| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| True North |
Posted - 05 Apr 2004 : 09:53:25
Circular reasoning leads to rabbit trails and when used to try spirituals, ends in a seeming proven presumption.
There are no contradictions, only wrong premises, was the way Ayn Rand described presumption. Most of today's court cases start with a presumption. The original presumption is the reason why only the fact of the law or statute is tried. Presumption is why a jury is allowed to only judge the facts in light of the statute or law transgressed. The presumption of law is taken as fact unless rebutted. A presumption assumes a preceding thought or hypothesis then proceeds on the presumption. The presumption for scientific theory is called the hypothesis but this hypothesis only holds until proved wrong by evidences of scientific experimentation. A scientific theory often holds as fact for years after being proved wrong because of the time necessary to rebut the presumption.
On this forum specifically, several presumptions have been used to try, then prove theory. Scripture cannot be interpreted by starting with a presumption, scripture must be interpreted in spirit.
The presumption of ... if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new ... is spiritually discerned and is not privately interpreted nor indeed can it be. A presumption to compare spirituals to spirituals, starting with an historical precedent may not prove anything, but it will allow for a quickening of the spirit.
The comparison of Daniel serving Jah while keeping mitzvot as a slave in Babylon cannot be used as evidence to prove much. The presumption necessary to use this comparison is slavery. There is no indentured servitude in amerika, the slavery is voluntary.
Using Paul's Roman citizenship to prove there is no Kingdom with a King named Yeshua falls way short as well. The presumption is that Saul's citizenship to Rome and Paul's slavery to the Kingdom were extant. Paul chose the martyrdom in full knowledge of what calling upon that dead man Saul would cost him.
Building arguments to prove a presumption is condemned as judgment of another in the bible. Judgment of persons is a prerogative of a King, otherwise judgment risks the same measure upon oneself.
TN |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BatKol |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 19:24:05
My pleasure David. I must say that it has been a first for me hearing your view of things. I am knee-deep in concepts put forth
on this and other groups concerning the pure evils of ALL CAPS and SS#. When you peel away the religious pararnoia and the clouded reasoning that comes from this mental state, one finds no boogeymen. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be putting forth ideas that actually take advantage of the Admiralty situation. That is why you are getting flack. But hey, that's mostly what I get so I feel you.
I'll be looking forward to learning more about what you know.
Peace to you,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 16:20:13
Thanks Steve. I suppose that I take it personally in that I am not getting the point across clearly. The reason that I do what I do, drafting remedy is that I can explain it so well. As time goes on that explanation gets clearer and clearer. So sometimes it just seems that I have lost the ability to communicate when I come up against religious faith.
So far as sticking around, that is likely. I tend to jockey my mouse where it seems useful and entertaining. When somebody decides to argue with unsubstantial stuff, I get a little put out.
Loy Robert's treatise was timely encouragement. I will probably be over on the 'saving to suitors' forum for a bit. I pasted one of the original memos from a decade ago and it should bring in some interesting conversation.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 13:31:32
Greetings David,
Don't let 'em get to you. They can only nip at your heals, nothing more. Coming under attack in these forums, to me, has been a great exercise in non-identification. The attacks get 'translated' as just squiggly lines on my monitor, nothing more. Addressing their religious superstitions is easy once you read the context of the scriptures they quote. But you know this already. I've read your posts. As for the false accusations you will have hurled at you, upon close inspection it is consistently obvious the accuser is doing the very things they accuse others of. Textbook psych101 stuff. It's great fun when they gang up.
Do stick around.
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 13:17:57
I came back by to say that I do not intend to insult Paul in people's minds. That the historical account speaks for itself, that going into Jerusalem was disobedient.
It is a delight to find such a coherent treatise by Loy Robert. I wish you would export it to the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 forum. I was getting attacked there about SSN contracts and had just about given up getting that thread back to useful to readers.
About the UCC Redemptionists, when they come to me for remedy I tell them that you cannot possibly "accept" a contract for its terms and at the same time "refuse" it. Above you approach this issue:
"It is true that the courts assume a lot concerning jurisdiction, but often our own presumptions have us hung before Caesar’s court can fashion its noose. The courts automatically assume that we are bound, by legal contracts, to their colorable jurisdiction. Most people have no idea that any such contract, or the presumption thereof, even exists. However, there are a few of us who at least know that the “presumption” of a contract(s) exists as a pretense of a court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Understanding the construction of these “implied” contracts is the key to navigating around the assumption of jurisdiction; unfortunately, I have found that the opinions on how to revoke, rebut, and/or void these implied contracts are as numerous as the sands of the sea."
In international law, the mailbox has replaced the district courts of the United States as a forum to file. Think about it, if every issue about debt currency of international banking cartels had to go through the district courthouse, the courthouse would be about the exact same size as the Postal Service.
Refusal for cause is the answer. You have a good grasp on the cause, that the courts of the United States are not party in interest. And also all the assumpsit on debt actions. One has to bring forth the diversity of citizenship by simply avoiding the suits at the mailbox.
Anyway, such coherence is rare. I wish you would export a copy to the other forum. I think you will make sense of the counterclaim (now I call it "Libel of Review (common law counterclaim in admiralty)") at the top of page 4, as I recall.
