| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Linc |
Posted - 29 Jan 2005 : 17:42:48
A question for the Ecclesia.quote:
Ezra 9:12 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
Nehemiah 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.
Suppose an Israelite man married a woman of Ham. He took her into his house, bringing her out of her own land, and she bore him children. Immediately after his life was filled with curses. After a few years of such cursing the man was led by the grace of God out of the darkness of ignorance, and read the Bible with its correct genetic meaning, and learnt with joy that God still allowed us to obey his Torah.
The Israelite lives in a nation that is ruled by the daughter of Babylon. Laws have been set in place to prevent him from sending away the daughter of Ham. Laws have been put in place to devour his substance if he should put her away. Whether the taxation is called "child support" or "ten year sponsorship agreement", he will be so effectively tied down that he won't be able to marry a good Israelite woman and support her children for another twenty years, when his life is more than half over.
In agony, the man read the following procedure:quote:
Genesis 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
Seeking repentance, the man lives separately from the woman for a time. God blesses him with work. The Israelite man starts paying her enough to stay off welfare, a large chunk of his income. Should he stop, she would go on welfare and the money would be owed the government, through the sponsorship agreement. And even when that ended, a woman must sign over all her legal rights to the government before receiving its money. The government aggressively uses these rights to pursue fertile, working Israelite men.
The monthly payments, together with his living expenses, prevent the man from paying his accumulated debts or making any headway toward being self-supporting. The woman herself has flaws, but is honorable, and does not seek to make life hard for the Israelite man. She does refuse to return to her own land, and actively seeks to seduce another Israelite man, for she prefers Israelite men to the men of her own people.
The man wonders what to do. He has cut his own life to the bare minimum; every cost has been cut, with the skill of one who survived for years on welfare. Should he formalize the separation with a government issued certificate of divorce? Should he stop paying her altogether, waiting for the daughter of Babylon to pursue him in her courts? Is there a better strategy altogether? Should the man put out word and ask for holy prayer on his behalf?
This is a real world scenario; the answers we come up with could help many who have fallen into sin. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| mobilewalt |
Posted - 21 Mar 2005 : 01:06:51
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the marriage license (acquired from the "county" which is currently run by the "state") a three party civil (i.e. Roman) contract between the man, the woman, and the state?
Most (everyone I know) that got license to marry from the state was not told that it was a three party civil contract. In total, I was led to believe that:
1. We were REQUIRED by “LAW” to get a marriage license.
2. The acquisition of a marriage license was acceptable when referenced against the Scriptures.
3. It was our duty to get married according to the laws of the “State” (get a marriage license) in order to be right with “God.”
4. The “State” promotes and enforces the “Law of God” in accordance to the teachings and instructions contained in the Scriptures.
5. The United States is a “Christian Nation.”
6. The “State,” the “United States,” and the “governments” thereof have jurisdiction over me, my wife and other Believers.
7. The “State” is NOT a party to the marriage (contract).
8. Marriage is NOT a civil contract, but a requirement ordained by the Most High Creator, Author, and Finisher.
9. The government generally (and the Courts specifically) are NOT a religion (especially separate and contrary to the will of the Most High Creator, Author, and Finisher.
However, we all know that:
1. We, (my wife and I) were NOT required to get a marriage license EVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR LAW.
2. The acquisition of a marriage license is contrary to the Scriptures.
3. The Scriptures warn against any “laws” contrary to His (i.e. get a marriage license).
4. The “State” promotes and enforces another “Law” which is contrary to The Most High’s Teaching and Instruction.
5. The United States is NOT a “Christian Nation.”
6. The “State,” the “United States,” and the “governments” thereof have NO jurisdiction over me, my wife and other Believers, but rather exercise, promote, and enforce another religion in violation to their own laws and constitutions (i.e. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof;”)
7. The “State” is party to the (marriage) contract.
8. Marriage is a civil contract.
9. The government generally (and the Courts specifically) are a religion (especially separate and contrary to the will of the Most High Creator, Author, and Finisher).
I know that this doesn’t apply in some instances (i.e. inter-racial marriages), but thought I might share it. Ask your local cleric (clerk) of court about the above. I have written three. So far only one has responded. He responded as such:
"Thank you for your recent letter.
The function of the Clerk of Courts to perform duties as set forth in Florida law. Ours is a ministerial office, meaning we neither make nor interpret the law. The legislature enacts laws and the courts interpret them. Thus your questions are outside the purview of the Clerk’s function.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the statements in your letter. It is, however, inappropriate for me to comment on the substantive issues you raise.
