| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BatKol |
Posted - 03 Apr 2004 : 07:39:24
Greetings brother Robert and all who view this thread,
Peace to all!
Here are the main questions that I have put forth repeatedly concerning "serving two masters" and it's relation to the First commandment yet nobody has thus far been willing to give them the attention they deserve. Many on this list assert that being a Citizen of a 4th KINGDOM or 1 Samuel 8 political system "like the nations" is a breach of the first commandment as well as serving two masters. If this theory be true we run into some serious problems that need addressing. I will out line them below:
1. Paul, the Roman Citizen
If we are to believe what the Bible says about Paul being a "Pharisee the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) then we should expect him to know much about the Torah. We know that Paul was a Roman Citizen and definitely exercised this status. Acts 23:23-31 has the Roman garrison send more than half its troops (470 soldiers to escort one man) from Jerusalem to Antipatris. Reading about Paul's Roman Citizenship leaves a couple of nagging questions which need to be addressed if we are to seriously consider that being a CITIZEN is serving two masters.
Taking Paul's claim to be 'one who up holds the Torah and excelled in matters concerning the Law' as well as being a "Pharisee the son of a Pharisee" we need to address the obvious:
A. If being a CITIZEN is serving two masters as well as a breach of the first commandment, why did not Paul, one who upholds and excels in matters of the Law, know this error?
B. How could Paul claim to be both a Citizen of Heaven as well as a ROMAN CITIZEN and not be breaching the Law he was such an expert of?
C. If Paul was chosen for a special purpose as he puts it to "preach Christ to the Nations" don't you find it odd that Christ himself would not have told Paul about his glaring misunderstanding concerning CITIZENSHIP?
2. Samuel, the righteous and respected Judge of Israel
By now we are very familiar with 1 Sam 8 wherein the Israelites agree to a King "like the nations". Samuel gives them a detailed
list of burdens this KING will heap on them. Never the less, the Israelites agree and once YHWH ruins their crops in anger they realize their error. After they see this they cry to Samuel for advice on how to get out of this mess. This brings us to 1 Samuel 12:19
19. All the people then said to Shmuel, "Pray on behalf of your servants to YHWH, your Elohim, that we not die; for have added evil upon all of our sins, to request a king for ourselves."
20. Shmuel said to the people FEAR NOT. You have done all this evil - BUT do not turn away from following YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart. 21 Do not turn away for pursuing futilities that cannot avail and cannot rescue, for they are futile. 22 For YHWH shall not forsake His people for the sake of His great Name; for YHWH has sworn to make you for a people unto Him. 23 And I, also- far be it from me to sin against YHWH and refrain from praying on your behalf; rather I shall instruct you in the good and proper path. 24. Only fear YHWH and serve Him faithfully, with all your hearts, for look at how much he has done for you. 25 But if you act wickedly, both you and your king will perish..
Now a few obvious questions come to mind when reading the passages above.
a) If being subject to a 1 Sam 8 style KING 'like the nations' is serving two masters how can Samuel tell them (after they selected the King) NOT to turn away from YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart, and only to fear YHWH and serve him faithfully??.... If your view of the first commandment if correct, this is impossible and a huge contradiction on Samuel's part.
b) If serving two masters is as you say it is, then why did not Samuel, who is a respected Judge of the Law and one who 'shall instruct the Israelites on the good and proper path', know this version of the first commandment? Samuel would have been in grave error to tell them to continue to both serve YHWH as well as the 1 Sam 8 style king 'like the nations'.
If you are correct then this advice to the Israelites of serving both YHWH and the 1 SAM 8 KING "like the nations" seems to me a huge contradiction and a serious flaw by Samuel (who BTW has a direct, personal connection to YHWH which is evidenced by his calling YHWH to come and destroy the crops).
