| Author |
 Topic  |
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 10:24:17
|
oneisraelite,
I.E. your note ... [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.]
Maybe old Noah was pulling from the accumulated efforts of Kittel and Friedrich who produced the 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament'. Namely the Greek word with Strong's number 4172 - polis.
For example where Paul states in Acts 21:39 ... "I am a man ... a citizen <4177- polites; TDNT-6:516) of (no mean) city <4172 - polis; TDNT-6:516) and my ... "conversation (4175 - politeuma, citizenship) [Ed. Note: The issue of Paul being a citizen not settled by the members of this forum aside ... Paul could easily be stating the notorious (historic) concept of citizenship in the re-established Kingdom and verifying that he has no citizenship in a Roman province].
The Greek word with Strong's number 4172 - polis, comes from the Hebrew root 5782 and 5783 - oor, according to Strong. The connotation of a watchful polites - 4177 (citizen) of a politeia - 4174 (ecclesia or community of called out). According to Kittel, politeia - 4174, when found in in 2 Macc.8:17 refers to the " ... order of life which, ordained by the law of Moses, is inherited by the fathers ...".
My purpose here (the above paragraph) is to point out the community that we take note of in the book of Acts in chapter six. This community (4172 - polis, Ed. Note) is operating the government of the re - established Kingdom based on the notorious order of that government denoted in Matthew 20:27 ... And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant ... and Luke 22:25-26 ... And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve ... My basic premise being that the narrative is true at its foundation, in whatever manner it may be occluded.
Maybe Webster was defining the word revolt from its communal aspect. The community (as re -established) that would not bow to any sovereign if that obeisance infringed on the perfect law of liberty stated in Mark 12:30-31 ... And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these ...
There was still adequate welfare available in the Roman system of Qurban and the Corban system of the temple run by the Jews who rejected Christ. The followers of Christ were banned from those entitlement programs by those who say they are Jews. Even if they were allowed too they would not pray, e.g. apply, for those benefits of the Fathers of Rome because of that first and second commandment. These first century followers were dependant upon the polis - 4172 - (community). This is the gospel of the Kingdom, that notorious polis established from Seth, re - established in the first century.
In contradistinction, and in line with Noah's definition regarding the word "revolt", it is not as an individual stance that this "revolt" is recognized among other polis (sovereign states or communities). Only as a community does the polis (Kingdom) receive recognition among the polis of Cain. The individual makes his/her stand but without the polis of the Kingdom to back him/her the family suffers and it is family that is critical to the Kingdom.
As noted in previous posts, those interested in researching the citizen aspect and its relation today ... http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/cvc.htm and http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/romeus.HTM
TN |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 11:00:05
|
True North;
That is truly amazing!
Subdividing the original estate into two basic bodies politic: polis of Seth and polis of Cain. Genesis 6:1-8 has been so mutated with Watchers and Giants, building an absurd scenario of supernatural beings copulating with human women (Book of Enoch) it is truly a shame - or maybe a sham. According to one author of a book I read, Ritual Magic; History in Magic, that irregular interpretation of the sons of Seth desiring the daughters of Cain is the earliest origins of the Jewish Qabbalah.
But your lucidity on the structure is true revelation. Thank you.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Nov 2004 11:05:18 |
|
|
|
Shiloh
Senior Member
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 17:02:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solace
This statement in particular impresses me; "It tickles my heart to see all of you working on these constant incursions on your freedoms and liberties by short sighted and self serving men."
This from one who denies himself the use of a car simply because of his fear of this system of men. There is no greater crime than that which we do to ourselves. It is a matter of agression when another takes away our freedom, but it is a matter of depression when we take away our own.
I have to state you can only be a victim if you wish to be a victim. When I gave up the right of a car, to be as peace keeper... it was an opportunity to give my car to someone in need.
When I bought a 49cc gas scooter to get around and they made it illegal to use on sidewalks or streets in my city for anyone over the age of 18. I was able to give it to a 14 year old boy for off road use.
I was able to pick up a cushman agricultural vehicle... and now the city is at a dilemia... outlaw their own vehicles or have to license them. They don't yet know how to respond.
Wait until my rickshaw comes onto the streets. If they outlaw this "vehicle" the public might have an outcry as people are watching me trying to remain free. The city is starting to feel the heat. If they outlaw all rickshaws the people will know that the city officials are acting to fight liberty.
You may not be a coward to give up the car, but perhaps prefer to be a peace maker.
Shiloh |
|
|
|
Shiloh
Senior Member
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 17:23:06
|
Linda June,
I have not finished reading this whole thread, but I wanted to state thank you for working to keep peace among the brothers and sisters here.
We must remember that the enemies are not here, but out there... and they are closing in. It is time for us to act in peace and work out our differences. What good does it do to have the finger poke the eye or the teeth bite the finger? If we are all of the body, of the Christ, should we not focus our body on fighting the enemies who would kill the flesh?
Shiloh |
|
|
|
Shiloh
Senior Member
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 17:34:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solace
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.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
It seems Paul believed that it was still possible to sin, however he believed we should not willfully walk after such sins. Jesus paid the penalties for all sins, so we are not in our sins. However, this does not mean we do not sin. We sin, however if we confess our sins He is ready and willing to forgive us our sins.
