| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Admin
Forum Administrator
Saint Kitts and Nevis
114 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Oct 2001 : 02:07:28
|
 What manner of PERSON are You?
(click the blue floppy disk icon to view/download the entire post)
Just exactly what is a person by legal definition? What is the legal authority of a person? Is a Christian a PERSON? The answers to these questions have eluded Americans ever since the end of Lincoln's Civil War and the general acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since all State statutes and every court in the United States, right down to the local municipal courts, define every American as a person, then we should find out just what this means so that we can understand what we are according to the civil governments and judges. |
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2003 : 14:47:45
|
Excellent description. But, I have a question. If I am called into court, and when I am called to answer whatever is presented, if I at that time give the clerk of court an affidavit "Denial of Corporation" ( a very legitimate thing to do and recognized by the statutes of several states that I have looked at ), does that preserve or establish my position as a free human being? An affidavit is legitimate evidence which can be presented in any hearing, and its contents must be either accepted or contested. So, what would the court do in this case? Has anyone tried this?
It also seems to me that your name is all capital letters, or written correctly is of no consequence, as the law has already established you to be a corporation.
Anyone have any ideas on this?
In Christ,
Lewis |
 |
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2003 : 23:17:11
|
Lewish,
This is a very ancient and very important conundrum -- and lies at the very heart of our efforts to re-establish our innate SOVEREIGNTY -- thus permanently freeing ourselves from the death-grip of Caesar.
This is what this WebSite is all about, and we must be eternally grateful for this remarkable resource. Since you are a new member, it is best to "bone up" on what has been established here so far. The posts are categorized and easy to track down by subject.
Each of us is approaching the challenge in his own way, so there is a great deal of "food for thought" here in this regard. Just let me say that I consider the COMMON LAW as the most powerful of approaches -- next to being able to "walk on water" such as The Master did -- denoting tuition, or DIRECT KNOWLEDGE coming down from the Divine. But we are not THAT blessed, so must make do with any means at hand.
My approach is to COPYRIGHT my name. My good name is my very own personal, private PROPERTY. NO ONE should have the right to use it for ANY REASON (especially COMMERCIAL use) without my specific, written permission. Since the present Satanic "government" (I use the term loosely) is the ancient ROMAN COMMERCIAL SYSTEM in its entirety (albeit more highly refined), then their use of my good name FOR ANY PURPOSE without my permission, incurs a damage upon me and therefore a liability. But we know that IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. So even a traffic stop is a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION.
If we hand over our good name by responding to the officer's "request" for ID and registration (really an INTIMIDATION to ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH THE CORPORATE STATE), then we unknowingly give permission for him to use our name WITHOUT LIMITATION. Of course, under these circumstances, he will give us as large of a "bill" (traffic ticket) as possible! We are unwittingly "trafficking" in COMMERCE!
BUT – THERE IS NO LAW that REQUIRES YOU TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT!!! In fact, there is a MAXIM OF LAW which states that any contract entered into under coercion, is no contract at all – null and void. THE TRICK is to UNDERSTAND CAESAR’S GAME. For if there is anything that The System holds you to – it is the LETTER OF THE LAW. JUST ONE SLIP-UP – and you will be “nailed to the cross.” And they use REALLY BIG NAILS!
Gotta go for now, but perhaps others can pick up this thread.
Be Well,
Doer
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2003 : 01:41:47
|
Doer,
Thanks for the thoughts. I have been lazily studying the Law for about 7 years now. It is only in the last few months that I have actually gotten serious about my studies. I was very pleased to accidentally find this great website. I hope others will find it as well.
Do you know of any website that provides the steps to obtain a Common Law copyright of your name? I hold quite a few commercial copyrights, files with the PTO and am quite versed in how to do that. But that is quite a bit different. The only websites I have found pertaining to a Common Law copyright want way too much money. I can get a commercial copyright for $25. Why should it cost me $300 to find out how to do a Common Law one? I look upon that as greed. I will share any knowledge I have obtained freely with my brothers, as long as it doesn't violate someone's copyright to do so.