3. Escape from BONDAGE and the destruction of the 4th Kingdom
a) When did Daniel 11:45 come to pass as it defines the end of the 4th ROMAN Kingdom? I still see the 4th Kingdom operating.
b) When did Daniel 12:1 come to pass as it says "at that time your people will escape"?
In closing we have two Israelites who had direct connections to both YHWH and Yahushua in Paul and Samuel. If serving two masters and the first commandment demands no CITIZENSHIP, then both of these important Bible men are in serious error at the root of their ideology. Also, concerning the escape from BONDAGE, we have some verses above that deal directly with the circumstances concerning this issue.
I look forward to the answers of these above questions by those
who assert that participating as CITIZEN is a breach of the First Commandment as well as serving two masters.
Peace to all,
Steve |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 23:27:44
I suggest the Book of Thomas.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_MerovingianCrucifixion.wmv
Wow! Jesus Crucified in front of our eyes!
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 17:12:08
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[size=2][font=Book Antiqua]Good point!!
So, we see from this that the Kingdom of Yahuwâh is indeed inside of us, it is a state of mind. If one wishes to leave the matrix he or she must regain control of your mind, he or she must have the spirit of apartness, a set apart spirit, misleadingly known as the Holy Spirit or worse yet the Holy Ghost.
G'day folks!
Bless this house and ALL who enter!
David and Robert - you blokes are truly inspiring! Thanks.
Now to walk in TRUTH!
For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. WEB
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. ASV
For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power. BBE
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. DBY
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. KJV
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. WBS
For Apostolic authority is not a thing of words, but of power. WEY
for not in word is the reign of God, but in power? YLT
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 15:41:10
Good point!!
That brings up an interesting topic, one we have researched before. The Greek word anthropos simply means man, or mankind as in anthropology is the study of man.
The word neoteros, on the other hand, is a key factor in understanding what Yahuwâh’s plan (chashab machashabah) is that is being layed out for us by the Wonderful Counsellor He sent to Yerusalem, as promised.
The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them: and I will give to Yerusalem one that bringeth good tidings. - Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 41:27
A “New Creature” Under A “New Covenant”
Therefore if any be in Messiah, he or she is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. - 2Corinthians 5:17
This new creature is called neos or neoteros in the Greek (#G3501), which of course is where the writers of the movie The Matrix got their concept for the name of their lead character, Neo. They were showing us that once one comes out of this “man-made matrix” he is a neos (new) or neoteros; he is a totally new (kainos), not renewed (anakainoo), creature once he is unplugged from the System. In fact, once they knew how to unplug they used it to their advantage…sometimes plugging back in temporarily without the AGENTS knowledge (hopefully) that it was one of them. We saw also in that movie just how dangerous that can be…do not try this at home except under expert supervision!
Shaul/Paul tells us that though we knew Yahushua once after the flesh, we do not know him any longer. (2Cor. 5:16)
An example of this is when a secular JUDGE, who was trying to cajole me into his jurisdiction, said to me; “I know you; I bought a truck from you; we joked around…” etc., etc. [after the flesh]
I responded with, “I am not that person.”
He figuratively scratched his head and mumbled something to the effect, “How could this happen so quickly?” After a moments pause he answered his own question, “Well, I guess it could.”
He was shocked because he realized that he no longer knew me, I was transfigured/transformed (metamorphoo) before his very eyes!
So how does this take place? Is this some kind of "religious ceremony" where one simply says some magical incatation and voila, it is done? Gosh, no!!
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed (metamorphoo) by the renewing (anakainosis) of your mind… - Romans 12:2
It is a rewewing of your mind, a reclamation of it, if you will.