Shiloh |
|
|
|
Shiloh
Senior Member
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 18:01:00
|
One last thought to ponder...
How important is a name? Abram... Abraham, Jacob... Issac, Saul... Paul.... Oddly, each accepts names given to them by God before given God's ministries.
Devil also renames men:
Daniel, 3 men in fiery furnace both changed by pagan king
Joesph was changed by pagan pharoh
Oddly enough... each were given names before they received government positions.
This is just thrown out for thought. Work it out... I would love to see what others think of this. I have been toying with this in my own mind (for several months), but I reserve my right not to comment before I read your words put into print.
Shiloh |
|
|
|
Linda June
Junior Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 18:12:16
|
Hello!
To Robert/oneisraelite: I think your "we" and my "we" think a lot alike. Although I'm not as devoted to etymology as many on this site are, I do appreciate your devotion to it. It's always edifying.
To Shiloh: You make very good points. When Solace quoted Werner Maximillian and then commented on Vern's remarks, he knew not wherefrom he spoke. Vern did not deny himself use of his car, his car was stolen from him by the gestapo. Thus, his lack of a car was not a self-created situation based on fear of man's system, rather it was the result of a brave (if only all men were so brave!) move out of Babylon and back into his rightful inheritance, the Kingdom of Heaven. Who imprisons himself: the one who refuses the conversion of his/her status into a legal fiction and acts accordingly, or the one who continues to give life and breath to a false god by accepting the conversion?
And, Shiloh, thank you for recognizing that this thread was getting a bit out of hand. I like your analogy of the finger poking the eye, etc. It's right on. If, and it may be a big if, we are one body, why would anyone act in any way uncharitably? It's like the body having an autoimmune disease. I'm sure we all have many beliefs that are not palatable to others, but to act with a decided lack of graciousness is to judge the value of another as though they lacked but we don't. I'm sure there's many scriptures on the topic, but I'm still interested in the main topic of this thread.
Linda June |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 20:30:25
|
David, lucidity on the structure is true revelation from Him as it bears witness with what you already are attempting with 'courts of competent jurisdiction'. The two bodies politic revelation brings the ecclesia into knowledge of who they are. Like you attempt (as you state) with your libel of review.
The two basic bodies politic of Seth and Cain has been apparent ever since I learned that the Nephalim of Gen.6:1-8, translated giants in the KJV, are fallen ones. They are fallen from the polis of the Kingdom and belong to the polis of Cain, from the Hebrew root 05307 - naphal -to fall. The second witness being Nimrod (rebel) the gibbowr (translated 'mighty one' in the KJV) tsayid -hunter. What is missed in the lineage of Cains' polis is that they are hunters of men's souls, I.E. slavery. You miss this little tidbit until you see Abraham not willing to give over any of these souls to the King of Sodom in the vale of Sidim or valley of the devils, (sidim = devils from Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon).
The reference in the BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs) is obscure unless you know that Cain's polis is for enslaving men because Sidim is Semitic but not Hebrew (Arabic I think from memory). I've looked it up (the reference) several different times and will do so again if anyone has to have it. The whole mindset of slavery from the polis of Cain is so 'other' that I've had to verify it for myself numerous times.
I've been over this (and other things pertaining to our identity) in my earliest posts to this forum but never could seem to get my point across on the two bodies politic. This thread touched the right angle for it, thank you for recognizing it and saying so.
I've got an earlier post along the same identity lines that explores the etymology of the word adam being an adjective describing who man is instead of being a proper name. The word dam (blood) combined with the Hebrew letter alef for its prefix and the Hebrew meaning behind every letter of the alef-bet (alphabet). Namely the alef being the symbol signifying Hashem and all that He is. The whole concept of Genesis 9:4 ... But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood ... being tied to our identity of who we are (an exact duplication in kind - Genesis 1:26).
This identity with man being the blood of Him ties into the whole blood shed on the cross and the why of it. It also touches this whole mythology of the 'virgin' birth, giving it a notorious begining outside of Christian adoption of the 'mysteries' so adapted to Catholicism and religion.
I've said enough to trample on almost every dogma, both inside and outside of religion, so unless there is interest I will not exhaust the effort required to continue.
Incidently, David Merril, at your reference I just finished "Debt Virus" by Jaques S. Jaikaran and recommend it to all who are not yet convinced that there has always existed a solution. My partiacular 'bent' is that the solution is obtainable only by this gospel of the kingdom ... as ... a witness unto all nations. Matthew 24:14 (Ed. Note - the end of Cain's polis has already come Seth's lineage is just starting to catch on :- )
TN |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 22:04:23
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, True North:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
[Ed. Note: The issue of Paul being a citizen not settled by the members of this forum aside ...]
Philippians 3:20 For our conversation [#G4175] is in heaven…
G4175
politeuma
Thayer Definition:
1) the administration of civil affairs or of a commonwealth
2) the constitution of a commonwealth, form of government and the laws by which it is administered
3) a state, commonwealth
3a) the commonwealth of citizens
Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Conversation
This word is never used in Scripture in the sense of verbal communication from one to another (Psa_50:23 ; Heb_13:5).
