ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 Matters Effecting the Ecclesia
 Changing Christians into LEGAL FICTIONS
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Solace
Regular Member

Canada
40 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2004 :  19:44:48  Show Profile  Click to see Solace's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
Perhaps you people would care to provide scripture that says what you say;

"As a true believer, baptized and all, I certainly can sin because faith does not abrogate free will." ~ Linda June

"Isn't it the heighth of folly and arrogance to say that since the new me cannot sin, then I, Linda June, have not ever sinned since my baptism?" ~ Linda June

"In this carnal spirit our minds are blinded to learning the Biblical Doctrine we MUST have -- we have pushed the Holy Spirit out of our life." ~ halbertson

What you say would be convincing if you could provide a scripture that says what you say.

I know that I have spoken harshly to many of you, with insults even, concerning these matters. Forgive me if you will, but I do become angry when I hear or see someone say or post something that is not true to the gospel. I suspect so does God, so when you say these things, provide a scripture that says what you say, and not simply an interpretation of what you say it says, and you wont incur wrath from the righteous, not me or God. What I have said of the gospel I have provided a scripture for that says the exact same thing that I am saying. For the most part even I haven't had to say anything myself, and have simply posted scriptures. There's lots more where those came from even to support what I say. The scripture is on my side, as is evidenced by the fact that I say exactly what the scripture says.

The facts of the scripture as pertains to the gospel are these: (When I say "We" I mean God's children, you must come to realize whose child you are.)
- We were baptized with Christ, the old man of sin died with him, and we are new creatures through his resurrection.
- We are no longer under the law, we are under grace.
- We cannot sin.

Choose to believe what you will, but all these things that I say I have supported with the scripture, for indeed the scripture said it first.
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2004 :  20:36:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Solace,
may you include Revelations 12:17 in your dogma? And the dragon was wroth with the woman {who is?} and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the COMMANDMENTS of YHWH and have the testimony of Yahushua messiah.
The mystery of iniquity is the mystery of lawlessness.
I'm assuming you keep man's laws.
Why not your Father's?
And when the choice is either caesar's or YHWH's is where the test of loyalty to which kingdom we really are of will be manifest.
To be immersed into messiah empowers one to finally have the power to keep the Law.
The baptism of fire is awaiting, as it was Yahushua, long after John's water dunking.
Roman's 13 which is used as a club by the beast to keep his slaves in his pasture...well, therein, Paul mentions keeping the 10 Commandments.
If the old man has died, it should be a piece of cake to keep all the commandments, as Yahushua did.
Revelations 22:14 Blessed are they that DO his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. Verse 15 applies to those who hate the Law and want no part of the guiding Light of the Law.
There at the end of the book, the Righteous are keeping the commandments of Yah.
Getting saved {modern sense} is only a passport to gain access to be able to walk in the Way, which leads to the celestial city.

Edited by - Robert-James on 18 Nov 2004 20:38:58
Go to Top of Page

halbertson
Regular Member

USA
29 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2004 :  21:22:18  Show Profile  Click to see halbertson's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
Solace said ...

The facts of the scripture as pertains to the gospel are these: (When I say "We" I mean God's children, you must come to realize whose child you are.)
- We were baptized with Christ, the old man of sin died with him, and we are new creatures through his resurrection.
- We are no longer under the law, we are under grace.
- We cannot sin.

Choose to believe what you will, but all these things that I say I have supported with the scripture, for indeed the scripture said it first.

And ... my message display failed to show your scripture references ... ? Be careful about the sin of arrogance.

Regarding a believer sinning ... read I John 1:8 and 1:10, Gal 5:19-21. The Corinthians allowed this to be their life in I Cor 3:1-3. See also I John 1:6.

Carnality comes from the sin nature in the believer ... read Rom 7:15 and 7:17, I Peter 2:22, Rom 3:23.

Sin takes the believer out of fellowship with GOD/Holy Spirit ... read I Cor 3:3 and 3:1. See also I Sam 16:7b. King David certainly admitted this condition in Psalm 38:15-17 and chose to confess in 38:18.

H.
______________________________________

Never let a Minimum-Wage Person upset your day!!
Go to Top of Page

Solace
Regular Member

Canada
40 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2004 :  22:24:06  Show Profile  Click to see Solace's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
How dare you call the scripture dogma? Have not I supported everything that I have said concerning the gospel with scripture that says the EXACT SAME THING? And you would dismiss the scripture as dogma? What sort of evil men are you?

Let us investigate what you just said, "The mystery of iniquity is the mystery of lawlessness." Your words, copied and pasted.

What then does the scripture say concerning this matter?

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,...

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new men, so making peace;

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Call it dogma again will you, you wicked and evil man?

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live with them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Indeed you are as those whom was spoken of in Thessalonians;

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Have I once spoken evil of the law? No, not even once. For the law has its purpose, as the scripture tells us.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

For Christ established the law, that we might be freed from the law. Faith then establishes the law, for all the law is fulfilled in those one thing:

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Think you that I have no love because I speak with harsh words and with righteous anger? Is your insult of me or of the truth?