Yahushua…was transfigured (metamorphoo) before them… - Mattith’yahu (Matthew) 17:2
Which leads us to another subject: There are those who say that Scripture is speaking of a "renewed covenant" and we perceive that this ties right in with this topic. The Greek word we see for the word new in the above verse is kainos, the same word used two out of the three times that “new covenant” is mentioned. From its use in the above verse we can see that the old is passed away, all of it has become new! In fact, Scripture appears to compare the Old Covenant with Abel (Heb. 12:24), but in truth, we perceive it is not. In changing the writings from the Hebrew to the Greek they thought that the Hebrew word habel was talking about Abel, when actually that word means transitory, unsatisfactory, that is to say, the Old Covenant was transitory, it was unsatisfactory. Had it been a "renewed covenant" the Greek word (anakainoo)would have been used; very nearly the same word that is used in the verse above that describes the "renewing (anakainosis) of your mind".
So, we see from this that the Kingdom of Yahuwâh is indeed inside of us, it is a state of mind. If one wishes to leave the matrix he or she must regain control of his or her mind, he or she must have the spirit of apartness, a set apart spirit, misleadingly known as the Holy Spirit, or worse yet, the Holy Ghost.
Neat how it all comes together when we rightly divide the word of truth, isn’t it? And fun too!! Just like trying to figure out a “Who Dunnit” (Mystery novel) before you get to the end of the book...or the end of your life.
We must all be our own detective. We must never take any man’s interpretation of The Book of the Law [The Scripture] for your own, not my analysis, not anyone’s; work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is Yahuwâh which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Always remember the man in that movie that didn't want to be out of the matrix, that was snuck in unawares to spy out the liberty that the others had in the anointing. (Galatians 2:4; Jude 1:4)
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 07:59:27
The verse brings to my mind Greek neoteros verses anthropos used for the word Man in the New Testament. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 22:39:52
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother Manuel:
Peace be unto the house.
Thought you and others may be interested in something we found quite some time ago, and have posted here in this ecclesia, concerning the word "jealous" as used in the Second Commandment of Yahuwâh.
Hasn’t this word “jealous” made you wonder…gee, that seems like a rather petty emotion for the Governor of the Universe? Once again, perhaps it is not at all what we think it is. Watch this! In Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English-Third College Edition, for the word "jealous", we find this at meaning number three:
3 [Now Rare] requiring exclusive loyalty [the Lord is a jealous God] [Emphasis added]
The words “Now Rare” jump off the page at us… Not only is this use of the word “jealous” rare, but “fidelity” to the One Lawful King of All, is even rarer.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 18:32:19
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
You are a gem, dear friend, a true gem! Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power [G1849] to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power [G1411] of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you, is the perfect example of the difference between author-ity and mere force!
When we look up G1849, exousia, in our Thayer's Greek Definitions we find the word authority listed seven times, while at the word dunamis, we find it not once. It is, as Thayer's states at the outset, strength, power, ability, that is to say, inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, which, when we are talking of the un-author-ized governments of men it, consists in or rests upon armies, (policing) forces and hosts (sheer numbers). [Tense changed to fit sentence]
And because this verse is talking about giving us "properly delegated power (author-ity)" over "serpents and scorpions", we know that these "serpents and scorpions" are figurative, so we do not go out dancing barefoot among poisonous snakes and scorpions.
Again, thank you Uncle Buck, for bringing this verse forward.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Greetings back at ya Bros ROBERT! et al...
AUTHOR-ITY makes sense in the following context:
2 COR 5:17
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new. WEB
Wherefore if any man is in Christ, 'he is' a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. ASV
So if any man is in Christ, he is in a new world: the old things have come to an end; they have truly become new. BBE
So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new: DBY
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. KJV
Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. WBS
So that if any one is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old state of things has passed away; a new state of things has come into existence. WEY
so that if any one 'is' in Christ -- 'he is' a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things. YLT
The YLT version may appeal to David Merrill?!
That would justify a Christian having de jure authority and inherent power from the CREATOR.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Manuel |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 16:28:07
Greetings oneisraelite, David Merrill, Uncle Buck, and all on this wonderful journey,
Understanding, as a man on the path, that our Father is a jealous Father, means also that His Light is never ending, contrary to this worlds jealousy and their control-freakish ways.