In Phi_1:27; Phi_3:20, [blue]a different Greek word is used. It there means one's relations to a community as a citizen, i.e., citizenship.
At Ephesians 2:12 Shaul/Paul tells the Ephesians, and us by proxy, that at one time they, and we, were aliens to the commonwealth of Yisra’el, which of course we now know that this means that they/we were: “alienated from, estranged away, shut out from, or non-participants in, the commonwealth of Yisra’el. But after all that has transpired, Shaul/Paul tells them/us: they/we are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of Yahowah… The “saints” being, of course, the true chosen people, and the “household”, all here no doubt know, means the Kingdom or Nation of Yahowah. Just as you all know that “Father” means Founder of the Kingdom or Nation, and as such He is the “George Washington” of the commonwealth of Yisra’el, so to speak.
But what of Shaul/Paul being asked by the Colonel: art thou a Roman? What about Shaul/Paul stating: I was born? He did not say “free born” as the KJV translation [and others] says, but rather, simply, “I was born”. What’s the difference you may rightly ask? Here, for the edification of the body politic [body of anointed] is the difference.
Question one, could one be “born” in America without being a UNITED STATES citizen?
The next question we ask is; if a child is born to citizens of the UNITED STATES, is that child automatically a UNITED STATES citizen, or is he rather, immediately eligible for UNITED STATES citizenship?
Third question, if this child, upon reaching the age of consent does not choose, knowingly or unknowlingly, to become a UNITED STATES citizen and a Colonel should come to him and ask, “art thou an American?” Could he not be as wise as a serpent and truthfully answer, “I was born [one]”? Especially if he was going to save his *ss from a beating, or worse?
Those of you wanting Shaul/Paul to have dual-citizenship might say, about now, “but isn’t that stretching it a bit?” If this is what crossed your minds let us now give you Noah Webster’s two definitions of what a Roman is:
RO'MAN, n.
1. A native of rome.
2. A citizen of Rome
One can be in one of four conditions concerning “art thou a Roman”:
(1) he or she can simply be a “native” of Rome, or
(2) he or she can be a “citizen” of Rome, or
(3) he or she can be a “native” of Rome who chose to become a “citizen” of Rome, or
(4) he [includes she] can be one who was in either condition two or three but renounced his citizenship to Rome. If, however, he is a “native of Rome”, he is still a “Roman” after his renunciation, but he is no longer a “Roman citizen”.
Now, just suppose for a moment that you are in Shaul/Paul’s position, you are about to be “examined by scourging”, i.e. you are about to be judicially investigated by the crack of a whip! Mightn’t you answer:
“Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is an American, and uncondemned?”
And when you are asked by the Colonel of the agency, “Art thou an American?”
The only truthful answer you can give him [and save your *ss] is,
“I was born [one]”.
We hope this has given, at least to some, an alternate answer to whether Shaul/Paul was a “Roman citizen” or if he was merely, a ”Roman native”. We let you be the judge.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Nov 2004 22:10:05 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 00:02:40
|
What an elegant exposition.
You had me wondering for a moment but the citizenship in any context or time should be weighed in context of contracts - typically what is called 'social compact'.
So Paul was after the benefit of being a Roman citizen. That is to say, not to be whipped. At least that is what you focus on; the momentary fear of getting beaten.
But the subsequent convincing condition was that Felix saw no fault or cause to keep against Paul but Paul was insistent on a remand of his cause to Rome. I have some completely different theories about what Paul was doing but can evaluate the historical actions in traditional terms. [I am speaking without refreshing the Acts, so please correct me gently if something is off in my recounting the Bible.] We can see that the Lord comforted Paul for his disobedience going into Jerusalem in the first place by telling Paul that he would be going to testify in Rome. Therefore let us presume Paul had the conviction to suffer jail, and I hear that was no picnic, for two years when he could have called for a hearing before Felix and gone free that very day.
So in the fuller context, Paul meant that he desired the full rights, privileges and immunities to be remanded to Rome. Let's imagine for now, though I believe a completely different interpretation personally, that Paul knew he would be kept in house arrest for another two years after getting to Rome. Paul, through premonition of the Holy Spirit knew he would be able to write letters to his ministries in Asia Minor and maybe that these epistles would be cherished and preserved and of course canonized into the New Covenant of the Holy Bible?
But that still leaves it that Paul was after Roman citizenship when he spoke the words; whether to avoid a beating or to be remanded to Rome to write most of the New Testament.
But your exploration of citizenship is quite elegant. It just centers on the words and definition, without the broader scope of context. It puts a lot of things into perspective for me about 'diversity of citizenship' and the ability to form or avoid jurisdiction; territorial, in personam and subject matter. Thank you.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Nov 2004 01:34:30 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 07:44:03
|
Thank you David we are glad that found some value in that exercise.
A few additional thoughts on the issue.
We must keep in mind that Shaul was a "chosen vessel".
quote:
But the subsequent convincing condition was that Felix saw no fault or cause to keep against Paul but Paul was insistent on a remand of his cause to Rome.