Peace to you,
|
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2003 : 05:05:51
|
Lewis,
I am in the process of nailing down the Copyrighted Name procedure. The actual Common Law copyrighting is very simple. The involved process is securing one's "place" as the primary Secured Party relative to the UCC rules. Without the UCC tools, it is almost impossible to collect a claim agaist unauthorized use of one's good name.
Email me directly, and I can send you specifics. We need to build a strong network of CONSCIOUS activism -- of people willing to take a few arrows for the sake of reclaiming and securing our SOVEREIGNTY. I, for one, am completely outraged with this Satanic "government" -- and its all-pervasive tentacles of control and destruction of innocent lives.
The time is past, when we must draw a line in the sand. That line was crossed decades ago, and it is time now to face down the enemy with a firestorm of Righteous Anger. It is time to re-educate Satan's army of bureaucrats, in the lesson that there ARE consequences to acts of evil. We do this by using their own tools against them -- just as David slew Goliath with his own sword. Every sword can cut both ways. What folly that The Usurpers think their perverted "law" is above everything else! They have long forgotten THE REAL LAW. Let us remind them of it in no uncertain terms!
Doer
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2003 : 18:11:34
|
Doer,
There are many people using many different approaches to law, but all with the same intent of using their own tools against them. This may be what God calls us to at some point, but let me share how He led me after I had a brush with Caesar's system.
As you say, they hold you to the letter of the law, and use any slip up to keep you in their system. However, they only have the really big nails you describe if you think that they are big. For example, if you "own" an expensive conveyance, and don't want it taken away because it is "yours", then you have handed them the nails yourself. If this same conveyance actually belongs to Yahweh, and you completely trust that He will take care of it, then the system has no nails at all. You will be able to see God's greater purpose should they steal it while enforcing one of their statutes. You will also put them in the position of the Philistines when they stole the Ark of the Covenant. It may cause them far more trouble than they ever imagined.
When I was being "crucified" by the system, it felt terrible while it was going on. However, with hindsight it was obvious how powerless their nails really were. All they could do was demonstrate just how lawless they were and just how true scripture is. Letters that Paul wrote from prison came alive for me, for now I know exactly what he meant. The whole experience was truly "momentary, light affliction". They threw everything they had at me in an attempt to win my submission, but it actually had the opposite effect.
My initial approach was to note every lawless word and deed of the police officers and the judge, so that I could turn around and crucify them myself. I know men very experienced with this who can guide me step by step until about a half-dozen of Caesar's thugs are behind bars themselves. However, Yahweh completely changed my thinking on this. Picture the world (Satan's evil system) as an orange being squeezed. These days it is getting squeezed harder and harder so that more of us are feeling the pain. The solution is not to stop the squeezing. God's purpose behind this is to wake up His children so that they will at last hear His call to "come out of her".
The squeezing then is damnation to the world, but a gift to us. For two thousand years the church has been trying to figure out how to reform Satan's corrupt system, but this was never Yahweh's plan at all. We are to be building a different kingdom altogether, and allowing Satan's system to collapse from its own rottenness. God is really behind the squeezing ("have you considered my servant, Job?"), and accelerating it in our day because His whole plan is nearing its fulfillment.
The question is: what should be the nature of our witness to the world? Should we fight fire with fire, or should our attitude be more like that of Yahshua who forgave those who persecuted Him and told us to leave vengeance up to God. Knowing that I could fight fire with fire, I was all prepared to do so, yet God stopped me in my tracks. He has now shown me a new paradigm by which to view this present evil world. Since their "law" is really only a series of contracts, we must learn to live without agreeing further to any of their contract terms. If we can rebut their presumption that we are under contractual obligation to them, they have no nails at all to use against us. It is really a mind game, where we are treated as guilty because we have been taught all our lives to act guilty.
I like the analogy from the movie The Matrix. The agents in the matrix seemed all-powerful, yet their power was entirely within the other man's mind. Once Neo learned this, they lost all power over him. Like us, it took Neo time and pain in the school of hard knocks before he could free himself. Until you try to operate on these new assumptions, willing to take a few bullets, it will all remain merely theory. It would be nice to have some guarantee that we can't be hurt, but I do not see this in scripture. Instead, we must be willing to suffer with Messiah in order that we may also be glorified with Him.