Your reference to the "evil root" being the Khazarian Elite through its military arm Templars etc. is a bit too western for my agreement. The prophecy of Jacob/Israel had to be fulfilled somehow (Genesis 49:10) and the attitude that the actions are done by others is in my opinion irresponsible. Externalizing "them" hobbles the inherent sovereignty needed to effectively refuse for cause and nip the nuisance suits in the bud at the mailbox. That is experience with over 100 suitors speaking. The attitude comes from a personification of evil (demons, Satan etc.) and this originates in a fantastic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-8 where angels supposedly propogate with human women.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| loybost |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 10:40:31
Greetings All,
Hello Brother Robert; here I am. I apologize that I haven’t been posting many responses as of late; between school and work I’m tying up about 90 hrs. a week of my time. Home work (from school) and maintaining a home seems to soak up the rest of my time. I do read the various forum threads as much as possible, but it is a rare occasion that I have the time available to respond intelligently. This post is somewhat inconsistent with the present direction of this thread; however, I think that you will find it on topic as far as circular reasoning and presumption is concerned.
It is true that the courts assume a lot concerning jurisdiction, but often our own presumptions have us hung before Caesar’s court can fashion its noose. The courts automatically assume that we are bound, by legal contracts, to their colorable jurisdiction. Most people have no idea that any such contract, or the presumption thereof, even exists. However, there are a few of us who at least know that the “presumption” of a contract(s) exists as a pretense of a court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Understanding the construction of these “implied” contracts is the key to navigating around the assumption of jurisdiction; unfortunately, I have found that the opinions on how to revoke, rebut, and/or void these implied contracts are as numerous as the sands of the sea.
Most of the “BUY YOUR FREEDOM HERE” merchants prefer using the Uniform Commercial Code to rebut the implied contracts under International law. Many of these tactics are moderately successful, but all seem to fall short of the promised “REDEMPTION” that many of them offer. Their “GET OUT OF HELL FREE” information packets are generally quite expensive as well. Been there, done that….in spades. I believe that the reason these tactics eventually fail, from the standpoint of legal mechanics, is that most of the people who realize the existence of these implied contracts presume that there is more validity to the essence of the contracts presumed than the supposed contracts deserve. The only way to rebut a contract is to destroy it from its inception. In order to dissolve a contract, other than by mutual consent, one must find a flaw in its essence. It is also important to understand that implied contracts are stacked one upon another. The assumption of one contract, by you or I, supports the presumed foundation for subsequent contracts by the courts. If one does not rebut the original contract, the foundation of the legalistic pyramid, then his chance for success over their courts is greatly diminished. If one can kill the root, the plant will die.
This evil root that these implied contracts sprouted from isn’t too difficult to trace. The seed to this evil root was awakened in this Country with Lincoln’s Civil (law) War. Contrary to popular belief, this war had nothing to do with abolishing slavery; all but one or two states had abolished slavery and amended their state Constitutions prior to the war; the others were likely being amended when war broke out. I believe that there were two major reasons that caused the Civil (law) war. First, the original Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution had been lawfully ratified. This amendment forbid anyone who retained a title of nobility from holding public office or even being a citizen of the United States. This amendment would have forced the esquire attorneys to renounce their ties to the (Templar) Bar Association or lose their citizenship; it drew the line in the sand for the legalists who had invaded our government, and let’s not forget that Lincoln was a lawyer; his job was on the line. Miraculously, the original Thirteenth Amendment disappeared immediately after the war, and the hull of the evil seed was cracked. Secondly, the legalists in this Civil (law) War needed to “create” a second class citizenry for them to rule over. The united, free state republics made this impossible, for upon them were the sovereign people. The present Fourteenth Amendment accomplished the goal of creating a second class citizenry, though its scope was quite limited at its inception. This second class citizenry was extended only to the newly freed slaves, descendants of slaves, and first generation immigrants. Remember the four to one vote that the black men had after the war? The seed had begun to sprout. http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/The_Crown_Temple.htm
The white male populous was still considered to have unalienable Rights granted by YHWH (God) and protected by the Constitution, while newly freed slaves, their offspring, and first generation immigrants were considered to have civil rights granted as privileges that resembled the unalienable Rights of the white men. The white men still had recourse and remedy to the common law, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment citizenry only had recourse and remedy through the civil law as the voluntary property of the federal government. (see Supreme Court case Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 1872) http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/VanValkenburgVBrown-43Cal43 1872 .htm
This sprout rooted deeply into our free republic in 1933 when the federal government went bankrupt. Through the new deal congress that F.D. Roosevelt instigated, the labor, the gold, and the property of the American People was hypothecated to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank as collateral for the national debt. We the People were “given the option” of being a second class citizen equal to that of the ex-slaves, our gold backed currency was no more, and the law was changed to accommodate the fiat currency. This was the beginning of the legalistic thicket that has snared the American People. By late 1937 the dejure Common law courts were, essentially, no more; they were replaced by defacto civil corporate courts. These are equity courts enforced through admiralty; they abrogate the Common Law through adhesion (implied) contract(s). Understanding why this legal change had to take place is the key to effectively nullifying the alleged contracts that keep us under the green thumb of civil law.
