that will be the way out - NOPE. Just more oppression.
One seeking to put me in a box the other day called me a Jew. I literally spit out my drink I was laughing so hard. How weak is the mind of man - confining, defining....denying the Christ. In Christ am I michael joseph.
=====================
quoting the writings of E. Swedenborg as follows:
And the serpent was more subtle than any wild animal of the field which Yehovah God had made; and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
By the "serpent" is here meant the sensuous part of man in which he trusts; by the "wild animal of the field," here, as before, every affection of the external man; by the "woman," man‘s self-centered love and his love for the world [Own]; by the serpent’s saying, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree?" that they began to doubt. The subject here treated of is the third posterity of the Most Ancient Church, which began not to believe in things revealed unless they saw and felt that they were so. Their first state, that it was one of doubt.
The most ancient people did not compare all things in man to beasts and birds, but so denominated them; and this their customary manner of speaking remained even in the Ancient Church after the flood, and was preserved among the prophets. The sensuous things in man they called "serpents," because as serpents live close to the earth, so sensuous things are those next the body. Hence also reasonings concerning the mysteries of faith, founded on the evidence of the senses, were called by them the "poison of a serpent," and the reasoners themselves "serpents;" and because such persons reason much from sensuous, that is, from visible things (such as are things terrestrial, corporeal, mundane, and natural), it is said that "the serpent was more subtle than any wild animal of the field."
[2] And so in David, speaking of those who seduce man by reasonings:--
They sharpen their tongue like a serpent; the poison of the asp is under their lips (Ps. 140:3).
And again:--
They go astray from the womb, speaking a lie. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent, like the deaf poisonous asp that stoppeth her ear, that she may not hear the voice of the mutterers, of a wise one that charmeth charms (sociantis sodalitia ) (Ps. 58:3-6).
Reasonings that are of such a character that the men will not even hear what a wise one says, or the voice of the wise, are here called the "poison of a serpent." Hence it became a proverb among the ancients, that "The serpent stoppeth the ear."
In Amos:--
As if a man came into a house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of Jehovah be darkness and not light? even thick darkness, and no brightness in it? (Amos 5:19, 20).
The "hand on the wall" means self-derived power, and trust in sensuous things, whence comes the blindness which is here described.
[3] In Jeremiah:--
The voice of Egypt shall go like a serpent, for they shall go in strength, and shall come to her with axes as hewers of wood. They shall cut down her forest, saith Jehovah, because it will not be searched, for they are multiplied more than the locust, and are innumerable. The daughter of Egypt is put to shame, she shall be delivered into the hand of the people of the north (Jeremiah 46:22-24).
"Egypt" denotes reasoning about Divine things from sensuous things and memory-knowledges (scientifica). Such reasonings are called the "voice of a serpent;" and the blindness thereby occasioned, the "people of the north." In Job:--
He shall suck the poison of asps; the viper‘s tongue shall slay him. He shall not see the brooks, the flowing rivers of honey and butter (Job 20:16, 17).
"Rivers of honey and butter" are things spiritual and celestial, which cannot be seen by mere reasoners; reasonings are called the "poison of the asp" and the "viper’s tongue." See more respecting the serpent below, at (verses 14 and 15).
In ancient times those were called "serpents" who had more confidence in sensuous things than in revealed ones. But it is still worse at the present day, for now there are persons who not only disbelieve everything they cannot see and feel, but who also confirm themselves in such incredulity by knowledges (scientifica) unknown to the ancients, and thus occasion in themselves a far greater degree of blindness. In order that it may be known how those blind themselves, so as afterwards to see and hear nothing, who form their conclusions concerning heavenly matters from the things of sense, of memory-knowledge, and of philosophy, and who are not only "deaf serpents," but also the "flying serpents" frequently spoken of in the Word, which are much more pernicious, we will take as an example what they believe about the spirit.
[2] The sensuous man, or he who only believes on the evidence of his senses, denies the existence of the spirit because he cannot see it, saying, "It is nothing because I do not feel it: that which I see and touch I know exists." The man of memory-knowledge (scientificus), or he who forms his conclusions from memory-knowledges (scientiae), says, What is the spirit, except perhaps vapor or heat, or some other entity of his science, that presently vanishes into thin air? have not the animals also a body, senses, and something analogous to reason? and yet it is asserted that these will die, while the "spirit of man" will live. Thus they deny the existence of the spirit.
[3] Philosophers also, who would be more acute than the rest of mankind, speak of the spirit in terms which they themselves do not understand, for they dispute about them, contending that not a single expression is applicable to the spirit which derives anything from what is material, organic, or extended; thus they so abstract it from their ideas that it vanishes from them, and becomes nothing. The more sane however assert that the spirit is thought; but in their reasonings about thought, in consequence of separating from it all substantiality, they at last conclude that it must vanish away when the body expires. Thus all who reason from the things of sense, of memory-knowledge, and of philosophy, deny the existence of the spirit, and therefore believe nothing of what is said about the spirit and spiritual things. Not so the simple in heart: if these are questioned about the existence of spirit, they say they know it exists, because the Lord has said that they will live after death; thus instead of extinguishing their rational, they vivify it by the Word of the Lord.
Reply With Quote