| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Mar 2004 : 12:57:06
|
Daniel-Jacob said: Greetings brothers;
Peace be unto the ecclesia.
I agree that the word person, as used in scripture, is more about status than something that is created by the State.
Steve: Peace to you Daniel-Jacob. Yes, it seems to sum up the idea that, concerning Torah,
a righteous judge is to peel away whatever social status the accused has when before judgement.
I find it interesting that what is put forth often from those who say the scriptural definition of "person" is a LEGAL FICTION, is that they are judging someone's status! They are doing the opposite of Deut 1:17 and James 2:9 when they take notice of one's status.
Daniel-Jacob: However, we do need to know in what context that those who are applying that word to us mean.
Steve: That is fine, but to say that 'person' as the term is used in scripture means LEGAL FICTION
as it is defined in a secular LEGAL dictionary, is very misleading aside from being an error in common sense. One has to not only use a secular english law dictionary which has nothing to do with the Greek or Hebrew to make this assertion, one also has to ignore the context of those verses which speak directly about a man's social status, i.e. - wealthy or poor. James 2:2-4 spells out the context for James 2:9. So does Deut 1:17 which is the Torah Mitvah James is speaking about in 2:9. |
Edited by - BatKol on 25 Mar 2004 13:01:19 |
 |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2004 : 13:56:01
|
"We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin."
"In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit." |
Edited by - Manuel on 25 Mar 2004 13:57:17 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2004 : 14:21:11
|
Manuel,
Is that Paul, the ROMAN Citizen you are quoting? If so, check out
who he is talking to, plus what Law he is talking about. He is not speaking to Israelites when he speaks against said Law... and if you say the LAW he is speaking about is Rome's LAW, then Paul, a ROMAN Citizen himself, would be a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2004 : 15:32:41
|
No Bat Kol,
Just Us |
Edited by - Manuel on 25 Mar 2004 15:34:00 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2004 : 22:39:57
|
A law maxim: all persons are men, but not all men are persons. {All reasonable men worldwide agree on the logic of law maxims}
Rome created corporations from approx. 250 b.c. onwards. Corporations are DEAD things, moved by living men. The riddle for today is, are you a corporation? i.e. re-presenting thy self...as a corporation, being known by an all CAPITAL LETTERED name? Let your yes be yes, and no be no.
Didn't Saul have a name change? Of course he did, to Paul. Did Paul ever claim perfection? No. Did he finish his course? Me thinks so. Is it almost 1900 years later? Yes. Have we learned anything? Hope so. The U.S. is a corporation, in bankrupcy, run by the moneychangers. Geo. Bush is the C.E.O. Are "you" a U.S. citizen? Do you accept the privalege of an ALL CAPPED name? Does one accept HIS ss# to engage in commerce? {commerce is intercourse}. SHE made all commit fornication...including the kings {Queen Elizabeth} of the earth.
Rome 2000 years ago had not worked out the bugs of the mirror image of Yahuweh's Creation. Well, they have by now. And, but for the elect's sake, all, all, would have been deceived.
Moses was many years delivering the son's of Israel 3500 years ago. Nothing new here!
Can or has anyone gotten a driver's license with his name spelled in upper/lower caps? No. A bank account-voter's registration card, ss# card, mortgage. No. The question begs, "why not"? Their system is about perfected. Which is the mirror image of the real, which means the Most High may be close to perfecting His son's. "Go tell that FOX...I shall Be perfected on the Third day"...Mark 13, I think.
Without a parable He spoke not unto THEM. But when the Spirit of Truth comes, he shall show ye all things.
Would you father's turn your son's loose to go out into the world, when they still can't properly spell their given name? None of you would, which is wise. "Adoption" means coming of age, and then He places you as His son, where-ever He will, for whatever He will.
On another note, does a zombie have free will? There are some about the neighborhood who think the sons of elohim are zombies. We are free to choose His Will, or serve our will.
Through much tribulation shall ye enter into the Kingdom, which is the message of the cross-stake. And ol Morpheus of "Matrix" fame, never said "it" would be easy.
Person comes from latin which is the word...persona, an actor, wearing a mask. Yahushuah saw not the mask, and saw the heart. Wanna play in commerce? Wear a mask, is all good ol satan-the adversary demands.
Without a fine English dictionary, Blacks, Bouvier's, and a Strongs, to figure words out, one might as well stay where put. Not all are called, and we attest, most certainly, not all are chosen. And we look for the faith-full. For {they} know the Way Home.
I have no problem following Paul's instructions, for he wanted sincerely to show us Messiah Yahushuah, who is the Only One who shall show us the Father.
Yahuweh said so
Yahushuah bled so
I know so.