Like you, I have not fully exited the world's system, so I may get roughed up a bit more. I share my current assumptions to show how God has changed my thinking as I have sought to walk in obedience to what He shows me. He no doubt has more to teach me. My advice at this point is to take your focus off the world's system and let them do what they will. God will bring it all to an end very soon anyway. These men are doing their evil jobs in order to drive us closer to our Father and ultimately into His kingdom. |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2003 : 22:40:34
|
Caleb,
You bring up wise and excellent points. Yes -- I fully agree with you about not entering into contracts with The System that do not serve our purpose in getting closer to our Creator. You are most certainly right in understanding that it is "all a mind game." The nails with which The System uses to crucify us are of our own making -- as are the chains that bind us to them.
So I think we are coming from exactly the same place -- only saying it differently. For I do not mean to "get into their face," unless there is no other way to PROTECT MY SOVEREIGNTY. Of course there is ONLY ONE TRUE SOVEREIGN. But since we are "made in His Image," we take on aspects of His Being -- Sovereignty being one of those. So Sovereignty is truly a DIVIME ASPECT -- and it then becomes our SACRED DUTY to protect and nurture it in ourselves. If that means using their own fire against The System, then so be it. Otherwise we can also use water and "hose them down." It does not matter -- just use whatever means seem proper at the time.
But we must understand the Our Creator is NOT going to "come down from Heaven" and melt the flesh off the ungodly -- as was done in that movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark." WHATEVER happens to change the world can ONLY happen through the agencies of MEN. It has always been thus, from the first man, and it will always continue in this fashion. So it is entirely up to us, as to how, when and where these changes will take place. Do we want to follow Our Creator's Plan -- or be sucked into The Other Guy's Plan by default?
The reason that we see change now occurring at a geometric rate, is that natural laws are being violated on a huge scale -- such as the law of supply and demand. The greed of the Power Mongers has gotten completely out of control, and so the price of that will be total economic collapse. The agency with which that will be accomplished is the fiat [worthless] currency that now pervades the entire world economy.
So it is up to CONSCIOUS individuals to understand what is happening, and to prepare to survive the coming holocaust. We do this by establishing Common Law Communities and Networks. Then we will have the opportunity to sprout and grown new roots "on the other side" of the firestorm. Once the choking weeds of The System are burned off, the tender new shoots of True Government can once again rise to fill the void.
But first we must survive this present System of Abomination. This is done by ANY MEANS AT HAND -- SO LONG AS WE LISTEN TO THE INNER VOICE FOR GUIDANCE.
Doer
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2003 : 14:53:45
|
Caleb wrote:quote:
The question is: what should be the nature of our witness to the world? Should we fight fire with fire, or should our attitude be more like that of Yahshua who forgave those who persecuted Him and told us to leave vengeance up to God. Knowing that I could fight fire with fire, I was all prepared to do so, yet God stopped me in my tracks. He has now shown me a new paradigm by which to view this present evil world. Since their "law" is really only a series of contracts, we must learn to live without agreeing further to any of their contract terms. If we can rebut their presumption that we are under contractual obligation to them, they have no nails at all to use against us. It is really a mind game, where we are treated as guilty because we have been taught all our lives to act guilty.
Jesus says, "When someone hits you on one cheek, give him the other. And if someone takes your coat, snatches it, give him your shirt also. And if someone forces you to carry his load for one mile, tell him that you are ready to carry it for two miles."
Just think about it. If you can be so innocent, so trusing that if the other is hitting you, he must be hitting you for your good--so give him the other cheek also, and let him hit it. The other's goodness is believed in, trusted in; no one is your enemy. When Jesus said, "Love your enemies," this is the meaning. No one is your enemy; don't see the enemy anywhere. That doesn't mean that there will not be enemies and there will not be people who will exploit you. There will be. They will exploit you. But be exploited--and don't be cunning. Just look at that dimension: be exploited--but don't be cunning. Be exploited, but don't be mistrusting, don't disbelieve, don't lose faith. That is more valuable than anything others can cheat you of. Nothing else is valuable. But how do our minds function? If one man deceives you, the whole of humanity is evil. If one man is dishonest, then you don't believe in man at all. Then the whole of humanity has become dishonest. Jesus says, "Even if all are dishonest, you should not lose faith, because faith is more valuable than their dishonesty." So really, if you lose faith you are losing something; otherwise nothing is lost.