The Common Law is based on value. For example, If I do a certain amount of work for you, and you pay for my labor with gold then the gold represents the intrinsic value of my labor in that instance. If I use that gold to but buy a house then the house would represent the value of my labor. If you intentionally burned down my house then you would be liable under the Common Law to compensate me for the full intrinsic value of my house. With the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation today this scenario changes drastically. If I do a certain amount of work for you, and you write on a piece of paper “500,000 DOLLARS” and hand me this slip of paper instead of payment for my labor then that slip of paper is still worthless, and it does not represent the intrinsic value of my labor. If I take that slip of paper and coerce someone into letting me trade it for a house then that house does not represent the value of my labor. Now, if you burned down my house I would have no recourse to lawful compensation [gold or silver] from you under the Common Law. I had invested nothing of intrinsic value in the house. Therefore, I could not lawfully reap a gain from having lost the house. The law was changed from Common Law to civil law so that persons would have legal recourse in the courts to regain the worthless slips of paper that they had lost through the neglectful acts of others. This gives the Federal Reserve Notes the “appearance” of worth. The Fed Notes are not backed by gold or silver; these notes do not promise to be redeemable for gold, silver or any other thing. These are worthless pieces of commercial paper; these are bad checks written on a closed account. The primary function of the civil law system is to promote the assumption of worth to these fiat notes; this is essential, since these notes are the basis for all commercial contract civil law. Under the civil law, all law is contract; when there is no contract then there isn’t any jurisdictional authority for a civil court to hear or judge a matter.
The critical thing is to understand what the difference between a valid contract and an invalid contract is. The number one aspect that a valid contract must contain is mutual interest. All parties in a contract must have a vested interest of some type of lawful consideration. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. To attempt to gain a profit through a contract in which one has no vested interest in is called fraud. It doesn’t matter who agreed to what, if there is not a mutual base of lawful consideration by all parties then no contract legally exists. However, if one does not complain about the structure of a contract then the courts will assume that most presumed contracts are valid.
Most of the Uniform Commercial Code proponents concentrate on gaining legal possession of the all capitalized NAME or legal persona found on ones birth certificate. The theory being that the birth certificate is the beginning of the root of the contractual thicket when it is surrendered by the STATE as collateral for the national debt. To accomplish this end, Federal Reserve Notes are used to discharge (not pay) the fees for filing the UCC-1 Financing Statement, and to discharge the fees for a Common Law Copyright on the all capitalized commercial name listed on the birth certificate and all ID. Once these notes have been voluntarily offered to discharge a debt concerning a Common Law matter, Common Law has been legally nullified. If one uses colorable currency in legal matters then colorable law instantly becomes the jurisdiction. Further, if one legally recognizes a colorable persona as anything other than a fictitious entity then one accepts the assumption that the legal system has the power of creation within its grasp. This further supports the court’s legal assumption that the commercial law courts have jurisdiction over such a person. I fail to see how one can purchase a fictitious entity with a worthless currency and gain a foothold on a Common law jurisdiction through such an act. I believe the occasional success story in this process is due to the ignorance of a few judges, not from an intelligent defense.
Many people believe that the Common law is dead in this country; this is a false assumption. Common law is only dormant, not dead. According to the (Talmudic) Uniform Commercial Code, Common law remains in full effect unless it is displaced by the code. The only way to displace the Common law with the UCC is through a valid contract. Proving that no valid contract exists is the first logical step toward a Common law jurisdiction. There are many who claim that a lack of disclosure on the part of a government agency is the best way to nullify the appearance of a contractual agreement with such an agency. The problem with this theory is that the government never offers contracts to the people. Notice that all contracts with the government are written in the first person. These contracts, though written by the government, are offered by us to the government. They require us to swear under oath to some stipulation of a compelled performance. The argument that full disclosure was not given by the acceptor (government) of the contract is a legal absurdity. We are presumed to have had the opportunity to amend any contract that we have offered to anyone else prior to having offered such contract. Thus, the lack of disclosure argument is generally ineffective. The government protects themselves through the construction of the presumed contracts, and they secure a superior protection by the courts by being the acceptor of the contracts.
I surmise that pointing out that the government has no vested interest in any contract with any person is the very best way to nullify the presumption of a contract and to secure a Common Law venue for the settlement of lawful matters. In 1968, a landmark court case illustrates the validity of this theory. The case was the First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly. Justice Martin V. Mahoney determined that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, and these notes cannot be used as lawful consideration in any contract: http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/the-mahoney-case.html. Since all of the alleged contracts that the people have supposedly made with the government are based on the acceptance of alleged benefits that are funded with Fed Notes, all of these alleged contracts are nullified due to a lack of lawful consideration on the part of the government.
The court system uses circular reasoning and presumption of contracts to convict people. In truth, the circle is incomplete; the supposed contracts do not exist in fact or in Law. If enough people can challenge these presumed contracts by hacking at the legal roots of it then the legal thicket will soon wither and die, and America can return to a Lawful system of justice. Of course, developing a strategy that will avoid the legal snares of the present legal system is extremely difficult, and it will likely take a very organized effort to implement effectively. I have been making efforts in this direction; however, I would welcome any constructive reasoning as to a proper and effective way of challenging these alleged contracts.
Loy Robert: Bost, III |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 09:15:21
You make a lot of sense. I appreciate that.
Another factor is that since the "body" was moved to such a prestigious tomb, when the Roman guard discovered life, they were confused into respecting the "king". Or that Joseph bribed them. Graves (The Nazarene Gospel Restored) speculates that the guard got greedy, smelling the expensive ointments and were reluctant to report the living Yehoshuah because they had violated the expensive tomb hoping to fence some of the perfume. Baigent (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) speculates that the references "at a distance" indicate Joseph's influence, keeping the spectators far enough away that bringing Yehoshuah down early, after losing consciousness, would account for the survival of the Cross.