Gideon was a tax resistor. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2004 : 00:05:19
|
Robert-James,
I find nowhere in your opinions and specualtions above a refutation of the plain fact that the context of 'respector of persons' in both James 2:9 and Deut 1:17 is not the LEGAL FICTION found in secular LEGAL DICTIONARIES. The defintion is found in the context of James 2:2-4, Deut 1:17 and also perfectly backed up by a Greek/Hebrew bible dictionary. The Talmud is chock full of commentary, opinions and speculations which ask one go outside the plain Biblical context. No thanks, I'll let scripture interprate scripture and stick with James 2:2-4 and Deut 1:17 for the True meaning of 'respector of persons'. No Black's law or Talmud-like commentary needed.
All of your grievences can be understood in the context of Daniel 11:35 to the end of the chapter. What else would you expect? All will be reconsiled when we get to Daniel 12:1 which has not yet been fulfilled.... then the people will escape.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 26 Mar 2004 07:03:27 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2004 : 00:21:35
|
Robert-james said: On another note, does a zombie have free will? There are some about the neighborhood who think the sons of elohim are zombies. We are free to choose His Will, or serve our will.
Steve: Yes, this is off point. Let's start a seperate thread on just this one topic. In the meantime, Paul will help you better understand
YHWH's absolute sovereignty.
That people will act only as YHWH determines is verified in the NT. If anyone is evil it is because YHWH has chosen to make them evil (Rom 1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not understand YHWH's message it is simply because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) and made them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). YHWH even prevents the Gospel from being taught in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he decides well before it happens when a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by YHWH before the beginning of time (II Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11). If one has faith and is thereby 'saved', their faith comes from YHWH, not from any effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). Don't like this? A clay pot does not ask the One who made it: "Why did you create me like this?" The One who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes.(Rom 9:19-22).
|
Edited by - BatKol on 26 Mar 2004 07:05:58 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2004 : 20:51:33
|
John 20:30 And many other signs truely did Yahushuah-in the presence-of His disciples, "which are not written in this book". But these are written that you might believe that Yahushuah {Jesus} is the messiah, the Son of YaH; and that believing you might have...Life...through His name.
If one is called...one must pick up the phone. Sovereignity is the call, free will is picking up the telephone.
Fictio is a clay pot. Fictio is the root word for fiction. The first Adam was the clay pot. The second Adam is an Alive spirit.
CORPORATIONS are dead things. Everything Eve{fictious name}brought forth, was dead spiritually. Scripture is blacks marks on a white page, without the breath of Life.
Let's see; I quoted a law maxim and scripture. Are these the "speculations and opinions" you refer too?
Am so glad to see you include James' writings as scripture...and for that matter Paul's writings. We are making great advances into Kingdom thought.
This whole thread was set up to keep believer's from falling again into the bondage of contract law. It was a little more than ten years ago, Randy Lee basically stated to a FEDERAL administrative judge, "I ain't no PERSON", THE FED PERSECUTOR lost, period. Paul stated 1900 years ago, arise from the DEAD.
The book of James is maybe the most {daily} practical book in the N.T. And I just love the first sentence. And the last: Let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from DEATH, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
On a private note to brother Steven, the ministry of reconciliation has been around for a long time now. 11 Cor. 5:19-20.
The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
I Will Be What I Will to Be. And He willed to be in Yahushuah. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2004 : 22:35:31
|
Robert-James said: Let's see; I quoted a law maxim and scripture. Are these the "speculations and opinions" you refer too?
Steve: I refer to your appeal to the Blacks' Law for the defintion of person when the context and meaning of the phrase 'respector of persons' is sitting right there in James 2:2-4. James is ref'ing to Deut 1:17. Why do I need a Black's which is a secular dictionary
having nothing to do with Biblical Greek or Hebrew when I have the context and meaning spelled out right in the same chapter? I agree with the NT when it harmonizes with Tanakh. Paul's understanding of YHWH's total sovereignty is in line with the Tanakh and so is James' understanding of Deut 1:17...
Robert-James said: This whole thread was set up to keep believer's from falling again into the bondage of contract law.