I wish you well in your endeavors."
Note that his office is ministerial.
Note also that these issues are substantive.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 05 Feb 2005 : 05:40:27
quote:
You say the [race] issue has been discussed and beaten to death lately; I heartily regret bringing it up, but it is a matter of personal interest to me, and I don't frequent the same forums as you.
I regret not being able to leave it alone myself. For the most part, it was being worn out on "Original War by Propaganda" because I wanted to probe deeply into the faith issue - research. This Topic seems quite suited to go into putting away one's foreign wife.
quote:
Earlier I said:
Logically if they were mixing, regulated or not, that would change the people racially anyway. Mixing different races into the clan. But the clan could as a body politic keep its identity in its statehood.
And therefore it is obvious I cannot deny race has a role - the requirement of license. Regulation. And that is what you bring up again, the regulations stipulated by Torah.
With that already agreed upon, I figured your interest was solving a 'kharmic debt' or curse incurred upon the opening Topic situation about a white man marrying a black woman. Because she is eligible if not entitled to State bennys and he seems subject to the enforcement of palimony and/or child support, I presume there is a State marriage license in place. They went to the county clerk and swore out a license and got State approval for the racial intermarriage.
Therefore my initial response was for the problem to be examined more in light of how the State is now functioning as the Israelite priests did, approving a racial intermarriage. In the incident here though, it would be appropriate to seek some kind of approval? Maybe not. Considering a couple white or black steps up to the same counter and swears out the same oath identically?
Does not that constitute malfeasance on the priest's part, the State? To just say, "Oh well. If they want to pay $25 to let us regulate their marriage as a third party in the wedding bed*, fine. We will take it if they are too stupid to regulate their own life. Or go to the proper ecclesiastical witness and regulation that is supposed to be 'out there'."
Think about it. The entire regulation of War and Emergency Powers is a good thing if there is no responsible civil authority and infrastructure 'out there' for the de facto State to turn authority over to.
That was the question I begged of your situation. If the man is competent he should consider things in terms of contract. Does the State owe to provide for the woman? Does this obligate the man to the State to allow her on welfare? Questions like that.
I tend to mitigate subjective Bible arguments. Like race. In this instance as far as the State contracts, obligations to perform verses benefits, there is very little relevance what color the people are.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I noted in King David with Richard Gere the priests actually watched to be certain (at least with a king) that the marriage was consummated. Also in the Torah we find the bridal sheets from the wedding night are retained by the parents of the bride for evidence of virginity/purity. In The Nazarene Gospel Restored one is readily convinced Jesus' "baptism" was much the same coronation/marriage as with David a thousand years prior. John was a priest (son of Zachariah). And because of purity laws, that coitus was delayed. Because of the new king 'born' in Israel (not born in the flesh of a king) the Baptism contained an element of Jesus being "born again" and that brought out the required cleansing period upon the closest mother figure - Mary Magdalene.
That gave way to a whole slew of Virgin Birth rumors later. The hymen and amnion rupture simultaneously at I John:
quote:
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (emphasis mine)
See how wonderfully the truth is encrypted in parabola (first derivative) only to be later decrypted (capital integration)? Just like Jesus said in Mark 4:10-12
quote:
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mr 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Integration.jpg
Capital Integration Picture
The Hapsburg Dynasty alone has spawned over 19 Kings of Jerusalem.
quote:
The Rosicrucian Manual; AMORC 1918 p. 129 Bio of author Dr. H. Spencer Lewis
After many years of continuous scientific and psychic research, even in the fields of wireless (radio) when this science was little known, he made his first contact with the work of the Rosicrucians through obtaining copies of the secret manuscripts of the first American Rosicrucians, who established their headquarters near Philadelphia in 1694. A member of the English Branch which sponsored the frist movement in America, Mrs. Colonel May Banks Stacey, descendant of Oliver Cromwell and the D'Arcys of France, placed in his hands such papers as had been officially transmitted to her by the last of the first American Rosicrucians, with the Jewel and the Key of authority received by her from the Grand Master... (emphasis mine)
So it is obvious that not only race plays an important role but Bloodline too. The Americans (Crown Templars) and France made a private accord in 1975 effectively removing gold as a fixed exchange rate during amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (the "secret" Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord) - leaving SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) on human flesh and bone to traffick for the new 'floating' exchange rate. Whenever Clinton got worried about economics he called exclusively on Jacques Chirac for counsel. Therefore the role of nation/states as well. Describing the discipline infrastructure on p. 74:
AT THE CLOSE OF THE NINTH DEGREE
quote:
Members who attain and complete the phychic instruction of the Ninth Degree or those above it may enter the ILLUMINATI, which is a higher organization of the Order wherein the worthy Members continue to carry on the specialized work and studies under the direction of the Imperator of their Jurisdiction and the personal Cosmic Masters. Members cannot ask for admission to the Illuminati but must wait until they have been found ready and are invited to share in this additional work.