When I was a young man, I remember pouring a circle of fire around two scorpions. The scorpions would kill each other as a result. It now reminds me of the teaching of come out of her my people, and be not yoked with her sins.
I am,
Manuel |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 09:03:57
Thank you OneIsraelite;
I missed you when I was considering doing that Greek breakdown myself. The Hebrew is interesting with the word shem - name. I think it was contrasted to debar - word. His Name; His Word. Maybe we were contrasting with the Greek nomia - name. I remember we noted that position was a distinct part of the description for shem - name; absent in the other description.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 08:18:12
Just yesterday I was explaining to a young woman in the coffee shop; "You think you are in the City of Colorado Springs and if you think so, you probably are. But "City of Colorado Springs" is nothing more than a positive law jural society to me and I can truthfully tell you I am not in the City of Colorado Springs. That would be like the Freemasons telling me I am in the Colorado Jurisdiction of their Order just because it covers the same "Colorado". I would have to be a member of the Masons seeking benefits of that membership for it to be true; that I am in that jurisdiction."
And that too, is an absolute gem! This is something that the "man on the street" can understand. Thank you very much!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 07:49:29
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
You are a gem, dear friend, a true gem! Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power [G1849] to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power [G1411] of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you, is the perfect example of the difference between author-ity and mere force!
When we look up G1849, exousia, in our Thayer's Greek Definitions we find the word authority listed seven times, while at the word dunamis, we find it not once. It is, as Thayer's states at the outset, strength, power, ability, that is to say, inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, which, when we are talking of the un-author-ized governments of men it, consists in or rests upon armies, (policing) forces and hosts (sheer numbers). [Tense changed to fit sentence]
And because this verse is talking about giving us "properly delegated power (author-ity)" over "serpents and scorpions", we know that these "serpents and scorpions" are figurative, so we do not go out dancing barefoot among poisonous snakes and scorpions.
Again, thank you Uncle Buck, for bringing this verse forward.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 07:46:36
I only went back a few Posts for context, this treatise on the difference between power and authority, I take it is generated from my Post:
quote:
Just yesterday I was explaining to a young woman in the coffee shop; "You think you are in the City of Colorado Springs and if you think so, you probably are. But "City of Colorado Springs" is nothing more than a positive law jural society to me and I can truthfully tell you I am not in the City of Colorado Springs. That would be like the Freemasons telling me I am in the Colorado Jurisdiction of their Order just because it covers the same "Colorado". I would have to be a member of the Masons seeking benefits of that membership for it to be true; that I am in that jurisdiction."
So my theory above about the bill of exchange being the Key to unlock the kingdom of heaven is only a reality within the scope of courts of competent jurisdiction called suitors. That is purely theoretical and highly idealistic. But it puts men and women in perspective regarding contracts and identity. That establishes relationship and the right to refuse undesirable contracts upon presentment.
That is a good start towards the ideals of a restored social order wherein inherent and unalienable property rights are respected and actually protected by the United States corporation as Trustee.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Generally I consider power de facto while authority is de facto power presented with a proper delegation of authority.
For instance the delegation of authority most people think they have to live with is "extraordinary occasion" of the Constitution implemented by Abraham Lincoln on July 4, 1861. The Congress had adjourned sine die for about 90 days and he convened what he could under the extraordinary occasions clause.
I have long suspected that when Honest Abe was talking about fixing things back up de jure is when the international bankers hire John Wilkes BOOTH - no authority; just power. Simplified ad nauseum, the power we have to live with today is likely still buried in Lincoln's skull.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 02:48:20
Luke 10:19 is another interesting confusion of between authority and power between versions. It makes sense that AUTHORITY in the name of the Lord legimates the POWER to do the damage!