Steve: That is fine, but to say that James 2:9 is a LEGAL FICTION as it pertains to a secular dictionary instead of using the context of 2:2-4 and Deut 1:17 is more like playing twister than studying the Bible. I notice a pattern that when the Biblical context does not agree with the promoter's personal opinion, then the secular dictionaries come out and the textual context of the scripture is ignored. This is very much the pattern with these issues and I find it very suspicious.. To choose Black's Law over the plain scriptural context to build a doctrine that suits your position is a very Talmudic mindset. That was the point I was making.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 26 Mar 2004 22:43:18 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2004 : 23:46:33
|
Steven John, shall we point out the falsities written within the KJV of the Older Testament before the children? I hope not! The Most High asked "us" to "reason" with Him in Isaiah 1:18, shucks, it was my WIFE's favorite verse, I should remember! Man's laws says STEVEN JOHN is a PERSON. Steven John is not a PERSON. Not subject to Caesar's statues...IRS, DRIVERS LICENSE, bla, bla,bla. Am so sorry to have to use you as the example, but, you will do well. Are you STEVEN JOHN LASTNAME, or are you Steven John? simple stuff. And, only you provide the answer, not me, nor Brother Robert, or whomsoever...And you {we} should take great comfort that only the man/woman asked this question, can respond. Black's law, and Bouvier's law, Oxford's English Dictionary are only help's in understanding who we are. Yahushuah plainly stated that both He and Us are Elohim. Elohim created the world system and the known universe. In the Beginning defies the known name of YHWH, for He never had a beginning. so what have we here? In the beginnings elohim created...
There is no question in any man's mind that the ALL CAP name is FICTION. The question begs the answer: do you care. Choice, free will, who are you? The DEAD in Messiah, could care less. And for this choice, they shall surely pay the price.
We would do us all well, if we could answer this question: are you a PERSON? If so, pay thee well, i.e. IRS and every LICENSE-REGRISTRATIONS etc. they demand. If not, IF one has been translated into the Kingdom of His Dear Son, give forth your testimony. And ye surely hurt, and carry your own cross-stake, for a time or times, knowing full well YHWH rewards those who serve Him. and...will reward them who follow NOT His Ways.
Free Will is the servent of its master. Without freewill,man is a SLAVE.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2004 : 10:13:12
|
Robert-James said: Steven John, shall we point out the falsities written within the KJV of the Older Testament before the children?
Steve: Sure. After reading this quote you may be inspired to learn Hebrew for yourself. Hugh Broughton, the foremost Hebrew scholar of England at that time the KJV was published, rejected the suggestion that he endorse the work by saying that he would rather "be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had any part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people."
Robert-James: I hope not!
Steve: Why not? If you are interested in Truth one should be willing
to go down this road. I am very willing to do this with you on another thread that is dedicated to this topic. As I told you in the recent past, I have reconsiled for myself the errors and contradictions having studied Hebrew. I now understand the NT much better having studied the Aryan Brahmins as well as what happened during the council of Nicea. A great topic for another thread.
Robert-James: The Most High asked "us" to "reason" with Him in Isaiah 1:18
Steve: Again, why would I want to use a secular LEGAL dictionary
which has nothing to do with Biblical Greek or Hebrew when I have the context and definition of 'respector of persons' in HaTorah and the Hebrew Roots NT? You are asking me to join along in your speculation by rejecting the clear context of the phrase in question in favor of a definition from a LEGAL dictionary which is more suited to your agenda. This is exactly what the Talmudists do. No thanks, I'll pass on the wolf tickets.
Robert-James: Man's laws says STEVEN JOHN is a PERSON. Steven John is not a PERSON. Not subject to Caesar's statues...IRS, DRIVERS LICENSE, bla, bla,bla. Am so sorry to have to use you as the example, but, you will do well. Are you STEVEN JOHN LASTNAME, or are you Steven John? simple stuff.
Steve: You have consistantly failed to show the fulfillment of Daniel 12:1 so your assertions concerning all of this are just opinions based on speculation. Am so sorry to use you as an example but it is very fitting here. What you refuse to acknowledge yourself is the fact that when you go and sell a paint job that you are in commerce.
You like maxims. Remember this next time your paint 'bid' is accepted, "the payment of a price stands in place of a sale".
This is commerce.
Until Daniel 12:1 is fulfilled we get subject to Daniel 11:36,39
type of rulership. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2004 : 17:10:40
|
The laborer is worthy of his hire.
Thankfully even the fourth beast does not accept your defination of commerce. No one has to pay me for painting work. I give a man a proposal. I never have advertised, well, one ad in a paper, 28 years ago.
Many of us are not legally... persons.
I am having some men over tonight to discuss "Michael" standing up. Would that you would be here. But.
Are you sure you know what "Michael standing up" means? You need not respond to me on this, it is just a good question for us all. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2004 : 17:40:42
|
Robert-James, I'd be very interested in your take on Michael standing up but don't forget to plug this verse into the equation:
11:45 And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the beauteous holy mountain; and he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
This verse is the end of the 4th Kingdom. When did this come to pass? If you are going to assert "Michael standing up" then you need to first handle verse 45. Last time I checked CNN the 4th Kingdom was very much alive. In fact, I just paid a 4th KINGDOM SALES TAX at the FOOD CORP so I know Daniel 11:45 is not here yet.
Daniel-Jacob and I have a nice thread going on Daniel. Maybe you could enter your findings there? |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2004 : 06:54:20
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be to the house.