The Book Of Secrets - Osho
|
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 07:55:24
|
Again I find that teachings of value parallel one another...
The context of Yeshua's writings are important for their meanings...
The context for 'enemy' includes (note the legal use of the word include here) the house of Israel. Yeshua did not teach those outside of covenant.
An enemy was someone you had not spoken to for three days but always that enemy was a member of the body that knows Amet (truth) and is part of the whole ... not an outsider. |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 00:09:30
|
"The longevity of a crime confers no sanctity upon the act."
I cannot remember where I first heard the above quote, but I think it I heard it on one of Randy Lee's tapes. I don't have time to listen to each of his tapes again and was wondering if anyone knows where I can find it. I believe he was reading it from Corpus Juris Secundum, but I'm not sure.
Any help with this would be appreciated!
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 10:01:35
|
Greetings In the name of Yahshua,
"The longevity of a crime confers no sanctity upon the act."
The statutes of limitations have much to do regarding the above, except for murder, and nowadays, rape. I have even heard of men being convicted for crimes long ago (if 30 to 50 years is long) for burning/bombing 'churches.' But then, that would fall under murder.
BARRON'S 'LEGAL' GUIDES statutes of limitations state that virtually all actions 'at law' civil or criminal, have a statutory time beyond which the action may not be brought. A common exception is murder, which is generally not subject to a statute of limitations. Additionally, equity proceedings are governed by an independent equity doctrine called laches.
Laches is an interesting term also, meaning an undue lapse of time in enforcing a right to action, and negligence in failing to 'act' more promply.100 A. 110,113. It recognizes that because of the delay, the defendant's ability to defend may be unfairly impaired because witnesses or evidence needed to defend against the stale claim may have become unavailable or lost.
As for me, I still know that the reason RICO was brought on was because the BAR-FLIES hate competition. None of the definitions/laws apply to them as a whole. They are all drunken with the blood of the saints, which is condemnable to everlasting hell.
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 20:15:26
|
Hi Manuel,
Thank you for your information. The quote actually goes like this:
"The longevity of a crime confers no sanctity upon the act, nor does it afford any protection to its perpetrators."
The court's use of 'santify' relates to the law term _sanction_, the legal verb meaing to legitimize. The court was saying that just because someone gets aawy with a crime for a long time, that "longevity" does not legitimize (sanction, or sanctify) the act (crime).
James Ewart, the author of the book "Money" http://www.principiapub.com/PProd.html is the person who wants to find what state Supreme Court case that quote came from. He said he saw it 20 years in a Corpus Juris Secundum when he was researching cases relating to tax evasion, tax fraud, and tax rebellion.
He sounds desperate to find it, so I volunteered to help him!
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 21:41:53
|
Livefree,
This post I am sending is not to instill fear, but understanding. The understanding of who we "attach" ourselves with. The following little history proves that the quote, "When the going gets tough... the tough get going," actually got the mob ruled to go the other way for fear of man not God, believing evil rulers, not His Truth:
Wat Tyler's Rebellion - 1381 A. D.
The Court of Common Pleas (the civil court, as opposed to the Court of King's Bench, the criminal court) decided early in the 14th century that it "didn't have time for the affairs of peasants." The peasants immediately recognized that they had no rights enforceable at law.
By 1340 the judges in England had become so enamored of their own procedural technicalities that civil disputes languished for years. The English Parliament enacted a statute that year which allowed the Commissioners to move the judges aside and adjudicate their own cases.
In 1348 the Black Death reached England. As many as half of the people in the country died. The feudal lords, short of tenants, tried to make those remaining work even harder. Most of the people in England were treated no better than animals.
The common people had another barrier in their quest for rights. All English court documents from 1066 to 1500 A. D. were written in what is today called "law French." Most of the men who could teach the language were dead of the Plague.
In 1381 the effort to strictly enforce the collection of taxes created discontent throughout England. Wat Tyler's rebellion was ignited when a tax collector tried to make a determination that Wat Tyler's daughter was of taxable age (15) by stripping her naked and assaulting her. Tyler, who was working close by, heard the screams of his wife and daughter, came running and smashed in the tax collector's skull with a hammer. He was cheered by his neighbors and the commoners of the western division of Kent were brought together by his courage. Wat Tyler was elected their leader.