There is a strong sense of competent witness that is now provided by the State instead of priests.
|
| Linc |
Posted - 04 Feb 2005 : 22:03:09
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Very well then. Before I stand corrected though, there has been a great deal of discussion lately about the distinction of race or nation. Many people have evaluated the Bible to be speaking of race when it is speaking of nations.
I see no distinction between a race and a nation. It is a genetic construct, tied together by blood. In the Septuagint version of Ezra it becomes plain that even the Edomites, Israel's blood kin, were considered "people of the land" and not fit for marriage.
However, note also that the Egyptians and Edomites, Israels blood kin, were allowed in after three generations of dilution. This speaks to it being less reproachable to marry out into a related race. Everyone else required ten generations of dilution before being able to come in.
Is it not obedience to the Law of Loving your Brother, and Honoring your Father and Mother, to marry your close kin? By marrying far away, do you not show an internal repugnance and hatred of your own kind, and therefore, of your own self?
Reading Clement, Augustine, and others of the early Christian era it is evident that even they understood the Bible to be racial, with their frequent references to the Holy Race, or ethnos.
God himself separated the races; Babel was a vile attempt to thwart God's plan of racial diversity.
You say the issue has been discussed and beaten to death lately; I heartily regret bringing it up, but it is a matter of personal interest to me, and I don't frequent the same forums as you. If you point me to them, I'll try to educate myself before replying further.
If the differences were only political/religious and not racial, why was it that only white female prisoners were allowed to be taken as wives? The head shaving was an important tactic for ensuring the captive females were not trying to raise their status from slavery by passing as white.
God bless. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 09:09:58
quote:
David said: Logically if they were mixing, regulated or not, that would change the people racially anyway. Mixing different races into the clan. But the clan could as a body politic keep its identity in its statehood...... Now that I have been examining the Bible models it seems clear that differences of peoples in the Bible were nations/states rather than by race.
Steve: Yes. You have hit the nail on the head. The scriptures are clear on this. A great deal of the Bible was written to reflect the era it was composed in, then projecting those ideas back in time on to the characters. With that in mind one can see that the final redactors were trying to tell us something about their genetics when they wrote Judges 3:5-6 or Hosea when it is written "Ephraim begat strange children". What about Judah who “went in to” the Canaanite woman he took for a wife? Where was YHWH’s wrath there? YHWH even choose Saul, who was a Canaanite/Israelite mix, to be the first King of the nation. Surely YHWH did not hold this against Saul personally (why would He? Saul had no say in his genetics).. These are but a few examples but the idea is the same. Religious purity is what is demanded once one is either forced into conversion (enemy virgin female prisoners), born into the people-hood, or converted upon heart-felt request. It would also benefit any Anglo-Israelist to understand why the few Indo-Europeans listed in the Bible are scripted as the enemies of the Israelites and how it all plays into the struggle for the control of Jerusalem's holy sites... and ultimately the world. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 19:14:35
Very well then. Before I stand corrected though, there has been a great deal of discussion lately about the distinction of race or nation. Many people have evaluated the Bible to be speaking of race when it is speaking of nations. Colonial America may have been interpreting race to be the basis of regulation when careful examination of the context means what I have been saying to be clans; nations. Like the Hittites or Israelites.
Logically if they were mixing, regulated or not, that would change the people racially anyway. Mixing different races into the clan. But the clan could as a body politic keep its identity in its statehood. So maybe I have made enough sense not to go around this block again. It seems as though the issue has been beat to death lately.
Maybe there were curses that the White subject now relates to marrying a Black woman. I think not. Not that can be related to Biblical models. Now that I have been examining the Bible models it seems clear that differences of peoples in the Bible were nations/states rather than by race.