Is it not written: "...through covetousness shall they with feigned [artificial, false] words make merchandise of you..."?
And is this "merchandise" not identified as "The merchandise of...slaves [bodies] and souls [lives] of men"?
If this be truth then would it not behoove us to use EVERY AVAILABLE source, all graphe [writings], as it is written, to discover how this was done?
Come let us reason together, let us use another example of "person" from the Set Apart Scripture of YaHuWeH: And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest [regard any one’s power, rank (Thayer's Greek Definitions; 1d4a)] thou the person of any, but teachest the Way of [YaHuWeH] God truly: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? But he perceived their craftiness...
What "craftiness" did Yahushua "perceive" [see and understand] here? Is the term "caesar" or "commander in chief" the personage of a man? If you obey, is it the mask [the personage] you obey or is it the man? For example, if he didn't have the longest tassels [a badge] would you allow him to tell you that you cannot freely move about? Perhaps if he had a gun you might, but this is not lawful authority, this is raw power, i.e. force!
Anyway, keep in mind now that they were trying to "...deliver him [Yahushua] unto the power and authority of the governor [the chief person of the province]". Why did they perceive that this particular question would serve that purpose? As one dear brother has said; We must be able to read and think at the same time.
Let us look at one more concept while we are here.
When you are asked for a license of any kind, are they not asking you:
By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 21:23
By wht authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Mark 11:28
Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? Luke 20:2
Who gave you the authority, or libertie, or PRIVILEGE, to travel about in this conveyance? or, to marry this woman? or to build this addition onto your home? or to work? ...ad nauseum. If you serve the graven [written] image, i.e. a "license", from the caesar [government] then are you not openly and voluntarily admitting, that the government [the caesar] is your master? The simplest of minds should know that the master does not seek the permission [license from] of the servant for it is written: "...that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey." Does your government obey you, or do you obey it? Is it not common knowledge that where there is a servant, there is a master? And is it not written, No man can serve two masters...?
We finish this with this question; Does your master observe the "perfect Lawe of libertie"? Good, glad to hear it, then he will not be a threat to your good works and he will not make you beg [apply to] him for license [permission] to do anything you wish, aside from taking this same libertie away from your brothers or sisters. All things Lawful are mine...; this, however, does not mean that even though I harm no one in my YaHuWeH given Libertie, that the tyrant [the bully in the schoolyard] will not, by force, try to convince me otherwise [steal my lunch money], for it is written, ye shall suffer greatly for my name's [authority] sake.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 28 Mar 2004 08:56:09 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2004 : 09:16:52
|
Greetings brother Robert,
You said: Is it not written: "...through covetousness shall they with feigned [artificial, false] words make merchandise of you..."?
Steve: Yes it is written. But who is the "they"? Look to the
verses above and the context of "they" is quite clear.
2 Peter 2:1 (which is carrying on from 2 Peter 1) is speaking about false prophets and false teachers teaching heresy.
I have never seen GOVT officials labled as false prophets
and false teachers in scripture. They were openly pagan never presenting themselves as teachers of YHWH or prophets. This is speaking about false prophets and false teachers promoting another Gospel. Paul speaks about these 'competitors' as well. History shows that there were all sorts of sects preaching various strains of the Christ gospel. The Council of Nicea rectified this problem and those who would not conform to the decided Gospel were put to death.
brother Robert said: And is this "merchandise" not identified as "The merchandise of...slaves [bodies] and souls [lives] of men"?
Steve: You are pulling things out of context and I'll show you why. We have already identified the 'they' of 1 Peter 2 above as false teachers and false prophets. Now you have looked up the word 'merchandise' and found it in Rev 18:11-13. Here is the whole section:
Rev 18:
11And the merchantsG1713 of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandiseG1117 any more: 12The merchandiseG1117 of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slavesG4983, and soulsG5590 of menG444.
Now after reading the whole list of merchandise, who is the "they" here? It's the merchants, not the GOVT. You might already know this but merchants back in those times sold men as literal slaves along with linen, gold, etc. This section is about the merchants "weeping and moaning" because nobody wants to buy their goods! Why are slaves listed among luxury items? Because that is what they were. A luxury...This is not about the GOVT and LEGAL FICTIONS. Merchants are merchants. False prophets and teachers are another issue altogether.
brother Robert: If this be truth then would it not behoove us to use EVERY AVAILABLE source, all graphe [writings], as it is written, to discover how this was done?
Steve: It is not truth. It is pulling words out of context, stringing them together to construct an ideology which was not the original intent of the scriptures. This is what is being done with James 2:9 concerning 'respector of persons'. It's not about LEGAL FICTIONS it's about giving special treatment where there should be equality between rich and poor per Deut 1:17.. Again why would I want to use 'every available source' when the context its self gives the meaning? By using 'every available source' one can just shop around for the desired definition, clip and paste, and presto! Why not let the context of scripture define the words?