1 Thessalonians 2:4 But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so speak we; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.
5 For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness:

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

It is for your sakes that I labour here, and not for my own, for I know the truth already. I would have you know it; but you call the scripture dogma, and insult even the Lord with your words.
Go to Top of Page

Solace
Regular Member

Canada
40 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2004 :  22:27:56  Show Profile  Click to see Solace's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
halbertson, I posted the last post before I read your post. All those things that you pointed out that I said concerning the gospel I provided scripture for in earlier posts. Must I continue to repeat myself for sake of your ignorance? Now, I'll go read those scriptures you suggested and post a reply to that later.
Go to Top of Page

Solace
Regular Member

Canada
40 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2004 :  23:27:16  Show Profile  Click to see Solace's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
Halbertson, let's take a look at the scriptures you posted, shall we? When John says in verse 8 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." and in verse 10 "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." He is speaking upon the matter of salvation. The verse in between these two is, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." That is the very act of salvation, the exact context of which John is speaking. Do you suggest to me that then you become saved, and then sin, so you become no longer saved, and then you pray the sinner's prayer to become saved again? Only to sin again and become no longer saved, then pray the sinner's prayer and become saved again? What sad gift is salvation then if it can be traded away so easily?

Galatians 5:19-21 begins with "Now the works of the flesh are manifest,..." and continues. How can the man of the flesh, that dead man which was crucified with Christ, do any of these things? This is not spoken of the sons of God, and we know that, because the verses end with, "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." But we know that the sons of God are made joint-heirs with Christ.

In Corinthians 3:1-3 Paul says that he has fed them with milk. Why should he feed them with milk? Because they were babies (spiritually speaking) and they could not understand the mysteries of the gospel, for surely it is a mystery, even to you today. As babies they did not heed the good word that Paul had given to them, so he had cause to remonstrate with them.

You said, see also 1 John 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:" What are you suggesting here? Is it that I advocated walking in darkness? Show me where I said any such thing? How can I, who cannot sin, walk in darkness?

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I.
And 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

I am truly dumbfounded that you would even post this. Listen to what is being said man, "it is no more I that do it," ergo, Paul cannot sin! The sin is in his flesh, his flesh is dead. Sin hath no power over the dead.

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

This was in reference to Christ, for those not knowing. Again, why you are posting this is beyond me, as it is in no wise contrary to anything that I have said.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

I do believe I said something about this before. I never once said that I have not sinned, I said that I cannot sin. There is a difference. Before I knew Christ and received salvation I sinned daily. Since becoming a joint-heir with him, a son of God; since receiving grace, I have not sinned, for indeed, I cannot sin.

Read 1 Corinthians 3:3, and 3:1 you ask next. Didn't we do this already?

1 Samuel 7(b) ...for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

Was it not also written that, "My word shall I write in their heart, that they might not sin against me."? (Can't remember where it's found, but if you dispute it I'm sure I can find it.)

As for Psalms 38:15-18, did David live before or after the fulfillment of the gospel? By which covenant did he hope? Would you hold David to the precepts of the gospel, when Christ had not already come?

Now, I have addressed every verse that you set forth to be a challenge unto my "dogma" as some would have it, and I have shown the truth of it. Of what sort of mind are you men, that you should seek to use the scripture against scripture? I ask again, did I not provide scripture to support everything that I have said about the gospel? Now then, perhaps instead of attempting to pit the Bible against itself, for truly that cannot be done or else there is no truth in it, you might want to justify the scriptures that I have shown time and again with your own faith. What scriptures are those you say? Scroll up a few posts and read what I have posted. You cannot use God against God, for truly the kingdom of Heaven is not divided.

With that I bid you good night, I am off to bed.
Go to Top of Page

Linda June
Junior Member

USA
22 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  00:30:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hello again.

Thank you Robert James, oneisraelite, and Howard in Dallas for your kind encouragement.

To Solace: I hope you slept well. You wish for scriptures to verify what I describe as personal experience? You know, I've read the bible from cover to cover numerous times, and never once have I seen the name Linda June there. But I've lived my life cover to cover, so far, and I know what I have done. Nevertheless, if you had continued quoting Paul in Romans, Chapter 7, you would have uncovered the very scriptures that verify what I said.

Verse 18 et sequiter: (Not the KJV) "And really, I know of nothing good living in me--in my natural self, that is--for though the will to do what is good is in me, the power to do it is not: the good thing I want to do, I never do; the evil thing which I do not want--that is what I do. But every time I do what I do not want to, then it is not myself acting, but the sin that lives in me. (Here, my footnote says: 'Paul is not denying personal responsibility for evil done, any more than for the good.') So I find this rule: that for me, where I want to do nothing but good, evil is close at my side. In my inmost self I dearly love God's law, but I see that acting on my body there is a different law which battles against the law in my mind. So I am brought to be a prisoner of that law of sin which lives inside my body."