My point is to examine the problem, identifying it in contract terms. There are alway benefits in return for obligations to perform in any contract.
|
| Linc |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 18:46:37
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
That sounds like the origins of "Marriage License". Regulation of marrying outside the Clan or People-hood.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, a marriage license started out as a permit for an interracial marriage, and was only granted at the discretion of the governor. That is how marriage license was understood in colonial America. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 16:35:14
That sounds like the origins of "Marriage License". Regulation of marrying outside the Clan or People-hood. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 09:17:49
David said: So the model is nonsensical.
Steve: Agreed. The post-exilic Israelites, judging from the inter-marriages with various Canaanites and Levant locals, were not a "race" but rather a unique ethnic mixture which had very defined rules for "non-Israelite" blood entering into the people-hood. The Torah has codes for this. They had forced conversions with virgin female prisoners which brought various other peoples into the gene pool. They had other stipulations as well. They had examples where heart-felt converts declared “my people are now your people and my God is now your God”…. Did this unique post-exilic ethnic blend develop strong nationalistic attitudes when it came to their covenant, it‘s laws as it relates to the Israelite people-hood? For the most part, yes. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 31 Jan 2005 : 18:18:48
This may not be practical advice but...
The institution of marriage has been sealed by two or three witnesses. This goes back into the ancient biblical law and beyond, considering Abram came into Canaan with the laws of Ur, Chaldea (near modern day Kuwait) - the Code of Hammurabi. As Joshua came into Canaan and met mostly in battle with the peoples there, these people were large Clans, extended families. Levitical laws were set up for the Israelite Clan to prevent disruption to genetics (inbreeding closer than cousins). For people to remain strong, even the Hittites and Jebusites must have been aware that incest was bad.
So the convention of licensure is likely nearly as old in law. That is to say if one wanted to marry outside his Clan, to intermarry counsel and approval were attributes. Samson and Delila may be a symbolic warning about marrying out of Clan against elders, parents and priest license. Certainly Genesis 6 being the Sons of Seth lusting after the Daughters of Cain bringing about the Deluge is to be noticed. However, God rescinded the law and punishment of drowning; Genesis 9.
In 1933 under War and Emergency Powers, licensure over travel and marriage became the same requirement as for the German National in 1917. It was the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 amended to make the requirement on all subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. However we would find I am sure that people were already under the impression that it was civil to get marriage licenses and even birth certificates prior to 1933, if even just for county recording purposes. Even Roosevelt was not godly enough to start completely new conventions under War acts.
Notice how the County Clerk and Recorder (Department of Health) published record of my true name "David Merrill" within my presumed legal name for commercial contracting and then turned over a commercial Strawman to the State of Colorado:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg
There is a convention called parens patraea - the State as Father. It has its uses for controlling water for the common welfare and other common utilities. Couples in love are conditioned to think that the State is a competent witness and regulator of thier marital contract. Consider that prior to maybe 1900 and even now if you look in a Bible at the Marriage Certificate there is no place for the Great Seal of Authority of the State but two witness lines. Consider what is the function of the two witnesses? It should be obvious that with a firm sense of Clan, ecclesiastical relationship in community, that the witnesses would step forward and restate the vows they witnessed and affirm the parties' identities should accusations of malfeasance in marital duties arise. Well, now you see what the State does today in the minds of most people and wed couples.
I was celebrated a male sex symbol in my younger days. I will keep the details to myself but kind of like a Centerfold. This led to an interesting invitation to perform a wedding in Arizona. I wed a couple in a large dance hall celebration saying, "By the power of the witnesses here I now pronounce you husband and wife". I just inherently sensed that since I had never been 'ordained' by the State of Arizona, it would have been improper to claim power from that state. But what was I to do? I knew without an enacting clause my pronouncement would be empty as the wind.
I will offer an opinion and hope it helps. I presume we are talking about a White Man (Israelite) and a Black Woman (Hamite). These distinctions are apples and oranges. So the model is nonsensical. The "Israelites" would logically be classified with Jebusites, Hittites, Amalekites... Likewise the "Hamites" would be classified with Japhethites and Semites - Genesis 9-10. Since even the Genesis 6 offense was more likely about worship and relationship to God rather than race (were the Sethites a different race than the Cainites?), one should consider most of the above premises moot. The subject is probably better to look at the institution of marriage and the State (benefits against obligations to perform in contract) rather than to examine the issue in terms of race; black and white.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