Behold, I give you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will in any way hurt you. WEB
Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall in any wise hurt you. ASV
See, I have given you power to put your feet on snakes and evil beasts, and over all the strength of him who is against you: and nothing will do you damage. BBE
Behold, I give you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall in anywise injure you. DBY
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. KJV
Behold, I give to you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. WBS
"I have given you power to tread serpents and scorpions underfoot, and to trample on all the power of the Enemy; and in no case shall anything do you harm. WEY
lo, I give to you the authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy, and nothing by any means shall hurt you; YLT
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 06 Jun 2005 : 02:44:24
Q1. Did Pilate have the delegated authority of Ceasar and the power to enforce his decision?
Q2. Did Pilate have the Authority of God and thus the power to enforce his decision?
Q3. Did Pilate have no legitimate authority and only illegitimate power to crucify?
There is no consensus on these two verses John 19:10+11. Obviously I would like to believe that Pilate had only man's delegated authority and legitimate power to enforce a decision within his political society.
It makes no sense that Pilate could have AUTHORITY over Jesus?
JOHN 19:10
Pilate therefore said to him, "Aren't you speaking to me? Don't you know that I have power to release you, and have power to crucify you?" WEB
Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? ASV
Then Pilate said to him, You say nothing to me? is it not clear to you that I have power to let you go free and power to put you to death on the cross? BBE
Pilate therefore says to him, Speakest thou not to me? Dost thou not know that I have authority to release thee and have authority to crucify thee? DBY
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? KJV
Then saith Pilate to him, Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not, that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? WBS
"Do you refuse to speak even to me?" asked Pilate; "do you not know that I have it in my power either to release you or to crucify you?" WEY
Pilate, therefore, saith to him, 'To me dost thou not speak? hast thou not known that I have authority to crucify thee, and I have authority to release thee?' YLT
John 19:11
Jesus answered, "You would have no power at all against me, unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered me to you has greater sin." WEB
Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin. ASV
Jesus gave this answer: You would have no power at all over me if it was not given to you by God; so that he who gave me up to you has the greater sin. BBE
Jesus answered, Thou hadst no authority whatever against me if it were not given to thee from above. On this account he that has delivered me up to thee has the greater sin. DBY
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. KJV
Jesus answered, Thou couldst have no power against me; except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me to thee hath the greater sin. WBS
"You would have had no power whatever over me," replied Jesus, "had it not been granted you from above. On that account he who has delivered me up to you is more guilty than you are." WEY
Jesus answered, 'Thou wouldst have no authority against me, if it were not having been given thee from above; because of this, he who is delivering me up to thee hath greater sin.' YLT
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 03:41:07
What is a STATE?
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-40
Sovereignty is, according to Bodin, what distin-
guishes the State from any other kind of human associ-
ation. This means that it is neither size nor might that
counts on the international plane: a State remains a
State as long as it is sovereign. It also means, on the
internal plane, that social standing is irrelevant to the
impersonal bond of subjection that ties the citizen to
the sovereign. Sovereignty determines the structure of
the State: it may be exercised in different ways accord-
ing to the variety of governments, but it is basically
unitary and indivisible. Whether in the hands of one,
of a few, or of many, sovereignty remains qualitatively
the same, for it entails the monopoly of power—power
in the sense of control and creation of law—and not
only of factual supremacy and independence.....
If a conclusion may be drawn at the end of this brief
enquiry, this can only be that the idea of the State
does not allow a single, precise definition, but varies
according to the different levels on which political
phenomena can be approached. We must be aware of
how greatly the idea of the State has varied in time,
and of the likelihood that it will vary considerably
again, even in the near future. In fact, the “national
State,” with its jealous assertion of sovereignty, its rigid
boundaries, and also its emotional patriotism, is fast
appearing to modern eyes—at any rate in Europe—as
becoming a thing of the past. A new, a supra-national
State, is invoked and longed for by many, one which
will be the signal of the disappearance of those nation-
alisms which have brought Europe to the brink of ruin.
But will this mean the disappearance of the State, its
“withering away”—to use the familiar Marxist phrase?