Wat Tyler's group joined another group led by two itinerant priests named John Ball and Jack Straw, and rose 100,000 strong to invade London. The enraged mob broke open every prison and beheaded every judge and lawyer they could capture. They were not allowed to enrich themselves in their rioting. Valuables found in their midst were destroyed. One man who hid a silver cup on his person was thrown into the river as punishment for his misdeed and as an example to others to refrain from such behavior.
They surrounded Richard II, who asked them what they wanted. Their answer was, "We will be free forever, our heirs and our lands." Richard II agreed.
In a face-to-face meeting with Wat Tyler a short time later, Richard II ordered the Lord Mayor of London to "set hands on him." Tyler was stabbed through the throat with a short sword and, as he lay writhing in agony on the ground after falling off his horse, stabbed through the belly.
Watching from a distance the peasants instantly arranged themselves in order of battle with their longbows. Richard II rode up to them and said, "Wat Tyler was a traitor. I'll be your leader." Confused, the peasants followed the king until his soldiers met him and dispersed the crowd.
Minus their leader, the peasants went home. Richard reneged on his promises and hanged 1500 of the rebels after "jury trials." Those trials were presided over by Judge John Tresilian, who told the jurors in each case that he would hang them if they didn't convict.
Tresilian was hanged himself seven years later.
Richard II was forced to abdicate in 1399.
The English legal system continued to incite wars and rebellions until Englishmen, Scots, and Irish threw off the yoke of English legal tyranny in the American colonies in 1776 and Ireland gained most of her independence in 1921.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2004 : 13:43:36
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King of kings:
Peace be to the house.
If anyone would like to verify what Admin said about "persons", sometimes we can verify things that are, by things that are not. We give for your edification the antithesis of "person".
New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition
non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government
un-per-son (un’per’sen) n. a person completely ignored, as if non-existent
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with 'Elohiym: and he was not... ["as if non-existent"]
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary & Thesaurus
Main Entry: non.per.sonPronunciation: 'nän-'p&r-s[^&]n
Function: noun
Date: circa 1909 : a person who is regarded as nonexistent: as a : UNPERSON b : one having no social or legal status
Main Entry: un.per.son
Pronunciation: '&n-'p&r-s[^&]n, -"p&r-
Function: noun
Date: 1949 : an individual who usually for political or ideological reasons is removed completely from recognition or consideration
Once we are Truly "translated" into the Kingdom of Yahweh we become His "peculiar" People.
Webster's New World Dictionary of American English - Third College Edition, copyright 1988
translate vt. 1. to move from place or condition to another; transfer; specif., a)Theol. to convey directly to heaven without death [Emphasis added]
Tell us please, when is the last time you heard this sermon from the government authorized churches "to convey directly to heaven without death"? For it is written: He [Yahweh] is not the 'Elohiym of the dead, but the 'Elohiym of the Living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Please understand that this is a change of condition, not place, from a "person" to a "sentient, moral being" or a "living soul". PERSONS do not have the spirit, i.e. the breath of Yahweh, the rational mental disposition of Yahweh
Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
PECU'LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.]
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only.
4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others.
For any of us to believe that we can be of both "worlds", i.e "systems", is to believe that we can serve two masters and is referred to in Revelations as "luke warm".
I Kings 18:21 And Eliyahu came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if Yahweh be 'Elohiym, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
This is the definitive meaning of the First Commandment of Yahweh [Thou shalt have no other 'elohiym before me] and this part of the Second Commandment of Yahweh: "...for I Yahweh 'Elohiym am a jealous 'elohiym..."
Webster's New World Dictionary of American English - Third College Edition, copyright 1988
jealous 3 [Now Rare] requiring exclusive loyalty [the Lord is a jealous God][Emphasis added]
To finish this thought we but need to know that 'el, 'elohiym, etc. all stem from the Hebrew word 'aiyl which means "specifically, chief (politically)" [Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]. Without this knowledge the reading of Scripture is virtually meaningless as the whole Book is about Yahweh's Law and Yahweh's Government and not about religion; a word that never appears in the Old Testament. When the ancient Yisra'elites rejected Yahweh as their "God", He stated "they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."
Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
REIGN, v.i. rane. [L. regno, a derivative of rego, regnum.]
1. To possess or exercise sovereign power or authority; to rule; to exercise government, as a king...
We pray this has been edifying.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 12 Feb 2004 14:14:53 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 12:52:46
|
Greetings oneisraelite,
I have read your posts and I would like to know how your personal view on 'serving two masters' deals with Daniel who is considered an archetype of Righteouness when all hell is about to break loose (Ezek 14:14). If YHWH changes not and is the same today, yesterday and forever, how could Daniel be viewed by YHWH as an example of a Righteous man in the worst of times if he was really 'serving two masters'?
If your view of "serving two masters" is correct then Daniel and his brethren have been serving two masters by
1) not refusing NAMES assigned from the ROYAL EUNUCHS :
Daniel 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he
gave unto Daniel the name of BELTESHAZZAR; and to Hananiah, of SHADRACH; and to Mishael, of MESHACK; and to Azariah, of ABEDNEGO.
A NAME given by BABYL GOVT would be considered a JURISTIC PERSONALITY, no?.. If you are correct and this is a 'SIN', Why don't we read something like, "and Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah, and Azariah refused to accept the NAMES given by BABYLON EUNUCHS."?
2) not refusing the POSITIONS in BABYL:
Daniel 2:49 Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set
SHADRACH, MESHACH, and ABEDNEGO, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king.
If you are correct in your assertion that 'serving two masters' is political, why don't we read something like, "and Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah and Azariah rejected the appointments of authority because it was an offense against YHWH"... remember these are the same guys who, in the beginning of the story, refused to break Kashrut (Food Laws)by eating food that was not Lawful. If you are correct, then Daniel and his brothers "traversed"... and if they "traversed" why is Daniel held up as a man of Righteousness in the worst of times (Ezek 14)?
Daniel and his boys excelled above the BABYL OFFICIALS so certain jealous OFFICIALS wrote a new law that was sure to entrap them. This Law was written after the PROMOTIONS not before so it is clear that these enslaved Israelites had no problem with the existing Laws since we don't read them refusing the POSITIONS. They only refused to recognise any other Elohim other than YHWH, not the pre-existing BABYL POLICIES and METHODS that was their job to enforce. YHWH honored them in the furnace even though they did not refuse the NAMES or the POSITION. Daniel, who continued on to even higher positions while accepting both the NAME and RANK, was rescued from the lion's den dispite the NAME and RANK.
If these NAMES and RANKS are 'SIN' as you assert, why did YHWH rescue each of them? Why is Daniel, who was a RANKING OFFICAL with a JURISTIC NAME, considered an archetype of Righteousness in the most worst of times (Ezek 14:14)?
I'll set aside Yoseph's acceptance of a JURISTIC PERSONALITY in Egypt, Yoseph of Aramethea's political position as well as Shaul's CITIZENSHIP to a CORRUPT ROMAN GOV'T when he wrote ROMANS 13.
Sincerely awaiting your response,
BatKol (Steven Webb)
|
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Feb 2004 16:10:56 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 18:42:58
|
Daniel 9:2. in the first year of his reign {Darius} I Daniel, understood by books the number of years whereof the word of Yahuweh came to Yeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolation of Yerusalem.
Now that was for Daniel.
Where does the Book state for us to play slave?
Daniel completely disobeyed the statues of Babylon while 'under' Darius. Please read chapter six. Vs. ten.
Civil disobedience means to go against Romanish-Babylonish decrees. Civil law and Roman law are the same, so says Black's law dictionary.
American's are born free, most all sell their birthright {Yoseph's} for a mess of GOVT. privaledges. Thankfully, thosse of Yacob/Israel are not of Easu, and can still find repentance. A man of Judah...Stands surety. And we shall let oneisraelite speak on this issue. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 19:13:07
|
Robert-James said: Where does the Book state for us to play slave?