At the time of Paul's dictation of the letter to the Romans, was he not also saved? I believe so. Most of the book of Acts records his salvation experience. Was his salvation lost because he continued to sin on occasion? Of course not. Although, had he never repented of his sins, and if some of them had been sins unto death, I think it possible that he could have. That's just me speaking. Would that make God's plan of salvation pathetic in your eyes? In mine, it powerfully demonstrates our Father's infinite mercy and patience with us weak bags of mud. But Paul speaks in the present tense, so he acknowledges the fact that even saved people can, and do, still sin. It is not Christ's Spirit in them that sins, rather their disordered nature. (See the rest of chapter 7 for verification of my last statement.)

Dearest brother, Solace, what part of Paul's teaching am I misinterpreting? You say "I cannot sin." Perhaps we need a full and complete definition of the pronoun "I." Also, could you point out the scriptures that teach about our free will and whether or not it dies with the old man? I would much appreciate it, thank you.

Now, let's get back to the whole point of this particular forum, which is the conversion of our rightful status of free men into slaves of the total state. Does our Divine Lord usher us into slavery to a New World Order totalitarian state, or do the actions of men, be they by conscious effort or blindness to reality, drag us into it? Does it even matter?

What is your rendition of Scripture on this question, my friend? I'm thinking that much is found in Revelation, but, obviously, I can't be sure.

Linda June
Linda June
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  06:01:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have noted worthwhile exploration into the word “Sinderesis”. Internet search engines have been interesting but especially an old law dictionary definition Vern showed me once. I do not have a copy of the page but it is, or at least once was treated as a medical/psychological malady where one felt compelled to do what one felt was morally correct. That sounds a little funny when I say it. People removing license placards for instance, just because there is no technical law or statute compelling them to subject their property to State ownership and personal usage in a feudal/fealty system of commercial law.

I know the traditional Christian faith has a different interpretation for many a Chapter and Verse than I but I immediately recognized Paul was talking about Sinderesis in Chapter 2 of Romans. Paul addresses this compunction is prevalent in natural law that is recognizable among all people, even Gentiles (pagans).

The word has about fallen out of usage. Maybe Vern can provide that definition he showed me. Searching the Web turns up a lot of Spanish because the spelling is still viable in Spanish. Maybe today it has been replaced with a compulsive disorder of some kind. I had a psychologist I know look for the word and recall he said it is a dead end in modern psychology terms.

The nature of Sinderesis seems to cause this argument every time.

The Compulsive subject who does the correct thing regardless of the consequences, will be able to explain the action with full support of logic and law. [Albeit an appearance before an attorney-in-the-black-robe with fiduciary interests and responsibilities to the Bank and Fund will immediately rule the argument irrelevant.] The tendency for the “healthy” masses to reconcile the logic is to forcefully flee and hide from that truth; that the Compulsive is just doing the correct thing according to law and morality – to protect personal property rights (i.e. to acquire title instead of Certificate of Title from the State).

And of course the 501(C)(3) “Church” is prepared with a completely different interpretation than me, to pull a Grace Card and sing that little ditty, “Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me so.” That in the light of the Savior, we can no longer do any wrong in God’s eyes. So just get the stupid placards on the car like everyone else and await heaven after you die.

It seems the Christians just consider the mystery of the kingdom of heaven solved (Mark 4:10-12). This place belongs to Rome or Satan or Rulers of Darkness or whatever evil and we must die or wait for a supernatural Second Advent before we find that elusive ideology practicable, the kingdom of heaven.

I think it is those who rationalize immoral acts through scripture who delay and abate the Second Advent (in whatever form).


Regards,

David Merrill.

Go to Top of Page

Solace
Regular Member

Canada
40 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  07:07:23  Show Profile  Click to see Solace's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
Why do I continue to post when you do not even read what I post? Linda June, you bring me the same issue that I addressed just last night. I suppose you did read my post, because you knew that I went to sleep. Other than that, I don't know that you paid any attention to my words, because I addressed the issues brought up inverses 15-17, which is the same issue that is brought up in verse 18. And, I say again, Paul said that these sins were in his flesh, which we have been told is the dead man, and that a dead man is freed from sin. Paul also said, and I quote, "it is not I that do it". What here do you not understand? What here is contrary to anything that I have said?

Again, you ignore every scripture that I have posted. Does it do you people good to pretend that the bible does not say, "The children of God cannot sin"? Why do you wish to disprove the very word which you claim to teach? Or did I come to the wrong website? Is it that you do not teach the Bible at all? If so, then my apologies for my mistake, I will take the word of God elsewhere, and you can continue to teach whatever it is you teach without my (and God's) interference.

I have been accused of being arrogant. Is it that I teach the truth and no one (here or anyone else) can prove me wrong? Is it arrogant to speak the word of God? Truly, I speak it with confidence, but only because I believe it. When I read a scripture I believe it. Yet I am the arrogant man for putting God's teaching above the world's (and the church's) foolish beliefs?