So long as there will be an organization capable of
controlling force, regulating power, and securing
allegiance, one thing seems certain: whatever its size
and its shape, whatever the name by which the men
of the future will choose to call it, that organization
will still be a State.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 13 Oct 2004 : 09:50:49
Just yesterday I was explaining to a young woman in the coffee shop; "You think you are in the City of Colorado Springs and if you think so, you probably are. But "City of Colorado Springs" is nothing more than a positive law jural society to me and I can truthfully tell you I am not in the City of Colorado Springs. That would be like the Freemasons telling me I am in the Colorado Jurisdiction of their Order just because it covers the same "Colorado". I would have to be a member of the Masons seeking benefits of that membership for it to be true; that I am in that jurisdiction."
So my theory above about the bill of exchange being the Key to unlock the kingdom of heaven is only a reality within the scope of courts of competent jurisdiction called suitors. That is purely theoretical and highly idealistic. But it puts men and women in perspective regarding contracts and identity. That establishes relationship and the right to refuse undesirable contracts upon presentment.
That is a good start towards the ideals of a restored social order wherein inherent and unalienable property rights are respected and actually protected by the United States corporation as Trustee.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 12 Oct 2004 : 22:33:21
Greetings David:
Peace be unto the house.
We thank you for your in-depth answer.
The first definition of Shiloh from Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Definitions may interest you, if you haven't already seen it.
BDB Definition:
1) he whose it is, that which belongs to him...
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 08 Oct 2004 : 09:59:59
All that remains is the question; "Where is the contract?"*
Men in positive law jural societies can make laws. I believe the cusp is expressed in Bible symbols with Saul being granted by God the authority (Samuel's annointing oil) to give unto the Israelites the period of the Kings. Which was by the way, resumed by Yehoshuah H'Natzrith (Jesus/BRANCH, David's coronation name) - the renewal of an Israelite king.
Now overlay my theory upon Genesis 49:10quote:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
"Shiloh" is a reference to the Messiah of God. The Scepter remains in the Bloodline of David [Merovingians and their custodian, the Khazarians] until the Restoration, the TIKKUN. This Restoration is understood in Christian terms as the Second Advent of Jesus Christ and in more Jewish terms as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant through Messiah ben Joseph (First Advent) and Messiah ben David (Second Advent).
* Steering you more toward Romans 6:16. A man would starve to avoid all agreements with the world. So one must call in question the jurisdiction of any court by displaying the obligations to perform for the world....quote:
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
|
| Rei |
Posted - 07 Oct 2004 : 21:41:45
Greetings Brothers:
Some of the above statements fall under the necessary and proper rule.
I have heard that where it is necessary and proper there is no law. Also, God our Father made Laws and men can only make rules; "... We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29;therefore,it is necessary and proper to disobey men when men overtly or covertly compel me to disobey God.
All that remains is to make the lists of mens rules that violate God's Laws.
Robert Dennis (aka Rei)
"God created man who created the State which became an enemy to God and man." -James Hazel
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 07 Oct 2004 : 18:52:11
Without any further information I would guess the reason is the UCC and an ignorance of true common law. I heard about the 48 hour stipulation on paying the jailer from the California group - Christian Jural Society with Randy Lee and John Joseph (actor John Quaid who played the leader of the Black Widows motorcycle gang on Clint's monkey movies Every Which Way But Loose). Those guys did some real precise research in the law library at UCLA.
Now I am presuming that the UCC is considered the rule of the day or the "common law" within the scope of the State you are in. Whereas here in Colorado and especially El Paso county (Colorado Springs, formerly Colorado City is still the territorial capital) the common law is known to be 48 hours. Especially this last time (see the above abatement for misnomer) when I informed (notified) the deputies that I would consider it kidnap the moment the jailer quit being paid. I went ahead and corrected the booking information that I was exposed to, knowing there would be no corrections on the computer to "David Merrill Family Name a/k/a David Merrill" in the computer. An hour or so before deadline, the deputy told me I would be forced into a gown and taken to suicide watch in a special ward. I figured that would be accepted as indictment or notice of bond in any forum I would get benefit of discussion offered. At the time understand I was expecting my bond to be refunded upon default judgment on the abatement. I suppose I could sue the clerk but that might just land me in the jail for another 48 hours of cold concrete box torture and that is what I have to weigh against the $750 bond. That did not work out as well as I would have liked.