There is no escape until Jer 30:3, Daniel 12:1 and a host of other verses which give detail to the bondage are fulfilled.
brother Robert: Come let us reason together,
Steve: Here I Am. Please address my comments above. |
Edited by - BatKol on 28 Mar 2004 09:36:34 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2004 : 13:52:50
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be to the house.
STEVEN: “This is what is being done with James 2:9 concerning 'respector of persons'.”
Actually, what we quoted in that last post was Luke 20:20-23 and we quote STEVEN: “Why not let the context of scripture define the words?”
STEVEN: “Yes it is written. But who is the "they"? Look to the verses above and the context of "they" is quite clear. 2 Peter 2:1 (which is carrying on from 2 Peter 1) is speaking about false prophets and false teachers teaching heresy. I have never seen GOVT officials labled as false prophets and false teachers in scripture. They were openly pagan never presenting themselves as teachers of YHWH or prophets.”
We presume that one as learned as STEVEN is well aware that the so-called CHURCH [RELIGION] and STATE [POLITICS] have INCORPORATED; “With whom the kings [rulers] of the earth have committed fornication...”…and are they not OPENLY pagan?
INCOR'PORATED, pp. Mixed or united in one body; associated in the same political body; united in a legal body.
STEVEN: “Now after reading the whole list of merchandise, who is the "they" here? It's the merchants, not the GOVT.”
We are pretty sure once again, that STEVEN knows that the so-called law of the so-called government is the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, which we perceive to be the international law of merchants, or traffickers, if you prefer.
Is it not written: "...through covetousness shall they with feigned [artificial, false] words make merchandise of you..."?
STEVEN: “It is not truth.”
It is Truth, since CHURCH and STATE are one! This happened in Babylon, this happened in Rome and it has happened here. This is why the GOVERNMENT can dictate to the CHURCH what they may or may not do; the STATE is the husband and the CHRUCH is its wife! If you doubt this let a “church” openly speak out against Her husband [the GOVERNMENT] or any of its actions and see what happens.
STEVEN: “Again why would I want to use 'every available source' when the context its self gives the meaning?”
Yes, it is written…this is all so easy to understand.
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of [YaHuWeH] God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
STEVEN: “By using 'every available source' one can just shop around for the desired definition, clip and paste, and presto!”
Is this an accusation against me, or anyone who uses a dictionary?
STEVEN: Here I Am. Please address my comments above.
What "craftiness" did Yahushua "perceive" [see and understand] here? NOT ANSWERED.
Is the term "caesar" or "commander in chief" the personage of a man? NOT ANSWERED.
If you obey, is it the mask [the personage] you obey or is it the man? NOT ANSWERED.
For example, if he didn't have the longest tassels [a badge] would you allow him to tell you that you cannot freely move about? NOT ANSWERED.
Anyway, keep in mind now that they were trying to "...deliver him [Yahushua] unto the power and authority of the governor [the chief person of the province]". Why did they perceive that this particular question would serve that purpose? NOT ANSWERED.
When you are asked for a license of any kind, are they not asking you:
By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 21:23
By wht authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Mark 11:28
Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? Luke 20:2
Who gave you the authority, or libertie, or PRIVILEGE, to travel about in this conveyance? or, to marry this woman? or to build this addition onto your home? or to work? ...ad nauseum. NO ANSWER.
If you serve the graven [written] image, i.e. a "license", from the caesar [government] then are you not openly and voluntarily admitting, that the government [the caesar] is your master? NO ANSWER.
Does your government obey you, or do you obey it? NO ANSWER.
Is it not common knowledge that where there is a servant, there is a master? NO ANSWER.
And is it not written, No man can serve two masters...? NO ANWSER.
Does your master observe the "perfect Lawe of libertie"? NO ANSWER.
Thank you in advance for your time and attention regarding these questions.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2004 : 16:53:18
|
brother Robert,
The reason you got "NO ANSWER" on your other points is because I did not want to address the rest of your post until I saw where you stood on my response about merchants and false prophets. If I understand you properly, you are asserting that false prophets and teachers are the same people as those merchants selling perfume, slaves and ivory???? I will respond to that when I finish answering your original post.
Here is the rest of my response to your post which I held back below:
brother Robert: let us use another example of "person" from the Set Apart Scripture of YaHuWeH: And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest [regard any one’s power, rank (Thayer's Greek Definitions; 1d4a)] thou the person of any, but teachest the Way of [YaHuWeH] God truly: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
Steve: First off you are speaking of two different words here but my response will be the same.
