Anchor 2016 Class 11

Revelations Land Beast P3

Speaks Like a dragon

Speaks like a Dragon

The following transcript comprises  the first few minutes of this Anchor 2016 Class 11 presentation by Pastor Stephen Bohr. I welcome you to this page and pray that you might find the videos in this series as enlightening and informative as I have found them.

Please take the time to watch this series and also to secure a copy of the study notes as they will help complete the course structure.

The study notes can be obtained at Secrets unsealed by clicking the following link. ‘Secrets Unsealed’

Pastor Stephen Bohr

I think we have provided sufficient evidence that the founding fathers believed in the idea, that within one nation, there were two kingdoms; the Church, and the State.

Speaks Like a dragon

And that they are supposed to function separately, one from another, each within its own sphere, each with its own sword, but we noticed in our last session that the founding fathers did not only always abide by the principles that they taught.

In other words they expressed their opinions but their actions did not always reflect what they taught, and we were dealing specifically with James Madison, and the comment that David Barton had made that the founding fathers were inconsistent sometimes in their application of these two principles upon which the United States was built.

And we read a statement from Timothy Hall where he expressed this contradictory character of the founding fathers, sometimes in what they taught versus what they practiced, and we were dealing with a bill that was introduced

Speaks Like a dragon

Speaks Like a dragon

by James Madison titled ‘A bill for punishing disturbers of religious worship and Sabbath breakers’ Interestingly enough on that same day Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill, and I’m going to read the bill now, it’s in your syllabus in the middle of the page.

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened in his body or Goods, nor shall otherwise suffer an account of his religious opinions or beliefs; but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” ‘A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.’ Written and Introduced by Thomas Jefferson


Now that’s what Jefferson introduced this very same day that this bill was introduced to punish people who broke the Sabbath Sunday as it was understood back then.

Speaks Like a dragon

speaks like a dragonIs this obviously a contradiction? A contradiction on the same day because Madison’s bill stated


“If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade of calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labor, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence.” Introduced by James Madison: ‘A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of the Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers’ Written by Thomas Jefferson.

Speaks Like a dragon

In other words he’s going to be fined because he’s doing work on what they believe to be the Sabbath, which is really Sunday. Now it’s important to realize that both of these bills were introduced in 1786 which is actually five years before the Bill of Rights is approved, and so we need to understand that this is the early Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.


Incidentally; do you know that this bill that was introduced by James Madison was actually written by Thomas Jefferson? That’s what makes it all the more interesting.


The basic point is that the founding fathers were not always consistent with the principles that they taught, in actual practice, for example, they taught that all men are created equal, and have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Except for the African American: How did they treat the African American? As slaves! Were they were brought in from Africa and guaranteed liberty and the pursuit of happiness in life? Of course not; so was that unconstitutional? Of course it was unconstitutional.


The point is that just because they did not abide by their principles does not mean that this nation was not founded upon those principles: The fact is that we have plenty of evidence that this nation was established upon this idea of separation of church and state.