No Linda June, I cannot provide you with a scripture that says anything about our free will, and well enough I suppose, since I am not an advocate of free will. I advocate divine will, that is the will of God, which is above all else. I don't believe that I, the man, came to any conclusion or belief in the Bible of my own accord. I believe that when the Holy Spirit comes onto a man the Holy Spirit opens his eyes to the truth. Without the Holy Spirit a man cannot hope to understand the truth of his own accord. How then can I advocate free will, when it was the Holy Spirit that opened my eyes? For truly I was blind until the Holy Spirit came onto me. What credit is there therefore for the man? None, whatsoever, for I am a fool and blind to the word of God. But the Holy Spirit that is in me is wise in everyway to the word of God, and so teaches me what I know. Without it I am nothing, so then what will have I? None, save but to do the Father's will, and even that he put within me.

Again you ask for us to get back to the topic of this thread, to the matter of our place within the world, and what we should do about it. I ask this then; why are you so concerned with the things of this world when you do not even understand the gospel of God?

I do not worry in the least over this world, for I know that the Lord God will protect my salvation above all else. Those who have the blessed assurance know that nothing and no one can take away what God has given me, nay, I cannot even take it away myself. You believe that I teach disolvement of responsibility because I say that I am free from the law? No, I have taught no such thing. I have said that the law is given unto the lawless, because the righteous do not need it. Why do they not? Because God, through the Holy Spirit, gives us the knowledge to know what is right for us to do and what is wrong. We do not need the law, for a new law, the law of love, he has written in our hearts. Thereby I do not need a schoolmaster to tell me what I should or should not do, because I know it already.

I know too that nothing this flesh does can seperate my spirit from God. Think of the gospel in this sense, for this is the simple truth of grace: (I will speak now after the earthly man, so that you understand what I say,) I am a father of a child. I love my child. There is nothing that my child can do that will ever cause me to shut the door of my house to him. So then today, my son goes out and steals a candy bar. He commits what the law has condemned to be a sin. He comes home to me, and I know, being a father wise to my son's heart, that he has stolen a candy bar.

What then do I do when he reaches the door? Do I open the door and let him walk in? Or do I demand that he ask me for forgiveness before I let him walk in, or else I will send him away from my house? You tell me, which would you do?

Myself, I will let him in. He is my son, nothing that he does will ever make me shut the door, no, nor even anything that he does not do. For if he does not ask for forgiveness I will still let him in. When he comes in I will chastise him, and tell him that he should return the candy bar, or else pay the shop keeper for his merchandise. But I will not, not even for an instance, consider shutting my door to him. If my son refuses to do what I tell him to do, I will make him do it. I will take him by the arm, drag him to the shopkeeper if I must, and make him give the candy bar back, or if it is already eaten, I will make him pay for it. Whether or not my son is sorry for his actions is irrelevant, I will still make him pay for it, and I will always let him in my house. If then I, (in the flesh, as I said above,) a vile and wicked man, will treat my son this well, how much better will God, who is righteous through and through, treat his children?

If you said as I did, that you would let your son in your house, why then do you believe that God has less love for you than you do for your own child? If you said that you would shut the door and not let your child in, then truly, you have no love for your child. Don't bother handing me any silliness about teaching him a lesson. If you wish your son to learn a lesson you will let him in and then chastise him, you will not leave him outside the door to learn the lessons of this wicked world.

If what I just said is a problem for you because I did not provide a scripture this time that says the exact same thing then bear in mind I speak using an example. I have used the scripture here time and again and you did not understand. Perhaps if I use an example as simple as this you will understand. Yet I do not blame you if you do not, for truly you will understand nothing if the Holy Spirit does not open your eyes. Pray then for understanding, not for understanding of what I say, but for understanding of the gospel. Do not be too arrogant to pray for it, for surely if you do not pray you will not receive understanding, whether or not I am right or wrong.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  10:32:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have not read the entire thread. I only read a little of your issues with Werner Maximilian. Enough to see why he feels you are 'painfully young' and arrogant.

But certainly I recognize the kind of charismatic cultism, the elite arrogance in your use of prayer that really makes alternatives to Christianity appealing. It's like an anti-ministry. "I will pray for you." or "You should learn how to pray."

You may not even be arguing with Linda June, specially if you are saying the same things. I doubt you are but you feel you are. But telling her to pray for understanding is such an arrogant thing to say. That is just treating her like a kid.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

Solace
Regular Member

Canada
40 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  12:01:27  Show Profile  Click to see Solace's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
No matter what I say I am the arrogant one. I suppose Paul was arrogant when he told others to pray for understanding as well? Or maybe the disciples were? Or even Christ? Did I not even put in the condition that "whether or not I am right or wrong" you should pray for understanding? Yet, even when I say that which is good, you call me evil, or do you not believe arrogance is evil?

The fact is that none of you, not even one of you, can use the scripture to argue against what I say. So instead you call me arrogant and dismiss the truth out of hand. My work here is finished then, and it has been a labour truly in vain. You will not read the scripture, you shut your eyes zealously to the truth, and you call a man arrogant because he teaches the word straight from the book. Oh that men call me evil for Christ's sake.