BatKol: YHWH punishes with bondage. Duet 28...If we can believe what Paul wrote, he makes it pretty clear that the Annointing, i.e.- entering into the Echad state of the Body of Christ, can be had by one that is either SLAVE or free. From this statement as well as from
the many examples of the Israelites becoming enslaved it is a common situation.
I will read the verses you recommended concerning Daniel and respond. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 19:39:05
|
Daniel 6:10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.
Robert-James I already addressed this but you might have missed it:
Daniel and his boys excelled above the BABYL OFFICIALS so certain jealous OFFICIALS wrote a new law that was sure to entrap them. This Law was written after the PROMOTIONS not before so it is clear that these enslaved Israelites had no problem with the existing Laws since we don't read them refusing the POSITIONS. They only refused to recognise any other Elohim other than YHWH, not the pre-existing BABYL POLICIES and METHODS that was their job to enforce. YHWH honored them in the furnace even though they did not refuse the NAMES or the POSITION. Daniel, who continued on to even higher positions while accepting both the NAME and RANK, was rescued from the lion's den dispite the NAME and RANK.
The rebellion came when BABYL law came into conflict with YHWH's Law.
Please note that after Daniel was vindicated in the Lion's den he continued in his position and was exhaulted even more!!!..
If your understanding is correct Robert-James then after this incident in 6:10 Daniel should have completely disconnected with the BABYL RULERS and proclaim something to the effect of, "I reject your LEGAL FICTION and refuse SERVING you". He clearly did not do anything of the sort. Read the rest of the book and you will see that Daniel continued to cooperate with BABYL. Even came out of prison and interperated another dream! The same Daniel who YHWH holds up as a man of Righteousness when the worst of times comes (Ezek 14:14).
The moral of the story is that Torah and pleasing YHWH can happen even when in captivity. SLAVE or Free.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 19:55:45
|
RObert-James here is more proof that Daniel continued to serve the BABYL KING. Daniel continued to serve the KING after the lion's den:
Daniel 8:27 - And I, Daniel, have been, yea, I became sick for days, and I rise,and do the king`s work , and am astonished at the appearance, and there is none understanding.
Here is more proof that Daniel was still recognised as a LEGAL FICTION
after the lion's den:
Daniel 10:1 - In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a thing is revealed to Daniel, whose name is called BELTESHAZZAR, and the thing is true, and the warfare is great: and he hath understood the thing, and hath understanding about the appearance.
Clearly, Daniel did not contiune to rebel after he was vindicated.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2004 : 07:29:35
|
Dear STEVEN WEBB:
Peace be unto the house.
Even your worldly "god" [by our definition], George Bush, will not let you serve another master, he calls it treason if you do. Try sending babel bux to Sadaam Hussein's cause while you are a servant of George and see what happens to you. But we assure you George will not accuse you of treason for paying a gasoline tax while in Iraq. He will not accuse you of treason if you use Iraqi babel bux to buy groceries while you are in Iraq. But he will accuse you of treason if you attempt to become a citizen of Iraq i.e. swear allegiance to his enemy. Do you not believe the Word of Yahweh that says if you are a confederate [friend] of the world you are an enemy of Yahweh?
Try telling your master that you no longer wish to serve him but that you are accepting Yahweh's offer to become his Citizen and serve ONLY Him and see what old George tells you!! By your actions you tell Yahweh every day the very same thing that the ancient Yisra'elites told Yahweh...that you want an earthly ruler like all the nations about you have and He says...go ahead Steven, it is your choice. Your master does not give you that freedom, he will have you imprisoned for making such a choice!!
We do not ask you to join us, we only do what the Master has bid us to do...go out and preach the Kingdom. Know ye not that whomever you obey, his servant you are whom you obey? The master does not seek the servants permission [license] to do anything, so who is the servant, and who is the master in your relationship with the world? If you wish to partake of the kings' dainties we do not stand in your way...have at it.
Our first question to you is, would you believe us if we told the answers to your questions, if we were able to leap the stumbling blocks you throw in front of those who go out and "preach the Kingdom of Yahweh"? We feel that you would not, but rather you would grasp for yet another stumbling block as fast as you could. Correct us if we are wrong here as we do not wish to bear false witness.
You state that Yahweh changes not, and we agree, but does He give the appearance of changing "His mind" about things? Yonah certainly thought He did!! And, there are many other instances to substantiate this.