Anyway, Yehoshuah speaking to Shaul on the road to Damascus about seven years later seals it for me. Dead men do not converse.
Always gauging the religious content of the sight, I have come under a new attack over in the other forum. So I appreciate coherent dialogue but may be jockeying my mouse elsewhere for a while.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 13:05:32
Greetings David,
What I see that you have brought to the table is more detail concerning Paul's making full and effective use his legal status, be it purchased on the road with donations collected for the Ebionites or acquired from birth via his Citizen parents. Yahushua did not get the special treatment Paul got when dealing with Rome (even when Pilate declared Yahushua innocent and recognized the Jew's charges as false). Either way YHWH's will was done and, in my opinion, it's never a sin to use your brain. Such is my view of Paul's exercising his privileged status within the Roman LEGAL system. That Paul used this status to his advantage is certainly not circular reasoning or assumption.
As for Yahushua surviving the stake, I find it key that his wealthy, politically connected Uncle Yoseph was able to have him taken to his own tomb. That's a topic worthy of it's own thread.
Peace,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 03 May 2004 : 16:38:12
Yes, you see it Steve.
Now consider the injury, not just the Christian Pogroms but the effect. The Jews, in the almost involuntary revulsion that Yehoshuah could be Messiah ben Yoseph have a skewed paradigm about the proper timeline. The same misperception on the charasmatic Christian side (Futurism) is equally skewed. The "laugh" is that the doctrines are the same. Dual Messiah and the return thereof.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Anyone calling up that bill of exchange. Keep in mind that I am direct descendant from the original Patroon of Manhattan Island [Teunis Jansen Laenen - true name. I leave the family name off because there are so many listed in the phone book.]. Teunis brought seventy settlers over on the good ship Redtree (Rosenbaum - see the reference to Edom?). Our stone manor stood until the 1950s and was surrounded by a large stone wall - namesake of Wall Street. The original on the Affidavit of Mailing you will see was to Chairman Richard Grasso; 11 Wall Street, the NYSE. Certified copies went out to Kofi Annan etc.
P.P.S. It almost seems the observations I make have stultified "Circular Reasoning and Presumption"??
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 03 May 2004 : 13:34:07
Greetings David,
Thanks for your insights!
David:
A good treatise on this is The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai. Recently I quoted his chapter Messiah ben Joseph. Christianity, in its mainstream agrees almost absolutely with mainstream Judaism! Isn't that a laugh?
Steve: This is the second time I have been referred to "The Messiah Texts" so it looks like I am going to get it. Yes, this is a laugh. I just recently came to the same conclusion concerning the agreement between Judaism and Christianity. One of Yoseph's blessings was to be the Melo HaGoyim and I have been trying to factor Moshiach ben Yoseph with this in mind. Much of Paul's 'gospel of the uncircumcision' brings up the point that Torah does not apply to the uncircumsized
simply because they are not obligated to Torah. This is so very Jewish and even the Noachide-lite laws given in Acts by Yacob for Paul to pass on to the new Christians reflects this Jewish mindset. The more I talked to Hassidic Jews, the more I realized that perhaps there is no conflict between Judaism and Christianity once the pagan additives are removed. I am in agreement with you concerning the pre-existing pagan concepts concerning the resurrection, virgin birth, etc. To me, when I read certain pagan features in the NT I look back to the original understanding that these were models or Midrash not necessarily literal happenings. Perhaps the literalism came about to attract a more pagan audience?
Concerning Paul, you bring up a very good point that Hyam Macobby notes as well. Why did not Paul exercise his Roman Citizenship privileges earlier to escape beatings? He was left for dead outside the city gates after a stoning before his run-in with the 40 Jews who took an oath not to eat before his death. It seems odd that Paul would not have flashed this status before the stoning.
Peace,
Steve |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 03 May 2004 : 09:58:00
Batkol;
I have recently been making the same point (group emails to suitors) above. That as much as the dual Messiah concept is given through divine grace, John was essentially reciting the common Jewish belief in Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. A good treatise on this is The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai. Recently I quoted his chapter Messiah ben Joseph. Christianity, in its mainstream agrees almost absolutely with mainstream Judaism! Isn't that a laugh?
Robert James;
You bombard with wonderful points. The civil law is not Roman law to me, a court of competent jurisdiction. I wrote Exodus 20 - 24:7 in paleo Hebrew (Sumarian Ostraca 1000-800 BC) then translated it word by word back into English. Using different colored pens and highlighters it turned out rather pretty so I wish I could just attach a .JPG image to show you. But when I hear an issue in the context of the Roman law around me, I know immediately if it is the law I know or not. 'Saving to suitors' clause cases are civil suits in admiralty. That is the only way to get above the high tide mark - to the law of the land. That is just the way it has been structured.
Recently, a Denver district court clerk said he would not file the "Counterclaim" so I instructed to strikethrough the word and write "Libel of Review" above. The clerk also said they would not handle admiralty cases - too far inland. But by clearly marking the case in admiralty, it got filed without any more squalking.
You list so many questions in your response. I tried to get the gist but only one seems to stand in common thread, "Ever wonder why symbol's can always be seen to represent two different meanings?" And so I propose that 'words of art' may be dispelled by ceasing to externalize. You seem to know your own true name. But the hyphen; your parents did not throw that in. Lose the hyphen and you will acquire a wonderful calibration standard.