But the Supreme in Authority said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
Two things jump off the page, one he must [he was bound by a curse, according to Shaul] bring Yahowshua's authority to "kings", i.e. rulers, and two, he must suffer, both of which were fulfilled by Shaul's demand to be brought before the caesar.
Keep in mind also that this meeting with Ananias is where the "scales fell from his eyes"; he could now see the truth of the matter, and he was "baptized", i.e. immersed in the name (authority), that is to say, this is where he became a citizen of the Kingdom of Yahowah.
And the question remains, if Shaul truly did say he was a "Roman citizen", was it a lie to further the Kingdom?
Romans 3:7 For if the truth of Yahowah hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
We can see, by the Scripture, that it is looked upon with the approval of Yahowah to deceive the enemy in the field.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 22 Nov 2004 08:06:03 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 08:37:30
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, sister Linda June:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
To Robert/oneisraelite: I think your "we" and my "we" think a lot alike. Although I'm not as devoted to etymology as many on this site are, I do appreciate your devotion to it. It's always edifying.
So that you know, the “we” are sister Kathleen:, my helpmeet, and myself. But even if this were not the case, is it not written:
Yahu’hanan [John] 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
And, again is it not written:
Yahu’hanan [John] 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Reminds me of the words to a song: “I am yours, and you are mine, and we are all together…”
As the to the devotion to Words and their meanings and etymologies we discovered this to be truth [what a surprise]:
2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Yahowah willing, we will attempt to attach a MSWord2000 word document entitled “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth” which will explain this in much more detail.
All seekers of Truth will find common ground for Truth never changes.
For I am Yahowah, I change not…
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 08:42:38
|
Sorry, don't know how to attach a Word document. - Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 09:13:50
|
OneIsraelite;
You have meandered well back to the point. Can one lie about a declaration of citizenship? I understand that many colonialized provinces of the Roman Empire were conquests and that citizenship was not an option. For instance I doubt after the Macabbees (Apocrypha) someone from Israel could have purchased a Roman citizenship. The best they could acquire was a Tirshatha (Strongs H#8660) like the Herodian guard. A mediator of religious liaison. [Good question: Were the Herodians Roman citizens? I hear they caused commotion for allowing a Roman eagle over the gate to the Temple.] However Cilicia had joined Caesar to quash a civil uprising against Rome and was thus favored and one could purchase a citizenship in the conquering Empire.
The above point may be moot to the point I am making, maybe not. But can someone lie about a declaration of citizenship? If eligible, I say no. One could lie about where they were born and that would be lieing about citizenship, but Paul was a Roman citizen because he was born eligible and declared it. [In addition was evidence he had purchased an entitlement to declare the citizenship and lied about that. He arrived in Jerusalem with a Cypriot Jew named Mnason but told James the ship had steered to the left of Cyprus.]
Stepping carefully through your elegant logic above eligibility + declaration = citizenship.
I doubt the term "lie" applies to entering Jerusalem against the Holy Spirit's warnings. But James was upset with Paul about his mission in Asia Minor and the emphasis was on teaching that the Law was not so important as Grace - something like that. But Paul readily accepted a lawful Jewish cleansing, even shaving his head in some kind of ascetic ritual. So maybe James was upset about Paul's accounting of funds. Paul had been gathering alms for the Asia Minor missionaries' widows. Perhaps Paul had this new citizenship, for surely he could have avoided a lot of grief with it earlier, and James was feeling nearly certain Paul had bought it in Cyprus with alms that only Paul could account for.
Maybe that was the lie. Anyway, see how it works in. The Roman soldier questioned how Paul could have gotten it for free. It would seem the Roman was born in Cilicia too. Those born in completely subjected conquests and closer to Rome were naturalized by birth. But I have read evidence Paul's birth made him eligible, not entitled.
I hope I am correct on the details.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. True North - a small note from above. You said:
quote:
The two basic bodies politic of Seth and Cain has been apparent ever since I learned that the Nephalim of Gen.6:1-8, translated giants in the KJV, are fallen ones.
Just from the smattering of Hebrew I have learned, "Giants" would be Raphaim like Raphael is Giant. Stong's #5303 Nephyl is a feller, not really a fallen one. More a bully or tyrant. Thus very loosely, Giant. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Nov 2004 16:39:13 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 22:38:47
|
David, for sure the giants (Genesis 6:4 ... There were giants <05303-n@phiyl> in the earth ...) are just fellers. Stay with Dr. Strong in the root of 05303- n@phiyl. The root is 05307-naphal which is translated - fail 318 times, fall down 25, cast 18, cast down 9, fall away 5, divide 5, overthrow 5, present 5, lay 3, rot 3, accepted 2, lie down 2, inferior 2, lighted 2, lost 2, misc 22 for a total of 434 times it is used in the text.
These giants are not fallen angels or sons of Yah, they are just men that have gone the way of Baalam, if you will (Numbers 22:18 ... If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold and 2 Peter 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness).