James 2:9 is But if ye have respect to personsG4380, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (The Law being the Torah per Duet 1:17)
and
Matt 23:21 is regardest not the personG4383 of menG444.
Person:
G4383#8233;#960;#961;#959;#769;#963;#969;#960;#959;#957;#8233;proso#772;pon#8233;pros'-o-pon#8233;From G4314 and #969;#787;#769;#968; o#772;ps (the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person:—(outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.
What I see clearly is this: Yahushua did not judge a man by his outward appearence, countenance, apsect, whatever be he a Caeser, serf, prophet, beggar, high ranking uncle Aramethea, etc. Yahushua did not look at this status just as I am not to judge somebody differently be they a farm hand, crossing gaurd, SLAVE, etc... Those that sought to trap him were trying to use this view of equality against him. To say either word person, be it G4383 or G4380, is a LEGAL FICTION is a very limiting at best. Far too limiting.
What I find most pressing is that we are told not to give any preference to the 'person' or status of a man, yet this doctrine of turning this word person to mean LEGAL FICTION and then judging a man as to his status concerning PERSONAGE is doing the reverse of the commandment! We are clearly told NOT to do this, yet all I read from these types of promoters IS a judgement of what one's status is... Quite the turn around!
brother Robert: Why did they perceive that this particular question would serve that purpose?
Steve: Simply because if he spoke against Caeser then he could be convicted. Note that even Ceaser could not find any
error in Yahushua so obviously he was not preaching that he was the new King that was to destroy ROME.... if he was then his servants would have fought (which is what the Jews were expecting in Moshiach ben David).
The whole concept of not being a respector of somebody's person is all about equality, regardless of status, wealth, etc.
Even if the word 'person' was a LEGAL FICTION as it pertains to Black's or what-have-you (which it is not) we are told to not judge somebody by it! This is against Deut 1:17 no matter what the definition is!
brother Robert said: What "craftiness" did Yahushua "perceive" [see and understand] here?
Steve: He saw that they were trying to use his view of equality extended to all men against him. It was a double trap. The Jews at the time disliked Caesar so the public sentiment was very anti-Ceaser.
If Yahushua completely sided with Caeser that would damage him in relation to the people. If he spoke against Caesar then they would turn him in and ROME would have a cause against him... Even Pilate saw through this and could find nothing against Yahushua.
brother Robert: Is the term "caesar" or "commander in chief" the personage of a man?
Steve: If you are willing to accept that this same term be applied to say Eddie, "the car-repair guy" or Yoseph of Aramethea the "sanhedrin councilman", Bob "the painter", etc... These are the same.
brother Robert: If you obey, is it the mask [the personage] you obey or is it the man?
Steve: In a generic instance you are obeying the man exersizing his position (hopefully agreeing quickly with your advesary!). We are told to not look at the man's position, just the man. When you are out doing your work on the farm you, the man, is engaging the persona of a farmer. The beauty of Deut 1:17 is that we are to seperate the man from his position and look past it, not judge him on it.
brother Robert: For example, if he didn't have the longest tassels [a badge] would you allow him to tell you that you cannot freely move about?
Steve: If I was on the man's personal property then I would very well let him... in fact, I would apologise and move on.
brother Robert: Perhaps if he had a gun you might, but this is not lawful authority, this is raw power, i.e. force!
Steve: 4th Kingdom RULERS operate with this raw power given to them for a specific purpose in YHWH's plan. This phase of the 4th KINGDOM was installed in it's current fashion on this land by force after the Civil War.
brother Robert: Why did they perceive that this particular question would serve that purpose? As one dear brother has said; We must be able to read and think at the same time.
Steve: Simple. They knew Yahushua did not judge a man by his 'person' so they were trying to use this against him. The CAPTIVES all despised Caesar because of his 'personal' position so if they could get to Yahushua to defame Caesar then they could turn him in. On the other hand if they could get him to strait out support Caesar then he could loose the faith of the people. It was a double trap they tried to set. It failed that time.
brother Robert: Let us look at one more concept while we are here.
When you are asked for a license of any kind, are they not asking you:
By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 21:23
By wht authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Mark 11:28
Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? Luke 20:2
Who gave you the authority, or libertie, or PRIVILEGE, to travel about in this conveyance? or, to marry this woman? or to build this addition onto your home? or to work? ...ad nauseum
Steve: Here again you are pulling scriptures out of context. If you read the whole story you will see that in the verses you quote
Yahushua went into the temple and began teaching. The temple heads and chiefs asked him "by what authority do you do this"?