Those issues that dampen truth are falsity. If they resonate, they are more truth.
True North;
Mostly by observation. That is where I get the impression that faithful men and women have tossed Rules of Evidence (Hebrews 11:1). That Jesus survived the cross is obvious (at least to me) from Jesus' own testimony.
Lu 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Lu 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Lu 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
But I would ask of you, "Can you trace these myths?"
Unless you are saying the paganism of Asia Minor was invented to accomodate the Resurrection, I see no logic in tracing the myths. The myths of virgin birth and rebirth were in place for quite some time prior to the life of Yehoshuah. That is my presumption.
The law of the flag is an admiralty concept. But in these counterclaims the law of the flag is Genesis 1:26,27 and Exodus 13:16.
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ex 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.
I have conversations with these suitors. There is a transformation after sealing default judgment, a true judgment in law. Maybe since I write in both places you should check for other recent postings like 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 too. That will give a better picture of where I am at. It is a functional place where one retains the ability to worship God as the conscience dictates.
But I have conversations with suitors who are my friends. Medical doctors and psychiatrists see the utility of nipping fresh suits in the bud. I do research into advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics - like my advice to drop the hyphen from the true name above. Let's say a doctor does not wish to be bound by a license. Just the same, he must find a replacement for the pharmaceutical benefits. So harmonic and disruptive pulsers do the same thing much more effectively. The Dutch have come up with a spermicide that the woman dials up after sex. It is information on the 2.4 GHz carrier that disrupts membranes specific to the spermatazoa. Doctors and engineers come visit to see my lab and we brainstorm about healing disease.
The mystery of the kingdom of heaven is encrypted. Jesus obviously survived the cross and also, Mary Magdelene, Jesus' wife mothered at least one surviving son in Gaul. A man of faith holds to illusion. This has kept us (Templars, Priory of Sion etc.) safe. [The Royals or Templars etc. have an event in history where the Treasure was carried over a cliff by four Templars on ropes. This excludes gold. The Bloodline is far more likely the Treasures of Jerusalem retrieved by the Templars and subsequently hidden in France.] The bill of exchange for all the money (cured September 11, 2001) was already on the computer screen the other day at about 8:20 AM. I suppose that somebody on the Eastern Seaboard was waiting for Mountain Time to open for business. But who called it up is irrelevant. You should call it up. Cecilia will mail a certified copy to you for a few bucks. (719) 520-6200; ask for Reception Numbers 201099293 7/16/2001 (the bill demands release of claim on August 13, 2001 - exactly thirty days to cure) and 201101604 7/19/2001 (Affidavit of Mailing by a professional process server). Please be informed before you make any acute responses or judgments.
Men of faith, men who have tossed out Rules of Judgment, miss the key. A key is required to decrypt and the mystery of the kingdom is obviously encrypted in parabola (1st Derivative of truth; parable). Faith is fine. I would never underestimate God's grace. Paul was right on as far as I am concerned but no, I do not buy that Paul was entitled to Roman citizenship by birth. He would have used that wild card long before he did. He got beaten up a lot prior to calling on his (brand new) citizenship. Since he lied about law (shaving his head) to appease his accusers in Jerusalem I would not put it past him to lie about spending a big sum on a citizenship card, being eligible.
But I obviously prescribe that the time of using the Faithful's naivite and chosen ignorance (no Rules of Evidence) is over. Even the true Rosicrucian movement recognizes that September 11, 2001 was a demarkation point where the esoteric became exoteric. The mysteries are to be revealed openly now.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| True North |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 21:19:05
David Merrill, your comment "... that there must be supernatural occurances that plainly align to pagan mythologies moreso than to Israeli or Old Covenant paradigms ..." is not new to me. One only has to read the 1916 edition of Alxander Hislop's "The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife" to find parellels of myths of resurection, Revelation depictions of a woman with a golden cup, the holy mother, the father of gods, Olenos the sin bearer, Ouranos and stones, the virgin mother, Venus and Astarte, Rhea the gazer, the woman bringing sin into the world, etc. etcetera. One must be ignorant of the writings of the late Joseph Campbell to think that any of these myths are peculiar to the "new" testament, Christianity or Judaism.
But I would ask of you, "Can you trace these myths?" You say that the myths align to paganism more than Hebrew paradigms and to that I would answer, "Subjective, merely subjective and not conclusive when contemplating the nature of man as revealed in Hebrew writings."
As for the deity of any "new" testament figure, I quote," ... I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes ..." and " ... Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ..." but I would ask you to " ... Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together ..."
None of my writings are intended to be a challenge or a throwing of a gauntlet, to you, or anyone else. I am only interested in emunah (nun, mem, alef) and as you say, paraphrazed, As above, so below.
Your encouragement gladdens me (and I use spell check Eh?) but your writings are almost out of my reach. Were it not for my exploration into barahim or berit (if you will excuse my abuse of Hebrew) I would understand little of what you write.
Your use of Mark 4:10-12 intrigues me, care to expound? In light of your other writings I can see no reason why "... having faith in the Resurrection (would) foil revelation of the key with which to unlock the mystery of the kingdom of heaven ..." unless it be from waiting for some imagined utopia as a want for self responsibility. Please flesh this out further and relieve the ignorance of one who only seeks truth not position.
