Against the separation of Church and State

I have heard many sermons about the tribulation; heard many differing opinions regarding the number ‘666'; have understood multiple scenarios concerning the suffering of the righteous meek at the hands of those in power who espouse their own, unobstructed, version of the separation of church and state. I must admit that the contemporary church deserves every bit of it, though I would not see it, if they, to the least individual, are too ignorant about, or too unwilling to fight the evil that is apparent all around them. This Bible study began as the notion to study more closely the "number of a man," but then expanded to include ‘separation of church and state’ - which led me unerringly to the laws of man. This study must, then, necessarily include sources not from the scriptures.

It is commonly held that our secular laws have their beginnings in spirit filled Christians who fled Europe’s political tyranny over the Christian way of life. By extension, it is plainly seen that the laws embodied in our Constitution have for their origin the beliefs and hopes of righteous people. So firstly, I point to what the encyclopedia notes about our Constitution:

Constitution of the United States:

A constitution, ratified in 1787, founded upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and based upon the concepts of limited and responsible government . . .

I hope that you see as plainly as I do that a ‘limited and responsible government’, created from principles already in existence - principles that come down from spiritual people that fled governmental tyranny over them, would be created to enhance and protect, rather than inhibit or detract from the spiritual lives of those who desired the change. So, let us look closely at the more telling points of the Declaration; let us see what these people fought against, and what these people hoped for.

Notice the spirituality of the Declaration: Our very first legal document not only lifted God above man, but set as the true authority of any nation or government - not the government, but the "good people."

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,

to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Did any of this find its way into our present law (by which I mean the Constitution), or were these isolated and fading sentiments? Remembering that our constitution was founded on the spiritual principles of the Declaration of Independence, let us look keenly into our present law.
Constitutional Amendments:

Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Please read and note that congress does not have the constitutional authorization to pass any law to separate the exercise of spiritual freedom from any aspect of daily life - which includes not only the schooling of children, but also offices of government; which should be filled only with God fearing men and women that represent and serve the "good people." Note also that any power not delegated by the Constitution, ultimately reverts back to the true national authority: its people. Read these amendments (our law) very carefully - look at the order and wording. Especially read the 9th amendment - anything that is not specifically covered in the rest of the law, is protected by the 9th amendment. The rights of the people (even the unspoken rights of the people) shall never be denied or disparaged. Would not this also include the protection and everlasting affirmation of the unspecified privileges and immunities mentioned above?
So then, let us now return to the Declaration and discover the tyrannies that our forefathers fought against. As we understand that they spoke specifically against their King in England, let us also see that King as a precursory image of our general governmental representative of the "good people." Let us weigh our elected representatives in this light. Do they truly represent us?

let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

invasions on the rights of the people.

erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people,

affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

pretended offences

establishing an Arbitrary government,

abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

destroyed the lives of our people.

works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy

constrained our fellow Citizens to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren,

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a Free people.

unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.

Remember where we have come from, and think closely on those we have elected to represent us. How hard have we fought to put godly men and women in office? If we want prayer in school, but don’t have it, have our representatives truly represented us? I think not! And so it is at this day; the unfit are allowed to have their way unopposed; those who do not represent the "good people" hold sway over policy. The unfit march forward relentlessly, but, the "good people," with every fearful inaction, tighten their future noose just a little tighter on their collective neck.

all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

That statement is shocking, even frightening. Is there no hope? I must cling all the more, then, to the hope that an informed people will do what is right. How can we look straight at a thing and not see it? There are none so blind as the ignorant, and yet, the blind will take the hand of the one who sees. We, then, though blind, can see by the sight of others. We, then, can understand - and act. What did our forefathers see?

1). Governments are instituted among Men,
2). deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
3). whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
4). laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
5). it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I have belabored the political end of this Bible study in order to more clearly visualize the future plight of a people that had ample opportunity, and forewarning enough to act in their own best interest. Who are the people of the saints that will fight the righteous fight against evil?

KJV Daniel 7:25-27
25. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

Freedom wears no armor. How can it be a shield? In the United States of America, freedom is offered equally to all. The evil have used it for their evil ends; they have marched forward, like a swarm of termites, devouring from the foundation up. They have twisted the intent of our founding fathers to limit government. The evil infiltrators within our government would limit the people.

Now, many have considered that the mark of the beast has something to do with computers. While it has a bearing on daily commerce, I contest that the real mark is a spiritual mark - one that spiritual beings can see. The ‘hand’ represents our works; the ‘head’ or ‘forehead’ represents the stand we take - whether of God or of the world. Christ said, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savorest not the things that be of God . . ." What is a beast but a soulless, totally disconnected man, whose inner man lifts up only those lesser things of man, and of worldliness. To whom, then, belongs the greater woe - the beast, or the Christian that did not take his Christianity far enough?

According to the book of Revelation, The ‘mark’ is described several ways.

KJV Revelation 13:17
17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Many think of computer chips when they think of the mark, but what if the mark turns out to be a sort of dynastic ‘brand’: that is, an affiliation to a ‘ruling family’? Forget parties - the family is in. Why would I suggest a ‘family’ or a ‘family name’? Let us not forget to remember that John came from a people with much different definitions than our own. What is ‘the number of a man’ in terms of old world definitions? How did they number a man? For one, they numbered a man by his genealogical pedigree: or the line of his ancestry. Such thinking was still evident in the New Testament, when Matthew numbered Jesus at fourteen generations. For another, men were numbered by their sons and grandsons - and the whole long list of men that made up that clan within the tribe. For a closing point, I will point to one man that was so numbered in the Old Testament. Might his name be somehow relevant?

KJV Ezra 2:13
13. The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty six.