You have heard the truth of the gospel and you have refused to believe. It had been better for you then had you not heard at all. I understand now why those precious few others who understand the gospel and believe caution me against revealling the truth to the unbeliever, for truly you would have been better off had you never heard it, and I would not have laboured in vain.

I bid you farewell, and may the gods of the unrighteous that you worship lead you well astray. I will not return to even read a reply to this post, I wash my hands of you. Pray for what little hope there is in you that Christ does not do the same. Until we all stand before the one, true and righteous Lord, farewell.
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  12:41:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Come let us reason together…

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [G1378] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

G1378
dogma

Thayer Definition:
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment


Definition #2 has been taken, by some, to mean the Ten Commandments of Yahowah. However, the “rest of the story” is found in the very next verse, which tells us how Yahowshua blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that were against us. By knowing how he blotted them out, we, by extrapolation, will know what "laws" were blotted out.

having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Let us now look at a Literal Translation of that verse…

having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it.

Let us now determine if the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic laws are one and the same, and if not, what exactly are they? With this understanding we will then know what “law” it is that that Shaul/Paul tells us we are no longer “under”.

LAW, n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from L. statuo.]
8. Moral law, a law which prescribes to men their religious and social duties, in other words, their duties to God and to each other.
The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue or ten commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on mount Sinai.
13. Mosaic law, the institutions of Moses, or the code of laws prescribed to the Jews
[Editor’s note: Obviously this “code of laws” was not originally “prescribed to the Jews” since there were no “Jews” at that time. They were prescribed to the Hebrews or Yisra’elites, the citizens of Yahowah’s Kingdom, but we shall forgive old Noah, for we have all been deceived by this word at one time or another.]

MOSA'IC, a. s as z. [L. musivum.]
1. Mosaic work is an assemblage of little pieces
2. [from Moses.] Pertaining to Moses, the leader of the Israelites; as
the Mosaic law, rites or institutions.

LAW, n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from L. statuo.]
14. Ceremonial law, the Mosaic institutions which prescribe the external rites and ceremonies to be observed by the Jews,
as distinct from the moral precepts, which are of perpetual obligation.
[Editor’s note: Obviously this “code of laws” was not initially “observed by the Jews” since there were no “Jews” at that time. They were observed by the Hebrews or Yisra’elites.]

PRE'CEPT, n. [L. proeceptum, from proecipio, to command; proe, before, and capio, to take.]
1. In a general sense, any commandment or order intended as an authoritative rule of action; but applied particularly to commands respecting moral conduct.
The ten commandments are so many precepts for the regulation of our moral conduct.

If one follows the reasoning shown in the above collage, or mosaic, one sees that the Ten Commandments of Yahowah are of “perpetual obligation”. This is why we see all of them reiterated in the New Covenant/Testament. The Mosaic law [the little pieces], or the “external rites and ceremonies” on the other hand, are not; this is why we see Yahowshua and his disciples apparently breaking at least some them. This is why we see Joshua [Yahowshua] and David, in the Old Covenant/Testament, apparently breaking at least some of them. As the saying goes, “rules are made to be broken”, i.e. they are changeable.

The governments of men, both ecclesiastical and secular, sit on Mosheh’s [Moses’] seat. All of their so-called “ codified laws” should be in accordance to, harmonious with, the Eternal Moral Law of Yahowah [the Ten Commandments], which of course they are not! Even those that are, they themselves do not adhere to. [Check and see how many so-called “laws” your congress has passed for “persons”, that they purposefully exempted themselves from obeying. Guaranteed, it will shock most!] Thus, if the governments of men [ecclesiastical or secular] enact “laws” that are not harmonious with the Moral Law, we are not obligated to follow such laws. This is why we read in the New Covenant/Testament, such things as, We ought to obey Yahowah [God] rather than men, and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar Why? Because we are instructed not to follow a multitude to do evil, and evil is transgression of the Eternal Moral Law, the Ten Commandments of Yahowah. One is able to see these “codified laws”, these "institutional laws of men", from Mosheh [Yisra’el] to Hammurabi [BABYON], to the Pharisees [JERUSALEM], the Roman Catholic Church [ROME], to the Holy Roman Empire [GERMANY], to the U.C.C. [UNITED STATES], and on and on, and all over the place, ad nauseum.

If one follows the Moral Law or Ten Commandments of Yahowah, in spirit, which means, to the best of one’s ability with the understanding one has, one is…

GOOD, a. 4. Having moral qualities best adapted to its design and use, or the qualities which God's law requires; virtuous; pious; religious; applied to persons, and opposed to bad, vicious, wicked, evil.
[Editor’s note: One sees from the end of this definition what one is if one is not obedient, in spirit, to the Moral Law of Yahowah.]

MOR'AL, a. [L. moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and
with reference to right and wrong.

RIGHTEOUS, a. ri'chus.
1.
Just; accordant to the divine law.