The only reason I use the term fallen ones is because they turned from the ways of Yah and went with the polis of Cain. ... when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown ... Let me retranslate this second half of Gen.6:4 to try to show the two polis ... when the polis of the Kingdom (kin of Seth) came in unto the daughters of the polis of Cain, and they bare children to them (the men/women of the polis of Cain), the same became gibbowr, those that prevail over others (from 01396- gabar) men which were of old, (from the polis of Cain) men of name or men who desired to be like HaShem [the name (like those of the tower of babel who said ... let us make us a name ... Genesis 11:4 or Genesis 3:5 ... ye shall be as gods...)]. The same old song and dance that started the polis of Cain and governments of coercion ... that you shall be as Him. The gibbowrim (plural) were mighty over the other men under their polis for protection and slavery and these gibbowrim were men of name (renown).
TN |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2004 : 06:56:37
|
Greetings all:
Peace be unto the house.
We agree with both TN and David Merrill and add this; Dr Strong goes on to say, that they are bullies and tyrants. They were men of great stature, and stature, figuratively means, 2 development, growth, or level of attainment, esp. as worthy of esteem...
Thou shalt worship [esteem] Yahowah thy 'Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.
And the translating of the Hebrew 'elohiym as, God, god(s), goddess(es), in our humble opinions, is probably one of the things that has caused the most confusion in trying to comprehend Scripture. It would be more appropriate if they had translated it rulers or judges, with the understanding that judges are rulers.
Judge
(Heb. shophet, pl. shophetim), properly a magistrate or ruler, rather than one who judges in the sense of trying a cause. - Easton's Bible Dictionary
With this understanding Genesis 6:4b would read, ...the children of 'elohiym [rulers] came in unto the daughters of mankind, bore they tyrants which were always men of power.
We believe that this is referenced in Yahowshua [Joshua] 24:15,
And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yahowah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the 'elohiym [rulers] which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the 'elohiym [rulers] of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahowah.
Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the npheiyl [tyrants/bullies], the sons of Anak [a Canaanite], which come of the npheiyl [tyrants/bullies]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers [locusts], and so we were in their sight.
If we see ourselves as unable to fight "city hall", small and weak like insects, then they also see us as "useless food eaters", flights of locusts.
Goy as Dr Strong suggests, "flight of locusts", are the masses. Goy comes from the Hebrew word gevah, which in turn comes from gev, which means "middle" and goy is in "the sense of massing, thus we percieve that the goy are the "middle massing" or what we might refer to today as the "middle class". They perceive themselves as "small", unable to resist the tyrants and bullies, and always have. To them, those in power are giants, not to be messed with. These "giants" are not truly "clothed" in authority, because true authority is delegated [ordained] by Yahowah [de jure], they are in power, i.e. they hold their position by "force" [de facto]. These bullies know that their hold is tenuous, at best, so they make themselves appear to be indefeasible by surrounding themselves with "force" [police force is just one small example of this].
The sad part in all this is; think back to the days when you were in screwl [school], how many bullies were there? A handful? Just think, if all those children [sheeple] had "massed" together against the bullies...but it never happened, did it? The bullies just went on and on, stealing other children's lunch money, by a false show of force. Nothing new under the sun, as the Commander-in-Chief of Yisra'el would say, nothing new under the sun.
Upon reflection, here, I believe all we have done is echo True Norths words in another form.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Nov 2004 07:42:46 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2004 : 07:52:57
|
The real significance of this exegesis (however im-perfect) to "Changing Christians into legal fictions" doesn't take root until you see the mindset.
In our monetary system it is assumed that 'something' must be monetized in order to have exchange. As pointed out in "Debt Virus" by Jaques S. Jaikaran, money is not a commodity for exchange. Money is a value to measure labor. The value lays in the "adamic altar of uncut stone", I.E. the people. It is the people who are the value, the labor of the people only produces the wealth allowing all to prosper.
Those that are of the polis of Cain see the value produced by the labor of the people as the end product of their desire. The polis of Cain does not see that it is the people that are the value. The people without value are commodities to be used and discarded. The only way to 'loot' the labor of the people is to extend this mindset of 'no inherent value' until you have 'slaves' or 'fictions' that produce for the sake of those that are trying to have a name for themselves and doing it so that it appears or be for the 'common good' of the people.
This produces a 'top down' style of government instead of government of service. In a government of service every man is the head of his own family and those that have the ability to be 'highest' among them become the servant of these families and are compensated according to the value they provide to the individual family. The compensation is giving according to the value created as measured by the head of each family individually not collectively. These servants 'minister' an entrance to the Kingdom providing the intercourse between individual families to allow exchange and barter of labor produced by these individual families. This is the notorious Kingdom and the gospel of that Kingdom re - instituted in the first century. The first commandment is foremost and love of your neighbor provides incentive and 'control', if you will.
We have produced a generation of youth with no individual value inherent in themselves by making them legal fictions subject to the whim of the 'state' - the polis of Cain. When the people see that each 'legal fiction' is of no value intrinsically and each is rewarded for not thinking and mindless laboring they quit producing anything of value and start expanding their energy in 'looting' the labor of the producer.