You: "If your view of "serving two masters" is correct then Daniel and his brethren have been serving two masters by
1) not refusing NAMES assigned from the ROYAL EUNUCHS :
Daniel 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he
gave unto Daniel the name of BELTESHAZZAR; and to Hananiah, of SHADRACH; and to Mishael, of MESHACK; and to Azariah, of ABEDNEGO."
Me: If we showed you that these were titles, just as in this verse of the book of Daniel: In the first year of Darius1867 the son of Ahasuerus,325 of the seed of the Medes,4074 which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans
Darius - "Of Persian origin; Darejavesh, a title (rather than name) of several Persian kings"
Ashuerus - "Of Persian origin; Achashverosh (that is, Ahasuerus or Artaxerxes, but in this case Xerxes), the title (rather than name)of a Persian king"
Belteshazzar = “lord of the straitened’s treasure”
Shadrach = “royal” or “the great scribe”
Meshach = “guest of a king”
Abed-nego = “servant of Nebo” [nebo means "the prophet"]
You: "2) not refusing the POSITIONS in BABYL:"
Me: This was a forced captivity by Yahweh Himself and they were told to get along. In fact anyone refusing to go into "this" captivity was to punished severly by Yahweh.
You: "Daniel 2:49 Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set
SHADRACH, MESHACH, and ABEDNEGO, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king."
Me: The same thing happened to Yahu'caph in Egypt because those following the Ten Commandments of Yahweh stand head and shoulders above the rulers own people who are following HIS laws. I serve "the master of this ranch [his little kingdom]" PROVIDING he does not make me follow the laws of his "king" that are contrary to the Laws of my King, that I must obey. He could even promote me to his second in command in his "little kingdom" under these circumstances because I, being obedient to Yahweh's Moral Law, am the only one he can truly trust...and has said as much.
One such minor master suggested one too many times that I should take the "marks" of his "king"...I said these words to him: "If I should so easily betray my King, how could you ever trust me not to betray you?" He said, "good point" and never, as far as I can recall, suggested that I use the "marks" of his "king" again.
You: "Daniel and his boys excelled above the BABYL OFFICIALS so certain jealous OFFICIALS wrote a new law that was sure to entrap them. This Law was written after the PROMOTIONS not before so it is clear that these enslaved Israelites had no problem with the existing Laws since we don't read them refusing the POSITIONS. "
Me: See our above answer to this most perplexing question.
You: "They only refused to recognise any other Elohim other than YHWH, not the pre-existing BABYL POLICIES and METHODS that was their job to enforce."
Me: Thou sayest it.
And YaHuWeH 3068 spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am YaHuWeH your ‘Elohiym [a plurality, i.e. Judge, Lawgiver, King & Saviour (See Isaiah 33:22)]. After the doings of the land of Egypt [bondage], wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan [commerce], whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances2708. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am YaHuWeH your ‘Elohiym. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am YaHuWeH.
And even if they DID, the Yisra'elite citizens have done many things that we would not do as we see how much it angered the King. Should we commit those same errors again?
You: YHWH honored them in the furnace even though they did not refuse the NAMES or the POSITION. Daniel, who continued on to even higher positions while accepting both the NAME and RANK, was rescued from the lion's den dispite the NAME and RANK."
If these NAMES and RANKS are 'SIN' as you assert, why did YHWH rescue each of them? Why is Daniel, who was a RANKING OFFICAL with a JURISTIC NAME, considered an archetype of Righteousness in the most worst of times (Ezek 14:14)?"
Me: Just PERHAPS these WERE titles since we see that the name was added to the Word of Yahweh. Will you give us any benefit of the doubt?
Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.
And finally we give you this from Peter:
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness...
You: I'll set aside Yoseph's acceptance of a JURISTIC PERSONALITY in Egypt, Yoseph of Aramethea's political position as well as Shaul's CITIZENSHIP to a CORRUPT ROMAN GOV'T when he wrote ROMANS 13."
Me: How kind of you to voluntarily remove a stumbling block...and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Sincerely awaiting your response,
brother Robert:house of Yisra'el
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 14 Feb 2004 09:28:48 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Are You a PERSON?