VIR'TUOUS, a.
1.
Morally good; acting in conformity to the moral law; practicing the moral duties, and abstaining from vice; as a virtuous man.
2.
Being in conformity to the moral or divine law; as a virtuous action; a virtuous life.

Shaul/Paul said: All things are lawful for me... Are we to think that murder, rape and incest are "lawful" to Shaul/Paul? Yahowah forbid! However, providing he is obedient to the Moral Law of Yahowah...nothing is "illegal" for him, and he is not under the power of anyone or anything.
What he, in truth, says here is that all things are “let” to me.
LET, v.t. pret. and pp. let. Letted is obsolete. [To let out, like L. elocare, is to lease.] 1. To permit; to allow; to suffer; to give leave or power by a positive act, or negatively, to withhold restraint; not to prevent.

If one does not obey, in spirit, the Moral Law, the Ten Commandments of Yahowah then one is…

WICKED, a. [The primary sense is to wind and turn, or to depart, to fall away.]
1.
Evil in principle or practice; deviating from the divine law; addicted to vice; sinful; immoral. This is a word of comprehensive signification, extending to every thing that is contrary to the moral law

IMMOR'AL, a. [in and moral.] Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious. Every action is immoral which contravenes any divine precept, or which is contrary to the duties which men owe to each other.
[Editor’s note: This is where we finally see that the “moral law” and the so-called “divine law” are one and the same in Noah Webster's definitions.]

FOOL'ISH, a.
5. In scripture, wicked; sinful;
acting without regard to the divine law

…or behaves…

WRONGFULLY, adv. Unjustly; in a manner contrary to the moral law or to justice


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Nov 2004 13:53:02
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  12:55:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thus we should be able to see now why a government that forbids the Ten Commandments in both their schools and their courts is inherently evil, it is of the prince of the world, who has no part in, nor wants any part in, Yahowah’s Eternal Moral Law, the Ten Commandments, or His Anointed!!
Hence, as Linda June so succinctly points out, it would be evil to attach oneself to such a government and be obedient to it, for where would one draw the line?
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.



fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  15:32:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To Solace;

I will admit that I have associated you with a prominent 'anti-minister' in my past who would say the same things as you.

So just understand that I said what I said because you seem so arrogant, the things you are saying and the way you say them.

Was Paul arrogant? You bet. Paul was a coward and a thief. I have already expressed my take on some of the interpretations of scripture that I buy into for real. I just think that inductive mathematics and logic can be applied to the Gospels to discern how much alteration they have suffered. [A great book on that is The Nazarene Gospel Restored by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro.] If you look at the way God used Paul that is a major testimony that God does not look into us to be impressed by our character. That we lean upon His grace even with weaknesses like Paul exhibited, that is really astounding.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2004 :  18:28:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Did we hear right? Someone wanted chapter and verse listed?

Easton’s Bible Dictionary
King
Is in Scripture very generally used to denote one invested with authority, whether extensive or limited.


Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahowah, and against his anointed

Isaiah 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that Yahowah shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against Yahowah, and against his anointed….

Revelation 17:1b-2 Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication

Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Revelation 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning

Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
P`ASTOR, n. [L. from pasco, pastum, to feed.]
1. A shepherd; one that has the care of flocks and herds.
2. A minister of the gospel who has the charge of a church and congregation, whose duty is to watch over the people of his charge, and instruct them in the sacred doctrines of the christian religion.


Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions
H7462 ra'ah
1) to pasture, tend, graze, feed
1a1b) of ruler, teacher


Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
H7462 ra'ah ...generally to rule...


*Strange, it would appear that Easton’s Bible Dictionary wanted no part in defining this word, “pastor”.

Jeremiah 2:8 The priests said not, Where is Yahowah? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Baal
Lord.


Jeremiah 10:21 For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought Yahowah: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language
BRU'TISH, a.
1. Insensible; stupid...
2. Unfeeling; savage; ferocious; brutal.
3. Gross; carnal; bestial.
4. Ignorant; uncivilized; untaught.


Jeremiah 12:10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness.

Jeremiah 22:22 The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness.

Jeremiah 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith Yahowah.

Jeremiah 23:2 Therefore thus saith Yahowah ‘Elohiym of Yisra’el against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith Yahowah.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Nov 2004 19:06:03
Go to Top of Page

Linda June
Junior Member

USA
22 Posts

Posted - 20 Nov 2004 :  00:06:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you, oneisraelite. Actually, I understand, contrary to Solace's rigid opinions and twisted accusations, the scriptures pertaining to the topic at hand, and even the non-topic he was interjecting (for the purpose of misdirection and diversion from something true but scary to people, maybe?), but I appreciate your input, especially about the pastors. I see them being set up to urge their flocks to take the mark of the beast.