The upside of this is that the polis of Cain is 'allowed' to rule over any and all that will not see that each individual is an exact duplication of the image of Him. And to allow me, individually, to see where and when I 'step outside' the love of my neighbor and recognising my neighbor is in the image of Him.
You will notice the reference to "looters" is from Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'. Rand missed it when she got to the part about the love of money being the root of all evil. Rand missed the inherent value of the people and went off on a tangent about producing value. It is the polis of Cain with the mindset of money as the value that creates the root of 'legal fictions' to produce for those who would make a name for themselves when haShem applies only to the one, in unity.
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2004 : 08:04:25
|
Seldom do I voice another's opinion without understanding it first.
Yesterday I was talking with a man over a suitors' email I broadcast. He found the Charles translation of the Book of Enoch on the web and this was his first exposure to it. We talked about it and he made direct reference to television "Giants" like Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart etc. Men he believes actually compete with each other over how many millions of dollars they can gather from the "middle masses".
I recalled Jimmy Swaggart crying his little eyes out because God was giving him a week to live or get a million dollars in donations. Well I am not the Giant Swaggart is so I am sure if I told people that, I would just die. I was not very judgmental at the time but really could not believe my eyes and ears. Good thing people believed him, they rallied the million $ and more and Jimmy lived. Reading your post above, I think I understand this suitor's point about the Biblical symbol being useful today.
God promised not to drown us again in another Deluge. But could that be because we will do it to ourselves in symptomatic paranoid DELUSIONS?
Crosstalk:
Titled; Protectionism of Watchers Doctrine
quote:
Dear Suitors;
The debt forgiveness has extended to both Madagascar and Iraq in the last week. This encourages me that the Bretton Woods Agreements will be unrecognizable by the deadline imposed by Ronald Dean's bond. [http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif]http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/index.php Actually I read a believable article the Evian Protocols were designed around conditions they foresaw in Iraq; disabled but not without resources (oil). http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/presentation/presentation.php?BATCH=B06WP14 as opposed to HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) countries like Madagascar. http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/presentation/presentation.php?BATCH=B04WP04
I cannot stress how important it is to consider process free of its doctrinal tethers. By 'process' maybe I mean banking policy in action through notice and grace. We are guaranteed common law remedy in the Judiciary Act and that is still available through sheer process, not through any federal judge I have heard of. And believe me, I have heard all your accounts and more.
Recent explorations into a Solari network, an exploratory experiment into sustained communities (METRO independent jural societies) surfaced a doctrine I had nearly forgotten about over the years. Watchers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Mr. David Merrill.........Your capacity to entice me to reply to your messages, is beyond my control, and Heaven forbid ,may result in my posting privledges being taken away ..........but this time you hit upon the very obsession I have been living with in my old age......
You seem to believe that GODs most Holiest of Prophets, ENOCH, who was called Home before His time,,,,was relating fiery tales to His great grandson and the others.......ENOCH....walked with GOD for 365 years........and indeed He did......And they lifted me aloft, into a place that had the appearance of a burning fire, and when they pleased they assumed the likeness of men.......Oh Mr. Merrill read the book......and you'll see exactly who they were who watch the friendly skies.......Everything in the WORD of GOD has a reason ,,,,and the WORD that isn't in the WORD of GOD........the Cannon made sure of that ....Satan has many names........and there is a reason for them.......He is the Prince of the air,,,,,so much so , He is the PRINCE of the POWERs of the AIR....
So you see Mr David Merrill,,,,all one has to do is watch the skies and you'll see who Satan is........and they assumed the likeness of men......or in more modern terms..........BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE.........very obvious why those extra righteous men of GOD had to once and for all get it straight,,,,make it official......so that LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU......could be read by all......with no other books left around to confuse us and to deceive us.......
No Merrill .....bound in chains and then they must be loosed for a little while........to reek havoc, and meyhem, and rape and plunder and terrorism, and torture, and wars and rumors of wars, and thirst and famine, and earthquakes, PESTILENCE,,,,,AND PESTILENCE.....Oh did I repeat that?,,,,,just in case I forgot to mention Pestilence.......I will mention it again......AND PESTILENCE.......
and then will the end come,,,,,,Are you among others who think George Bush is just a rich greedy conglomerate , who along with his henchmen just want more money??......or do you think George is over in IRAQ , freeing those poor individuals from their terrible nightmare of Sadam?? Or are you one of those lunatics like me who believes he is in IRAQ TO GATHER TOGETHER THE ARMIES OF THE NATIONS ,,,,
I find it rather interesting ,,,,,Washington is more concerned with flying the friendly skies than they are with securing the borders, .....you mean you can be terrorist if you patronize UNITED..... but you can't be if your driving ............WASHINGTON WATCHES THE SKIES DAILY......THAT'S WHY THE WHITEHOUSE ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT WHO THEY ARE IN THE FRIENDLY SKIES.......WASHINGTON KNOWS WHO THEY ARE AND THE ARE GONG TO CALL UPON THEM .....TO SHUT YOU UP WHEN IT BECOMES APPARENT TO MANKIND......JUST WHO GEORGE BUSH AND THOSE THAT FOLLOW HIM REALLY ARE.......