It's like you walked into a BAPTIST church, went up to the pulpit, and began preaching to the congregation. Don't you think the preachers would ask you where you get the authority? You are trying to twist this situation into a DL issue by taking the story out of it's context, which is the temple head's asking him where he got the authority to come up and address the congregation....Notice Yahushua did not give them an answer because they did not answer his question.
brother Robert: If you serve the graven [written] image, i.e. a "license", from the caesar [government] then are you not openly and voluntarily admitting, that the government [the caesar] is your master?
Steve: Please show me where Daniel 12:1 has been fulfilled.
You and I are both in the 4th Kingdom who is governing this land we live on. You, nor anybody on this list has yet to show where the Daniel 11:45 has come to pass, clearing the way for 12:1 (THEN the people will escape). This 4th KINGDOM is what we get until then.
brother Robert: Does your government obey you, or do you obey it?
Steve: We are in the 4th Kingdom and there is no re-instituted Davidic Kingdom yet... please show me when Daniel 11:45 has come to pass... until 12:1 we are in bondage.
brother Robert: Does your master observe the "perfect Lawe of libertie"? Good, glad to hear it, then he will not be a threat to your good works and he will not make you beg [apply to] him for license [permission] to do anything you wish, aside from taking this same libertie away from your brothers or sisters.
Steve: Please show me where the 4th Kingdom has been dismantled per Daniel 11:45. Please show me the fulfillment of Daniel 12:1 because at that time the people will escape..
brother Robert: Is it not common knowledge that where there is a servant, there is a master? And is it not written, No man can serve two masters...?
Steve: You have never cleary answered how Paul, the ROMAN citizen was able to be both a Citizen of Heaven as well as a ROMAN! It the "two masters" phrase is as you say it is...then Paul was a fraud! Look to Daniel for how to survive in these KINGDOMS of bondage until 12:1 comes. He was able to serve YHWH first and his MASTER second. Until Moshiach ben David comes and sets up the re-instituted Throne we get 4th Kingdom oppression.
I'll address your next post on my next post.
Peace to you,
Steve |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2004 : 18:03:20
|
brother Robert: We presume that one as learned as STEVEN is well aware that the so-called CHURCH [RELIGION] and STATE [POLITICS] have INCORPORATED; “With whom the kings [rulers] of the earth have committed fornication...”…and are they not OPENLY pagan?
Steve: I love it. When you get mad at me you put my name in ALL CAPS.. A big YES! to you on some of the churches being Pagan today but you are mixing apples and oranges here. There is no LAW that says a church must INCORPORATE. Only if they want to be "TAX EXEMPT". I can show you a handfull of home churches just in my little mountain town which are neither Pagan (at least they speak out against paganism, xmas, easter, etc) nor INCORPORATED. This is not against the LAW. The false prophets and teachers in question were not preaching in the 501(c)(3) Pagan temples but rather to the members of the newly founded Ecclesia. See the difference? Now if you are saying that the false teachers are one in the same as the merchants selling slaves, ivory, silk, slaves, what-have-you... what is your proof for this? Only the word 'merchandise'? Merchants are concerning with selling their goods and I seriously doubt they have a second hobby of going around to the ecclesia preaching.
If you have proof for this please provide it for me... As I mentioned there were many other conflicting sects preaching various Christ Gospels. That is who 2 Peter 1 and 2 is talking about not merchants whining about nobody buying their goods as in your referenced verse in Rev.
brother Robert: INCOR'PORATED, pp. Mixed or united in one body; associated in the same political body; united in a legal body.
STEVEN: “Now after reading the whole list of merchandise, who is the "they" here? It's the merchants, not the GOVT.”
We are pretty sure once again, that STEVEN knows that the so-called law of the so-called government is the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, which we perceive to be the international law of merchants, or traffickers, if you prefer.
Steve: Again, prove to me that the false prophets and teachers of 2 Peter 2 are the same folks as the merchants of the verse in Rev that you quoted. While you are at it prove that Peter's Ecclesia is a 501(c)(3) and not an unincorporated home-style group...I submit to you they are not the same.
brother Robert: is it not written: "...through covetousness shall they with feigned [artificial, false] words make merchandise of you..."?
Steve: Ever heard the phrase, "you've been sold a false bill of goods?" or "been sold down the river"? Figures of speech. Same here because these are not merchants but rather false prophets and teachers..With false words concerning the Gospel the false teachers and prophets were "selling the congregation a false bill of goods" concerning the doctrine. If your only link to the merchants of Revelations and the false prophets of 2 Peter is the word 'merchandise' I ask you to look at the context.
brother Robert said: STEVEN: “It is not truth.”
It is Truth, since CHURCH and STATE are one!