So there is also a chance that the jailer (Sheriff) is willing to take the risk, in full knowledge he will not get paid for a day of upkeep. Does it come out of his pocket do you suppose? Also, this is all on a presumption there is law in place in full force and effect and that we must learn how processes of law function to protect property, freedom and life - like there is a distinction there. If the 'government' bank policies are really that arbitrary and capricious, then I am wasting my breath. Many men and women are seeing great results in understanding the ins and outs of international law and common law.
This Crosstalk memorandum of law was or a Verified Statement of Right. I just got off the phone and the man who commissioned me to write it said he wants it shared for communal benefit:
Memorandum of Law
The maxim adopted in the United States is that the common law prevails except where otherwise specified by statute. And this is by and large the case, being the law. In any home, funds or property seizure made by the Treasury by Notice of Lien or Levy, Garnishment etc. the Postal Service, county clerk and recorder and sometimes the secretary of state are used in conjunction to serve proper notice and grace in the common law. All the while, notifications are made of United States (U.S.C. Title 26 Internal Revenue Codes) “statutes” but the seizure seldom if ever finds its way into the district courts proper (instead Tax Court is utilized as an Equity arbitration about the Code’s application, after notice [common law again]). Therefore the man or woman, appearing for the person liable for the tax, never understands the proper access to the law common and how to defend property in this diversity of citizenship.
Since 1815 in this nation, Justice Story ruling and elaborating a wonderfully correct opinion that all insurance contracts are to be adjudicated in admiralty, access to the law of the land through the Constitution has been in diversity of citizenship and through the admiralty (district courts of the United States). Virtually every dispute involves Federal Reserve Notes as the Currency of the Realm and these notes are insurance policies – the Admiralty. Since the Treasury, being an organ of the United Nations, cannot operate lawfully in this nation; and because the Treasury has no standing in judicio in the United States district courts, simple common law notice and grace is applied to cure causes through the Post Office contractor(1) and process server United States Postal Service.
So the maxim that common law prevails until abrogated by local statute is soundly operational in the United States of America. The admiralty reflects the maxim instructing in the Rules (2) how a Verified Statement of Right will stultify notice by order to show cause – “Refusal for Cause” or express statement. Treasury agents represent a foreign state (United Nations combinatorial mathematics home rule and Charter Law) through international banking institutions “World Bank” International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (International Bank of Settlements; Club of Paris etc). So the diversity of citizenship is sound between the man or woman and the agent of the foreign principal Bank and Fund. An informative treatise on the maxim “A ius commune [common law] applies in a particular state, unless there is a specific statute limiting it.” may be read at http://tetley.law.mcgill.ca/maritime/genmarlaw.pdf from the Internet. Also the sessions laws of the States formed prior to the bankruptcy by Governors’ Conference (1933) will uniformly reflect this maxim (3) . A certified copy, authenticated by the Colorado state archives and published since 1995 in the territorial capital Colorado Springs, Colorado (Book 6744; Pages 969-975 – Reception #095110459 at (719) 520-6200) is attached and fully incorporated into this memorandum primarily because it holds the authority of an enacting clause, “Be it enacted by the Council and House of Representatives of Colorado Territory”. It is a statute, law. Since 1933, in bankruptcy the general assemblies of both the United States in Congress and the States in Governors’ Conference have never had the authority to state any valid enacting clause. All bills are trailed with a “necessity” clause instead. Colorado for example again, Article V Section 18 of the State constitution clearly states, “Section 18. Enacting clause. The style of the laws of this state shall be: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado.” Therefore the importance of an enacting clause to express the authority of the legislation originating any and all laws, on the face of each and every law, has never been in question. The General Assembly’s ability to cover all the “necessity” trailers with an “omnibus” enacting clause at the beginning of the entire body “Colorado Revised Statutes” has never been coherently stated, expressed or upheld in common law. It is a wartime measure enforced by a fictional war against the Great Depression that would have been over long ago if it ever existed at all (4).