ROYALTY .....MR. DAVID MERRILL........ROYALTY....THE RULERS OF DARKNESS
I watched WASHINGTON kill a President one day,,,and do you know what Mr. Merrill it was so silent in Washington.....you couldn't even here a telephone ring.......so silent in fact.......No one uttered a word as to Who it was that killed the President........NO ONE....NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SAID ONE SINGLE SOLITARY WORD AS TO WHO KILLED THE PRESIDENT.....NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENTS BROTHERS........
THAT KIND OF SILENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE FOR JUST FLESH AND BLOOD .....MR. MERRILL.....
And I have Proof , proof most positive, documented and recorded for the whole world to see........to atest to that silence.....proof that no one can deny.......you should read it Mr. Merrill......IT'S THE LIE THAT EARL WARREN WROTE.....AND IT'S IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.........
GOOD BYE MR. MERRILL.......AND GOOD LUCK
Oh Mr. David Merrill.......I've been meaing to ask you ......if just a glimpse ,,,of what ever it is ,,, can reach you your fuller potential......I can imagine that a ....good look......could possibly cause one to... as they ....say......throw a rod.......and cause one to go in for a replacement.......very touchy business......isn't it? especially when they replace parts they really don't need to.....Is that the reason for the electric bike?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Austin, leader of the forum, [http://solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=47 ] deleted my posting that prompted the above response, that (for now) still remains for cut and paste here. But I was gently admonishing the man not to think in terms of the Bush Administration being demon infested, but rather the tactics applied (Iraq War being current events) were for securing oil. The tactics were put in place after Shock Testing with the Carter Fuel Shortage decades ago which proved that waiting in lines for gasoline was completely intolerable.
But the doctrine issue is that a 'protectionism' against using the bill of exchange quickly developed. Someone even placed postings in my name, saying garbage to disparage my credibility in the forum. I suppose Catherine Austin was just busy with other things and got tired of all the complaints. She has invited me to leave; not to write there anymore and deletes anything I have to say. The evidence I glean from the website is that no Solari Circle has been successful and I say that is because the basis is debt currency. That might be why Catherine herself is willing to join the 'protectionism' of the status quo.
The admonishment about the Satanic infestation doctrine was that personification of Satan, thinking of Satan as a complex thinking personality comes from an interpretation of Genesis 6:1-8 that is discredited in any sensible accredited commentary about that scripture. Many Jews in Jesus' time believed in the Book of Enoch. This book is described by R.H. Charles - The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as more of a fanciful mythology and was unsuitable for canonizing because it was written over such an extended period of time (75 years) by different authors and carried contradictions in itself. But that is where the ideas of a third of the angels falling from heaven comes from, the Book of Enoch and any mention of it in the Bible is just boiled over from Jews believing in the Book of Enoch.
When I looked into Catherine Austin's bio and resume of articles, I found the same doctrine. This doctrine is named "White Knights" in the Dove of Oneness' NESARA (National Economic Stability/Security And Recovery Act). A supposedly 'secret law' that never made it to the floor of Congress.
I do not wish to interfere with your beliefs. You have a right to them. But since this Solari Circle site of self-sustaining communities refuses to examine the energy-based bill of exchange as a form of debt relief, I want to warn you all that such fanciful beliefs as the "Giants" and "Watchers" lusting after human women and even being able to copulate and produce some kind of invisible superrace, may be harmful to confidence and security building measures necessary to make process work for you in your household.
I hope you will remember you have a right to say 'No, thank you." to contract offers. I have not heard otherwise in any case in any court. Rule E(8) restricted your appearance in the district court to subject matter within the scope of the specific contract or claim. Keep it simple and please try not to buy into the fantastic. Like I have said, Satanic manifestation in people is just too big of a wild card for me to handle personally. I cannot compute any logical scenarios for the actions I see around such unpredictable variables and bizaar phenomenon. Please be careful.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 25 Nov 2004 07:27:32 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2004 : 08:56:27
|
Greetings once more, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
So, where does all this leave us, and when and where did it begin?
It began with us [people] being respecter of persons. It began when we began to fear the creature [man] more than the Creator.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of Yahowah into a lie, and worshipped [esteemed] and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Care to take a guess as to who the “who” is in the above verse? Who teaches us that we are to obey all governments of men, righteous [de jure] or unrighteous [de facto]? Who teaches us that all governments of men are ordained by Yahowah [God] instead of teaching us that only those ordained by Yahowah are rightful governments? Who teaches us that those who go against the unlawful governments of men “shall receive to themselves damnation”? Who teaches us that unrighteous rulers are “not a terror to good works”? Who teaches us that an evil ruler is “the minister unto God”? And who teaches us that we are to pay tribute to those who reward evil for good, and as such are not ministers of Yahowah. We always thought it read, “tribute to whom tribute is due”. Is it due to rulers [ministers of state] who, are not ordained by Yahowah, but rather “set themselves”; ministers of state [rulers] who forbid the Ten Commandments [morality], both in their schools and in their courtrooms; and who “devour widows’ houses”? Who teaches us that we are to “render unto [the] caesar”, anything the caesar decrees as, “our fair share”?