Steve: We are not talking about 501(c)(3)'s we are talking about
Peter's Ecclesia getting invaded by false prophets and teachers selling the congregation a "false bill of goods" in relation to the Gospel. In Revelations we have the merchants whining about nobody buying their goods (slaves included!). Two different situations. The only connection is the word 'merchandise'. The Bible is full of figurative speech. Look to the context to see what is what.
brother Robert: This happened in Babylon, this happened in Rome and it has happened here. This is why the GOVERNMENT can dictate to the CHURCH what they may or may not do; the STATE is the husband and the CHRUCH is its wife! If you doubt this let a “church” openly speak out against Her husband [the GOVERNMENT] or any of its actions and see what happens.
Steve: Yep. You are seeing the 4th Kingdom clearly ... BUT again, we are not talking about a 501(c)(3) Baptist CHURCH seeking TAX EXEMPTION. We are talking about Peter's Ecclesia which was probably just like unincorporated home churchs here. I agree if a 501(c)(3) TAX EXEMPT church speaks against the GOVT they are in error. But this LAW does not extend to unicorporated home churches. They are free to speak against the GOVT or what-ever they feel like. I can take you to some unicorporated xtian Identity groups right here in my town that do just that...You are failing to make the distinction between an unicorporated Ecclesia or home church vs. a TAX EXEMPT 501(c)(3). This is key.
brother Robert: STEVEN: “Again why would I want to use 'every available source' when the context its self gives the meaning?”
Yes, it is written…this is all so easy to understand.
Steve: Agreed. The context tells the meaning. The context of 2 Peter is about false prophets and teachers coming to the Ecclesia (not a 501(c)(3) )... the context of the merchants of Revelations is that they literally sell slaves along with the rest of their luxury goods. Two different situations, not the same.
brother Robert: And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of [YaHuWeH] God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Steve: The verses about the false prophets and teachers in 2 Peter are not parables spoken by Yahushua or even Peter. They are mentioned in a letter from Peter addressing the problem of competitors coming to the Ecclesia preaching a false gospel.
Again, you are taking the above verse out of context as both the merchants and the false prophets in both Revelations and 2 Peter are contextualy to be taken as real events that happened
(or will happen)! The midrash about the husbandman and the vinyard is a parable, not Peter warning that false prophets and teachers were preaching a false doctrine to the Ecclesia. That is to be taken as real history.
brother Robert: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Steve: Yeah, the old "you don't have eyes to see" response.
You are trying to pass off a clearly historic context as a parable in an attempt to say that "i don't understand". I fully understand your doctrines. That is why I am able to show that they do not fit into the verses you provide. Again I rebut your assumption that the merchants of Revelations and the false prophets and teachers in 2 Peter are 'hard to understand' parables but rather historic items. Sure there might be some figurative speech involved but to say that these two items are parables that I don't understand is a far stretch...
Peace to you all on this fine day.
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 28 Mar 2004 19:06:34 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2004 : 19:37:19
|
| Brother Robert, if anyone does not see the reality of Isaiah 9:7 being in the present, then the only recourse is to obey the government he can see. And Sam Adams said to the blind in his day: 'go home, we don't need you'. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2004 : 06:35:43
|
Robert-James,
You have consistently failed to show the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45
as well as Daniel 12:1 along with a host of other scriptures which speak about the escape from bondage. Instead of proving these things have been fulfilled you, like other 'no shows' on this topic, just throw in the old ad hominem, "your blind" instead of going head to head, point by point on my posts. Can you stay on point long enough to have a worth-while exchange and prove me wrong... or is this just another 'post and run'??? When you are ready to quit playing 'twister' and get down to brass tacks on these issues, I'd be very interested in going more than a few rounds with you here on Ecclesia.org.
Consider this a public challenge to you from Steven John Webb.
brother Robert:
I made an oversight on my reply to your point concerning the context of 'person'. You had mentioned you were using Luke and I went forward with Matthew concerning the exchange of 'Render unto Caesar' because it was the first version where 'render' came up on my Bible program (yay! I have my laptop back). I checked the word for 'person' in Luke and it is the same 'person' used in Matthew. I just wanted you to know that I acknowledge this even though my reply is still valid since it is the same 'person' word being used.
Also quoted this verse commenting on my 'blindness':
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Steve: Again, context. Who is the 'his'? Paul. This verse is Peter talking about Paul's letters yet you quote it at me to say that I can't understand what Peter is saying in his own letter???? You are taking it and applying it to our discussion about Peter's letter.
This is called a non-sequitor.
Also concerning 2 Kefa 2:3:
Here is how the "Hebraic-Roots New Testament" renders the verse:
Speaking about the false teachers and prophets 3. And by covetousness they will expoit you with deceptive words, whose judgement for a long time has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
There is no mention of 'merchandise' concerning this passage in the Hebrew NT. To check out the credibility and history of this version translated by Dr. James S. Trimm go to www.nazarene.net
|
Edited by - BatKol on 29 Mar 2004 08:45:05 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Are You a PERSON?