After all, they will argue, we must obey every whim of the "government." And there will be plenty of Solaces in the world, thinking that even when they sin they are not sinning, and who will take the mark because it will be the path of least resistance and, to them, no sin at all. Once saved, always saved, eh? What about all those people who will/have apostasized as Our Lord predicted? Apostasy (I'm sure oneisraelite can provide the scholarly and correct definitions here) means to have believed once and chosen to abandon that belief in Jesus, doesn't it? So will they be saved on the Last Day?

Maybe the term "salvation" refers to the destination of the journey, not the entire journey itself?

So, do you all think that refusing the legal fiction conversion to an identity that has your name only spelled in all capital letters makes a difference one way or another? Is it the mark itself, do you suppose, or maybe a pre-conditioner to it?
Linda June
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 20 Nov 2004 :  09:07:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Linda June

I too appreciate that Solace gave us the chance to study more. I won't touch the last paragraph (of your last post) except to say this walk we walk is sooooo individual but sooooo dependent on one another. A conundrum to be sure if our first love is not Him. Seek ye first ...

Salvation is what the woman who touched the hem of His garment received, what the centurians' servant, the blind men and the others got from the re-introduction of the Kingdom.

Sin separates you from Him, cut off, see Cain, Korah, Ananais and Saphira, etc.

His Spirit strives with us although not forever. Let's keep researching His government and try to learn to love one another while operating in stealth mode the best we can for now.

TN
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 20 Nov 2004 :  13:43:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Linda June:
Peace be unto the house.
You are very welcome; but all thanks and glory go to Him who sends us.
As to the topic at hand, it is as simple as this: absolute control goes only to him or it that creates a thing, thus in order for kosmokrator (world ruler, an epithet of satan) to have unrestricted dominion, he or it, had to create man in his own image. Since he cannot yet create life out of “red dirt”, his or its, only other option was to create an image and then trick us into standing surety for it. Pretty ingenious actually.
A pastor is a shepherd, the keeper of the flock, and just like a real shepherd, who takes his sheep to greener pastures and protects them; he is to be their titular (in name only) ruler/teacher. The good shepherd of course will give his life for his sheep [perhaps killing a lion with his bare hands], while the bad shepherd will give his sheep for his own life [self-interest]; the mirror-image.
If one is attached to the beast, then one’s head, his highest or first magistrate, [master] the top shepherd, if you will, is the PRESIDENT of the corporation; we then wend our way down near the bottom rungs and find the “pastors [shepherds] of the local flocks” [churches], who for the most part have ignored the instructions to marry [incorporate] him who has ascended to the throne (Romans 7:4) and have instead become one with kosmokrator and now do his [or its] will. Hence, we shall see them actually encouraging their “sheeple” to take the mark of the beast, for this is the will of their master. This, “once saved always saved” concept is an easy way to tempt the members of their flock to go ahead and take the mark. But if one thinks about it, it is akin to a 14th Amendment citizen being instructed that it is okay to take the mark of Saddam Hussein, and give him solace and aid; George won’t mind, he’ll still save you. Let us just say, this is not very likely. It is more likely that after having done so that George might say something like, “depart from me, ye that work iniquity”.
As to apostasy, we first encounter it at Deuteronomy 13:5, but in the KJV it was translated “to turn you away”. It is the Hebrew word sarah, [this should probably be surah] and according to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions it means, “defection”. And old Noah Webster hits the nail right on the head for us.
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
DEFECTION, n. 1. Want or failure of duty; particularly, a falling away; apostasy; the act of abandoning a person or cause to which one is bound by allegiance or duty, or to which one has attached himself.
Our defection from God is proof of our depravity.
What, you say; when did I defect from “God”? Might we remind you that Shaul/Paul CORRECTLY states, “there be gods many”. The defection is only indirectly from Yahowshua [JESUS], His Principle Officer [High Priest], but it is directly from Yahowah Himself, in the form of, “we shall not have this one to reign over us”. We, meaning the vast majority, still to this day, choose to obey the “creature”, in the form of “governments of men” rather than the “Creator” who is blessed for ever; amein, just as the ancient Yisra’elites did in 1Shama’el [Samuel] 8:4-20; “nothing new under the sun” as the Supreme Suveran has stated. Same old story, revolution after revolution [year after year], we sell our selves into bondage for “naught”, time and time again.

quote:
So will they be saved on the Last Day?

That, dear sister, is not for me to decide. Keep in mind that he calls each of us at different hours of the day. This is why we do not hate Solace, though he may think so, for it may be the will of the Father of the commonwealth of Yisra’el [the Nation], that he be called later in the day. We are instructed not to try to separate the “wheat” (sheep) from the “tares” (goats) for a very good reason; until they come to maturity one cannot be absolutely, certain which is wheat, and which is weed.