TN |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 20:25:44
Ya think; a man who has suffered a CIVIL death, can resurrect to a brand new life? Ya think? Civil law is Roman law.
Ya think that scripture is layered, to keep the cowan's out?
Ya ever wonder why in the king's chamber of the pyramid of Giza, the coffin is empty. And always was.
Ever wonder why Yoseph demanded his bones be not buried in Egypt? {In their haste to leave Egypt, someone was carrying a pile of dry bones}
As to messiah Yahushuah being deified, every son of ha Adam is a son of Elohim. Albeit, the resurrected Adam, the second Adam, is the Plan.
Think Enoch can come and go as needed? Eliyah, for that matter.
Could an angel be a man with a message? Or, a message itself?
Think Yoseph of Arimathea, [one of the 72 sanhedrin], firmly planted the resurrection story in West-Minister?
Think Rome was more concerned with fighting Scottish men/women, who would not bend the knee to Roman authority in 50 a.d. rather than peaceful nazarine's in Yerusalem?
Ya wonder why Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin, backed off their version of the Great Seal, and submitted to Charles Thompson's design?
Ever wonder why an obelisk is placed on a fallen Israelite's resting place? {Washington's monument is a obelisk}.
Ever wonder why Vanderbuilt purchased and placed two ancient monuments from the City of On, in two places, America and England. {Ephraham and Manessah, as boy's, the original son's, played under the shadow of these obelisks}.
Ever wonder why symbol's can always be seen to represent two different meanings?
Ever wonder why a sign/symbol is more powerful, sub-consciously, than written word's?
Ever wonder who has qualified ownership of the temple mount area? {David, the king of Israel, purchased it, as recorded in scripture}
Ever wonder why the savants of Britian, allowed the U.N. to GIVE Palestine to the Khazar's/Edomite's?
Ever think a big test is coming?
Ya think, we, as a people, need the latter rain, to make ready the harvest?
Ya think the Knight's Templar's have not forgotten king Phillip's and the Pope's play/slaughter on J.D.M?
Do ya think, you'd ever like to get off the circular reasoning?
I do.
Ya think we are to pray/work for the Kingdom to advance on earth, just as it is in the heaven's?
Ya think Revelation's is so coded, that almost no-one has seen; sea-earth-heaven, as three level's of being-Understaiding?
Ya think the ALL CAPFISH, live in the sea, with Leviathon?
Ya think, when ya Stand on dry land, your home free? {your really building your kingdom on sand}
Ya think a storm is coming, to try your works?
I know, I am like y'all, it hurts to think.
But the test is coming, otherwise called, The Visitation.
p.s. to David, ya think the Arab's lied to the Knight's about the resurrection? Good Muslim's still trip over the stumblingstone. They just can't "conceive" to the fact that Allah...Elyon, could have Children, for that would make Him to have a consort. Yes He did, and does, Wisdom. 'She' was with Him, before the foundations of the world.
The Life is in the Blood, as is the DNA.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 20:03:36
True North said: Stephen, I will "... avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain..." If you will not accept the HaMashiach Y'srael that has come, then your only hope for salvation from the beast is through Law.
Steve: I disagree here. What will bring on Salvation from the Beast/4th Kingdom is the fulfillment of prophecies concerning it's destruction, the ingathering of the exiles (reunited house of Yahudah and Yisrael) and the reinstitution of the Throne of David. Once YHWH establishes the Israelite World Order there will be no debating and "what if's" concerning Kingdom behaviour via Torah. Everybody from the least to the greatest will know YHWH. So my "righteousness" concerning the Torah is not my salvation. YHWH is my Salvation, not Torah. Only by His Grace will it be decided if I live long enough to see the fulfillment of these long awaited prophecies. And since I do not believe that Yahushua is YHWH in the flesh, I seek to understand the man on different terms then perhaps many on this list. Jesus depaganised is Yahushua.
As for Paul, well with all of the details brought forth in these recent posts, it might be worthwhile to look into the claims of against him made by the Ebionites as well as the possibility that he purchased his STATUS against the claim that he received it by birth.
One thing I think we might agree upon at this point is that this STATUS afforded Paul not only the appeal to Ceaser but also escape from the 40 Jews who took an oath not to eat until his death (not to mention bypassing an on the spot beating from the COPS).
I am enjoying this discussion on Paul as well as Moshiach. Thanks for having it.
Peace,
Steve
P.S. - When I consider the Messianic implications of Isaiah 53 I see more of a Yoseph archetype than a Davidic one. If I understood your point in a recent post correctly David, Yahushua surviving and not dying on the Cross (i.e., minus the pagan additives)calls up images of Yoseph surviving the pit. As you already know, the Talmud, Targums and even the Zohar show that idea of a Moshiach ben Yoseph
was believed by the Pharisees. As you also know there were more than just one ideological sect of Pharisees and all Pharisees should not be painted with the same brush as is often the case. Much to the frustration of modern day Pharisees, the Lubavitchers even believe
the Talmud speaks of a 'second coming' of Moshiach and now await the return of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 18:20:44
Closer examination shows that Paul was only eligible for Roman citizenship; not entitled. Also he claims more the municipal doctrine - Tarsus, not Cilicia. This would explain the inquiry by the Roman guard.