Therefore to summarize, no lawful action can be utilized to deprive a man or woman of their inherent court of competent jurisdiction; true judiciary. This was stated eloquently in Article 34 of the http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magna.htm Magna Charta, “34. The writ which is called praecipe (*) shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court. In other words, since the State and United States in bankruptcy has deprived the corporate entities of access to any valid statutes with which to abrogate the common law, the common law is sound and in full force and effect more than ever.
Therefore a man is wise to publish a Peremptory Verified Statement of Right upon properties he holds dear. This published Statement can then be called up at a later date to remind any and all foreign agents and principals they have no chance of curing a claim in the Admiralty or any other venue where common law is respected and competent (5) to give remedy. Furthermore, remedy extends to protect the man or woman’s right to notify the United States of common law actions – to acquire the “exclusive original cognizance” (6) of the United States through the district courts. These days that case jacket is available in any district court of the United States for $39. So it also behooves one to publish said Verified Statement of Right at the county clerk and acquire cognizance of the United States by filing the documentation in the nearest United States district court so certified true and correct copies of both can be later brought forth for display in any forum. If a foreign agent gets pushy then maybe even publishing the Statement in the local newspaper would be wise.
At any rate, the common law prevails in the United States of America as demonstrated eloquently by the Treasury in any and all seizures and presumed forfeitures of property.
_________________________________
1 President Nixon closed the Post Office for emergency, placing the office under the custody of the Navy. The Post Office soon reopened under the name of the contractor, United States Postal Service. This new name for Post Office denoted the new common law function and left only the general delivery clerks and postmasters access to the original Post Office.
2 C(6) Claim and Answer; Interrogatories.
(a) Civil Forfeiture. In an in rem forfeiture action for violation of a federal statute:
(i) a person who asserts an interest in or right against the property that is the subject of the action must file a verified statement identifying the interest or right:
(A) within 30 days after the earlier of (1) the date of service of the Government's complaint or (2) completed publication of notice under Rule C(4), or
(B) within the time that the court allows.
(ii) an agent, bailee, or attorney must state the authority to file a statement of interest in or right against the property on behalf of another; and
(iii) a person who files a statement of interest in or right against the property must serve and file an answer within 20 days after filing the statement.
3 Laws of Colorado 1861, Page 35 reads, “Adopting the Common Law of England. Be it enacted by the Council and House of Representatives of Colorado Territory: Section 1. That the Common Law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all acts and statutes of the British Parliament,… and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority. Section 2. This act shall be in force from and after its passage. Approved, October 11th, 1861.”
4 In Stoehr v. Wallace 255 US 239 (1921) the United States Supreme Court ruled upon the fact that the Trading With the Enemy Act (1917) was strictly a war measure. Franklin Roosevelt was yet able to acquire Congressional approval to amend it for his “war” against the Great Depression in March of 1933.
5 The ‘saving to suitors’ clause of 1789 clearly states, “…saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;…”
6 The ‘saving to suitors’ clause goes on to read, “…where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..."
* http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magnadef.htm#praecipe
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 07 Oct 2004 : 08:40:37
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
The truth that the police have no jurisdiction will prevail; typically at the 48-hour mark when the jailer, by common law fails to be paid by the State.
We find this time frame quite interesting. They have always held me in solitary confinement for approximately 72 hours before releasing me. To what would you attribute this discrepancy? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful answer to our question.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