As to salvation, using the “first appearance rule” we see that salvation is not some hocus pocus, ghostly thing. It first appears in Exodus and it is the act of taking us out of bondage. And before we hear the “religious clap trap” of “the bondage of our sins”, is that the bondage spoken of in the “first appearance rule”? No, it is the bondage of Yahowah’s citizens to another ‘elohiym [god/ruler]. Basically, He says, “Hey, Pharaoh [a kosmokrator], who do you think you are, punk? Those are My ignorant, slothful People you are enslaving!! No one, and I mean no one, owns them but Me! Here, let Me demonstrate for you what happens when someone takes My citizens [peculiar people] into bondage”.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary’s first definition of “salvation” corroborates this:
Salvation
This word is used of the deliverance of the Israelites from the Egyptians (Exo_14:13), and of deliverance generally from evil or danger
.
quote:
So, do you all think that refusing the legal fiction conversion to an identity that has your name only spelled in all capital letters makes a difference one way or another? Is it the mark itself, do you suppose, or maybe a pre-conditioner to it?

Regardless, of how they spell your name, the answer, in our humble opinion, is an emphatic, yes; it is taking the mark of another ‘elohiym [god/ruler] and Yahowah has said: And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and Yahowah will not hear you in that day.
As to the ss# being the mark of the beast, it is, again in our humble opinion, that it was the “pre-conditioner” [Remember how they started it, “Not to be used for identification”], and will somehow be incorporated into the, more or less, permanent mark. This number, like the white stone of the Holy Roman Empire of Yahowshua’s time of ascension to the throne, is the mark of a master. One must display [right hand] or memorize [forehead] that number in order to receive “benefits” from their master. [This “system” is in 180 or 193 “countries” thus far, we are informed.]
A brother we know has been recently arrested for not providing the agents of kosmokrator with a ss#, and the charges against him, though more wordy than what we are about to use, amount to sedition against the government [of man].
Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect [party] of the Nazarenes [G3480].
G3480, Nazoraios
Thayer Definition:

Nazarite = “one separated”

…or, in the plural, “ones separated”. In order for us to follow the Lawful Counsellor’s advice we must determine what exactly “BABYLON” is. For Yahowah has told us…
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahowah, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons [children] and daughters [inhabitants], saith Yahowah Almighty.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Father
A name applied
(2.) as a title of respect to a chief, ruler
...
Basically, kosmokrator is saying that though we have “sold ourselves for nought”, Yahowah cannot “redeem us without money”. (Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 52:3) Essentially, “he” is saying that we cannot return to the King de jure [Melchisedec] under any circumstances. We shall see about that!!
This is tough for everyone to understand, for the Scriptural language contains much in the form of allegories, thus it is parables within allegorical language [We see Hebrew allegories within the Greek writings, which indicates that it was more than likely originally written in Hebrew].
This is kinda’ like if we said, “You are thick as a brick!” Those reading the black and white marks on the page would respond, “I am not thick, I am thin. And I am not a brick, I am flesh and blood.” So when someone tells them, “No, no, I am saying that you are very difficult to connect with mentally, in order to convey concepts”, they adamantly respond with…"Well, that’s your private interpretation of what was said!!”
We hope this has answered your questions, and has been helpful in some small way.
- brother Robert:


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 20 Nov 2004 18:30:03
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 20 Nov 2004 :  20:18:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks oneisraelite;

Very succinct and thorough. Using the first appearance rule for the term salvation fits the gospel of the Kindom.





TN
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 21 Nov 2004 :  07:38:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
We would like to extend personal greetings to a brother and sister who have just joined us under the name of xyz1314. [We shall let them give you their proper names as they see fit.] These are people who both have suffered for the re-establishment of the Kingdom here on earth, with smiles on their faces and songs on their lips [Literally!]. We love you both.
True North, we are glad that you found at least some of the previous post edifying.
Here is a bit more on apostasy. We see in two verses of the Old Covenant/Testament that the Hebrew word for "apostasy" is twice translated as “revolt”.
Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken Yahowah, they have provoked the Set Apart One of Yisra'el unto anger, they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt [H5627] more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. Yasha’yahu 1:4-5
Could this be America [as well as other nations, of course]?
In transgressing and lying against Yahowah, and departing away from our ’Elohiym, speaking oppression and revolt [H5627], conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. Yasha’yahu 59:13
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
REVOLT, v.i. [L. revolvo; re and volvo, to turn. Eng. wallow.]
2. To renounce allegiance and subjection to one's prince or state; to reject the authority of a sovereign; as a province or a number of people. It is not applied to individuals
.
[Ed. Note: We find it interesting that Noah does not think that it applies to individuals, and whether this is accurate or not, we have yet to ascertain.]
4. In Scripture, to disclaim allegiance and subjection to Yahowah [God]; to reject the government of the King of kings. Isa 31. [Ed. Note: Ineffable Name added to this definition.]
Perhaps we should all read that last line once more; “to reject the government of the King of kings”.
Wow!! No clarification needed there!!
We oft times wonder, just how much old Noah knew and understood. Could one "rightly divide" [dissect] virtually every Word of the Scripture and come away with anything but the Truth? We wonder.
Is this why Noah had no defintion for the name JESUS in his 1828 Dictionary? It evidently did not show up in Webster's Dictionary until 70 years after Noah's death (1843 A.D.).


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Nov 2004 08:15:36
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.64 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000