But since Paul was the only accountant, James could not make the accusation form properly that he left for Israel with more money than he arrived with. However Paul says he steered left of Cyprus but arrived with Mnason, a Cypriot Jew. Then we see the well-formed accusation about teaching grace has replaced law. Paul obviously lies his way out of a conviction; even shaving his head! So the embezzelement charge probably remained a suspicion.
The dynamics of Paul's citizenship and predicament are probably simplified by saying that Paul obviously disobeyed the utterances of the Holy Spirit. Acts 20:22. The KJV is early masonic encryption, utilizing upper and lower case "Spirit" and "spirit" to make it clear which is Paul and which is God. This is easy to acquire in context of a plain reading.
Paul certainly was familiar with the ways of the pagans, being raised in southern Turkey/Asia Minor. So the syncrotism makes perfect sense.
Your reply is well articulated. I like that. And your understanding of the truth is that you admonish Stephen for not accepting Yehoshuah H'Natzrith for the Messiah in Isaiah 53 (and throughout the Bible) but neglect to chastise me for not accepting that the Messiah must be deified and that there must be supernatural occurances that plainly align to pagan mythologies moreso than to Israeli or Old Covenant paradigms.
Prior knowledge psychometrics has designed a macroeconomic timeline that fits to the day Biblical predictions. So therefore, the beauty and purpose of Paul's "mission" (as I do not think Paul himself intended what happened to his epistles) has in my estimation fulfilled its purpose. I see several very faithful suitors having faith in the Resurrection foil revelation of the key with which to unlock the mystery of the kingdom of heaven (Mark 4:10-12). Yehoshuah, sometimes called a Nazarene (NATZAR being more likely a king-title BRANCH as in King David) was an Ebionite. These are the working class pharisees but that does not lock him into or out of the popular (Saducee) belief that the kingdom was to be strictly corporeal; of this world. When I read the gospels, I believe that is more what Yehoshuah himself spoke in favor of, "..on earth as it is in heaven.."
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| True North |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 13:13:41
Reading many esoteric writings in the past has made it clear that etymology of words and the consequent ideologies that form from the same writings requires primary sources to keep clear perspective.
Although the following may be considered a secondary source collection, (Deutsche being the language majority for the primary sources), 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament' by Kittel and Friedrich is a primary source for biblical exegesis. While hindered by ignorance of koine' Greek (to the extent that ignorance is not fully cured) the Hebrew is accessable to me and the content of the following is precise on the ideology behind the Greek word polites (citizen), politeia (citizenship) and politeuoma (freedom) as concerns a polites of the Kingdom.
" In the NT as in the OT ... there is no trace at all of the aura which attended polites and the whole group for the Greeks ... This is connected with the fact that polites never neabs 'state.' In no passage in the NT can this translation even be considered ... The use of polites in the NT is completely non-political. Polites simply means an 'enclosed place of human habitation' as distinct from uninhabited areas, pastures, villages and single houses. Sometimes it can also mean the 'population' of the city ... "
"... The original meaning of the word, polites, is close to that of town, the oldest term for a fortified settlement or a larger settlement in general ..."
The verb politeuomai (lived) occurs only in Acts 23:1 and Phil.1:27 ... Neither ... (place) ... does the word contain any reference to life in society as such. In both cases it is used with no political implications of the 'walk,' of a walk which is shaped by religion."
"Politeia, (citizenship) too, occurs only twice in the NT. Characteristically it is not used in an abstract sense of the state or constitution, for the NT has no interest in theories, but only in the concrete sense of "civil rights," whether meant literally or figuratively. It is used for Roman citizenship in Acts 22:28.Paul appeals to the fact that he is ... (a Roman citizen) ... in order to avoid the threatened examination by scourging. His statement is the more impressive because he did not buy citizenship like the tribune of the Antonia guard but inherited it from his father. Politeia is also used in Eph.2:12, which says of the readers that during their pagan period they had been ... alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers of the covenants of promise not having hope and godless in the world ... Here the expression ... commonwealth of Israel ... does not refer to the state of Israel, which had not existed for a long rime and membership of which the Greeks of Asia can hardly have thought worth seeking. Nor can it refer to citizenship in the literal sense, since Christian status would be no true counterpart to this. It is rather used in the figurative sense of the privileged religious position of Israel as the recipient of the promise. Once excluded from the promise, the readers also now have access to the Father through Christ. They are now no longer strangers and foreigners but ... (partakers of the assembly)... They share the spiritual citizenship which belongs to the ... believers of Israel. They have access to God. They have become members of God's household and partake of salvation 2:19." 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament' Vol IV, 1968 pgs 516-535
A member of a Republic is not bound to the letter of any contract to Caesar or his appointees. There is no injured party and no contract that gives Caesar authority over that member. A co-ntract and oath is what makes one bound to Caesar and gives Caesar just authority over that person.
