Example below are the verses from 2 Kings.
23Everything else that Jehoram did is recorded in the History of the Kings of Judah. 24Jehoram died and was buried in the royal tombs in David’s City, and his son Ahaziah succeeded him as king.(2 Kings 8:23-24, TEV).
Given the above set of of allegations as cited in 2 Kings, is it possible to establish the truth on the same despite the absence of physical evidence of the Kingdom of Judah or the history book being referred in the verses? How about the truth of burial of Jehoram in the royal tombs in David’s City or the existence of the royal tombs in David’s City? or the truth on succession of kingship from Jehoram to his Son Ahaziah or the presumptive paternity of King Jehoram over King Ahaziah?
Can you establish in the Courts of law the truth of the above allegations ?
Yes, subject to some qualifications.
Under ordinary circumstances, above words and evidences would have been buried at the time when King Jehoram was buried in the royal tombs in David’s City and have never arisen from the dead to be the source of discussions in this site.The truth would have been buried but it keeps on resurrecting.
Under ordinary circumstances also, why care for the above evidences or words considering the distance of the alleged Kingdom of Judah to the Philippines, where this blog is being written, and the fact that no material interests could be gained whatsoever on the burial of King Jehoram in the royal tombs in David’s City so many centuries ago?
But what happened is that these factual allegations are part of the evidences or whole story of Christianity used to colonize the Philippines, subjugating the country under Spanish regime through the Holy Cross of the Roman Catholic Church in 1521. That Holy Cross used the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because it is using the name of God, and not their adversary or any Roman deity, Filipinos submitted themselves to the Faith. Despite the freedom from colonization from Spanish regime in 1898, Philippines continued to be influenced by the Roman catholic faith until the present.
If Roman Catholic Church or anybody preaches or acts as representative of God and his Son contrary to any factual or instructional allegation in the “Word”, can you use it as evidence under the rules to establish the truth to make him liable and answerable under our laws?.
Yes, through the Doctrine of Estoppel.
Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia,defines Estoppel as:
“a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied.
This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or variation), which meant “stopper plug”, referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb “estop” which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning “stop up, impede.”
What if the one involved is atheist, communist, etc? It depends on their act because they can also preach and use the name of God to their selfish advantage. How about Judaic? The legal defense is accepting or continue denying Christ at his own risk. The “Word” therefore can be utilized in the Courts of law as an evidence against any preacher of the same.
- The “Word” Translation: An Issue?
- Grammatical error in ‘Jesus is God’ doctrine
- Are you not scared if Jesus Christ is God?
- Christ logically says: ‘I am not God’
- ‘The Word’ and the Holy Spirit are faculties of God