We recently had a loved-one tell us that she voted for “Shrub” because, “he goes to church every Sunday” and “he prays to God everyday”. [Which “god”, came to mind!]
…and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. Care to guess who advised her to vote for “Shrub” on these grounds? She asked us whom we voted for…LOL…“our Choice was not on their list of candidates!!” In fact, the Law of our “Choice”, the perfect Law of liberty, again, is forbidden by those who “staged” the so-called elections!!
We were such respecter of “persons” that kosmokrator was thoughtful enough to create, at “birth”, a PERSON for each and every one of us, that we might enjoy being respecters of our own PERSONS; how thoughtful! It is a colorless [lifeless] reflection of the living being, you, but at least you can now stand surety for your very own PERSON and carry "it" around with you. It’s a graven image, but who cares, it’s all mine, right? … they with feigned words make merchandise of you …
And if anyone should point all this out to you…the “who” spoken of above will tell you how evil-l-l-l-l-l-l that man or woman is. "Who does this guy think he is? We know him, we know his brothers and sisters; he ain't nothin' but a lowly carpenter's son, for cyrin' out loud. Don't listen to him!!"
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
But as brother Walter has said on another thread recently…I am starting to rave…sorry!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Nov 2004 09:02:37 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2004 : 11:15:19
|
Fear of men more than the Creator would of course cause us to behave in reverence of men, rather than the Creator. Good point.
So above in the Crosstalk I insinuate that the people trying the Solari Circles experiments in sustainable jural societies drain 40% of their resources before they try trusting each other with debt relief through loans etc [http://solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=47]. I encountered a 'protectionism' that manifest in a few people bashing me for using my true name David Merrill. They just made me look like a fool no matter what I would say. I was introducing an energy based bill of exchange (as opposed to a debt based Federal Reserve System) for debt forgiveness.
But your proposal they were just revering the Treasury because they inherently fear the collection extension IRS; that makes a lot of sense in context of your well thought out words.
More importantly, and I may have failed to make a clear connection, is that by attributing the machinations of debt currency to cabals of demon infested Satan worshippers, people make the obstacle insurmountable and just push responsibility for resisting evil off on God or Jesus or whatever. Truly they revere men in their actions and feel lip service to God is adaquate through grace.
Hopefully the images may be posted soon*. Recently I filed a testimonial document (719) 520-6200 Reception #204187108, on the machination at the center of the problem you touch on:
quote:
It’s a graven image, but who cares, it’s all mine, right? … they with feigned words make merchandise of you …
I will import the Posting from the other Topic; "Are You a Person?".
Regards,
David Merrill.
quote:
Dear Readers;
I am really impressed with this particular Topic. The people who I have read are thoughtful and really exhibit a mature intellect about so many different ways to treat the issue.
To me, the issue is dichotomy. The creation of a quasi-mathematica entity for capitalizing upon as though dead. Of course the entity is dead anyway but it really represents a life insurance policy, an annuity bonding on the man or woman from the cradle to the grave - a suppositional wagering scheme. Also the death presumption of a Samurai; the fallen leaves doctrine - an invincible warrior already considers himself dead - the nom de guerre (Fr. NAME OF WAR).
Now there are a lot of readers out there who are not writing and I can presume they do not want to call up my dad and bother him about this stuff just because they can find him in the phone book. Or my brother or sister or whoever. So I am not going to bother sanitizing my family name because it is so important to see this creation of the person the world so wants me to be.
The important thing is to examine this testimony is not mine*. I found testimony of others and you will see the development of a quasi-mathematical entity DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT through my father's "Full Name" (legal name). On the front side of the Birth Certificate we see the true names of Philip Jansen and Louanne, my father and mother. Then see the commercial registration following for the entity supposedly attached to me and my parents are named by "their" legal names and they still call this a "CERTIFIED COPY OF BIRTH RECORD". Albeit they have obviously changed my name David Merrill to the legal entity "David Merrill Van Pelt" and then created the artificial entity upon that, "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT".
I have traced origins of this metaphysical manipulation into Medieval times around Hugo Grotius and St. Thomas Aquinas.
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
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification4.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification5.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_la-metaphysique.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-qua-mathematica.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-mathematical.jpg
These endnotes are from (memory serving) The Just War of Grotius and Aquinas and The Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I am over 18 and of sound mind and body. Especially since my testimony agrees with this acquired testimony of people who were there, I am David Merrill.
Because I know my identity, I naturally avoid giving testimony that will incriminate me or obligate me for the legal fictions. I can use the fictions as I please if I carefully investigate the contracts and behave honestly - Rule E(8) supports my restricted appearance to speak about only the contract that has been noticed. Therefore my abatements for misnomer hold.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Back when there were a few people reading here per day, Admin would post images I would send in. I am grateful because I was able to compose quite a graphic pallate from which to make points. But now that ecclesia.org is such a popular site, they seem to have revoked the privilege without comment. I suppose it would be a bandwidth burden to try and accomodate all the traffic now.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Nov 2004 22:02:00 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Changing Christians into LEGAL FICTIONS