David Merrill, concerning the Christian interpretation of Romans 13 (and other scriptures 1 Peter 2:13, Hebrews 13:17, Titus 3:1) to obey all authority as opposed to ecclesiastical authority is ignorance of the Kingdom. To interpret it such, would preclude worship of the beast by the saints of Revelation 13:1-7. This would be anathema to verse 8. Gnostic interpretation of Paul " ... As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction ..." Paul must be read from the perspective of teaching ignorant, god worshipping, (as in pater patriens) Goy, the things which Israel had been learning of for 4000 years. To say; "... That is where he purchased his citizenship with alms meant for the Ebionite missionaries' widows. Ref. Mnason was a Cypriot Jew ..." is to contradict the words in Acts 22:28. This sort of contradiction is not supported by the rest of Paul's writings as we have them. I find, rather, that the problem people have with Paul's writings are from ignorance of the culture of Paul's day, his mission to the Goy and ignorance of the ways of His Kingdom. (I am not a believer in the inerrant, infallible words of any book by the way)
"The NT manifests no ideal of a politeia such as that projected by the Greek philosophy and Stoicism ... It is more interested in the state as a concrete phenomenon; one need only refer to Rev. 13:1-7 and similar passages in proof of this. Since polites is not used for state, however, this aspect need not be discussed here." (ibid.)
Stephen, I will "... avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain..." If you will not accept the HaMashiach Y'srael that has come, then your only hope for salvation from the beast is through Law. But you will not enter the Kingdom by keeping the Law "... For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven ..." The scribes and Pharisees were good at keeping the Law, all 613 mitzvot, good luck you are going to need it.
TN |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 10:45:49
You are quite welcome. After The Nazarene Gospel Restored, I think Shaul was likely a Herodian "wannabee". Shaul wanted to marry into the Herodians and with intelligence the still living Yehoshuah was in the Damascene settlement, seven or so years after the Crucifixion, Shaul as a bounty hunter struck up a deal. Paul's pagan folk up in Cilicia, prone to rebirth fantasies, were speculating that the survival was supernatural. So the Herodians were probably ready to pay a price to recapture Yehoshuah and get the job done right. However Peter, still around Jerusalem, caught wind in time to go to Damascus and Peter and Yehoshuah met up with Shaul "On the Road to Damascus". So the marriage deal would have fallen through.
But this unpopular and unflattering portrait of Paul would support a lot of boasting. If allowed to attend a few lectures Paul may have later written from Rome that he was a favorite pupil of Gamaliel, but that is the current portrait I have of Paul. It is awesome to me that God would use frailties of the human nature so powerfully; to create Christianity and its role in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant.
I will read Paul as Herodian*. Thanks. The mosaic becomes clearer with good historical accounts.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I found quite a few papers - "Paul as Herodian" among them -
http://www.textweek.com/pauline/paul.htm. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 08:16:48
Greetings David,
Thanks for the info. Are you familiar with Hyamm Macobby's book "Mythmaker, Paul and the invention of Christianity"? It mentions some of the points you bring up as well as some interesting speculation that Paul, aside from being
a frustrated convert, was actually related through Drusilla to the Herodians. This man Macobby, who is Professor Emeritus of Hebrew Studies at Oxford, is a Talmudic scholar and brings up some very interesting items such as a highlight on the conflicts between the James led Jerusalem Temple and Paul, as well as an examination of Paul's claim to be a top student of Gamaliel.. Also the tome by Robert Eisenmann, entitled "James, brother of Jesus" has some interesting points about Paul's political connections as well. He has an interesting essay entitled "Paul as Herodian" which can be found on the web.
Thanks again for your info. I will check it out and plug it into the equation.
Steve |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 06:02:11
Very coherent. I have been examining this for some time.
Has anyone read The Nazarene Gospel Restored by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro? Also there are two articles by Eli Marcus Ravage (1928) in Century Magazine; 1) Commissary to the Gentiles - The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda 2) A Real Case Against the Jews - One of Them Points Out the Full Depth of Their Guilt.
Anyway, I understood (at least in my own mind) Christianity and history much better after shifting my perspective about Paul's motivation [He lied to James about stopping in Cyprus. That is where he purchased his citizenship with alms meant for the Ebionite missionaries' widows. Ref. Mnason was a Cypriot Jew]. He was building, while in captivity writing epistles, the only possible effective weapon against Rome. Article 1) above cites The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire quite heavily. The passive resistance of Romans 13 was completely befuddling to the Roman Caesar mental frame. Constantine had a dream and nailed Rome's coffin shut by converting.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 01 May 2004 : 14:06:15
Robert-James,
You suffer from the delusion that you are the owner of this site and can dictate terms of membership. If you have not noticed yet, not everybody believes exactly the same here. You yourself just claimed the other day how you enjoy to read my posts and now today you proclaim that if one does not fit your mold of belief then they need not apply. Which is it or shall I wait until your mood changes?
What makes this forum among the best I have seen is the fact that there are different views and the admins allow for a wide variety of discussion.
As always, thanks for sharing your opinions. You can be assured that I will have mine. Ain't life grand? |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 20:51:29
Paul believed that The YHWH raised a man, YaHuSHuaH from the litteral dead. Paul believed that by the offering of that spilt blood, We, Israel, as a whole, have gotten our redemption for our Law breaking. Set free. Redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.
BatKol, believe ye this?
Did The YHWH raise a dead man, literally, from the dead state of being?
Is YaHuSHuaH the Firstborn among the dead?
Or, are you awaiting the Prophet?
Hello? A visitation is in effect.
Amazing Grace...how sweet the sound!
I once was lost, but now, am found.
Twas blind, but now I see.
Oh, Amazing Grace.
We are saved through Grace, a gift, from a Loving Father. Not of works, least we should boast.
Though, works, shall follow the Grace.
This forum is for those who believe that the shed Blood of the sacrificial Lamb, is sufficient...to appease Our Father.
All other's, need not apply here. |
|
|
