| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 20:21:21
|
Dear Berkano;
You said:
quote:
When you play court, you've gotta be careful of what name you answer to, and you've got to explain it to preserve honor on both sides.
And I have said:
quote:
Whenever you put your family's name behind your true name you have formed a legal name, a new creation that is a benefit of the social compact. You sign the social compact by using the legal name. No problem. Eustace Mullins is wrong. That is the purpose of Rule E(8). Limit the assumpsit to only the ink on the contract that proper notification has been served. We, that is the men and women (what is your name?) have always had the God-given unalienable right to contract honestly with others, be it Social Security or whatever.
And more recently I shared: (http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=376&whichpage=2 )
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
So I think we may agree. But you cannot appear to explain it. You must maintain a court of competent jurisdiction. For instance, your last sentence is laced with a Second Daniel in the Lions Den. Maybe you have read that. If you look closely though, "Daniel" was subject to that municipal and police powers jurisdiction lock-stock-and barrel. He even had the penalties imposed just as if he had plead guilty. I remember when that first came off the press from the California Christian Jural Society and wondering why Randy Lee was trying to impress anyone that was a successful abatement. The attorney-in-the-black-robe took silent judicial notice that the jurisdiction was cured by appearance and just gleaned "Daniel" while behaving respectfully. Maybe you have not read the original transcript that I had.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Jul 2004 20:24:14 |
 |
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 21:01:05
|
David said: If you look closely though, "Daniel" was subject to that municipal and police powers jurisdiction lock-stock-and barrel.
Steve: EXACTLY!!!
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 21:48:29
|
| "And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said." |
Edited by - Manuel on 28 Jul 2004 21:50:10 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 22:46:04
|
" And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
|
|
Solace
Regular Member
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 10:17:27
|
| I call Him Father. What other need have a son to call his father? I do not call my earthly father by his proper name, simply out of respect and consideration. If I respect my father of this earth, how much more so shall I respect my father in Heaven? Let those who do not know Him as father worry over what name to address him by. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2004 : 08:36:15
|
Greetings Solace, and welcome to the Ecclesia.
Calling Yahowah, "Father" is fine, Solace, as long as one knows that all kings are called “sire”, i.e. father, and that by calling Him such one is merely acknowledging and honouring Him as the Head of their government. (1Corinthians 11:3) Rightly divide abba in the New Covenant [Testament]; it says "Of Chaldean origin [H2]" and when we go to H2 it says "corresponding to H1", and when we go to H1 in Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions we see this as the very last entry "9) ruler or chief (specifically)". [Emphasis added]
And to give one’s allegiance to someone or something that does not acknowledge Yahowah as the Higher Power by being obedient to Him, one is giving his allegiance to the Adversary of Yahowah.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Father A name applied
(2.) as a title of respect to a chief, ruler...
The Adversary of Yahowah is easily recognizable for those with eyes that perceive and ears that understand, for we shall see those running for OFFICE in the Adversary's government lying like their father [chief], we shall see them rewarding evil and punishing good; we shall see them shedding innocent blood in the land with no remorse; we shall see them devouring widows’ houses for a pretense; we shall see them committing adultery not only against their own country and wives, but even against the King of kings Himself; we shall see them and their agents bearing false witness against their neighbors; and we shall see them coveting and confiscating their neighbors’ possessions, land, homes, cars, and yes, even their children, under a myriad of pretexts [feigned words].
But let us have the Scripture be the last word on what we should call Him. We see this verse of the Scripture at Act 2:21 and Romans 10:13 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Where did Luke and Paul get these words and what are theses words, exactly? We can get a clue by looking at these verses of the Scripture in the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.
Act 2:21 "And it shall be that everyone who shall call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:28-32
Romans 10:13 For everyone, "whoever may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32
We see from this that they both have a common verse as their reference Joel 2:32, so let us now look at that verse of the Scripture in the King James Version with Strong’s numbers attached to know, in truth, what they were saying to us.
Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass,[1961] that whosoever[3605], [834] shall call[7121] on the name[8034] of the LORD[3068] shall be delivered:[4422]
Now, if “churchianity” is telling us the truth of the matter, number 3068 [H3068 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible] should say JESUS, right? So let us look and see if this is the case.
H3068 - yehovah, yeh-ho-vaw'; From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.
Strange, we don't seem to see any mention of the name JESUS in the verse that Luke and Paul are quoting. So next, you might want to “search out the matter” [instructions from the Scripture] concerning the names JESUS and JEHOVAH. This could be an important “matter” since we now have the above three witnesses to it.
Or are we to remain like the men of Athens?
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Should we listen to the prophets who prophesy lies?
How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal [Lord].
Look forward to your response to these seemingly important matters.
And we should all remember…
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause Yahowah shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
…since a love of the truth seems to be an important matter in the eyes of the Creator.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Nov 2004 09:27:54 |
|
|
|
Solace
Regular Member
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2004 : 07:20:23
|
Thank you for the kind greeting oneisraelite.
Please understand, I have no argument for or against the contents of your posts, insomuch as how the name of God should or should not be pronounced. The truth is I am an uneducated, and yes, even foolish, man. And for the sake of gaining a little education I have eagerly read the posts in this thread.
Yet I must remonstrate with this one point; I do not do as you said I do, which was: "by calling Him such one is merely acknowledging and honouring Him as the Head of their government." For me I acknowledge him simply and literally as my father. God has no place in the governments of men, I understand little, but that I do understand. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2004 : 18:54:44
|
Greetings and salutations once more, Solace:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
The truth is I am an uneducated, and yes, even foolish, man. And for the sake of gaining a little education I have eagerly read the posts in this thread.
I personally think that you are neither uneducated nor foolish, though like the rest of us you may be a little misguided. When the Yisra'elites rejected Yahowah as their "god" ('Elohiym), what did Yahowah say? I quote: "...they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
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 or emperor; or to hold the supreme power. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
quote:
God has no place in the governments of men, I understand little, but that I do understand.
We have no king but caesar?
We ask what your feelings are on these verses of the Scripture.
Isaiah 9:6 [1599 Geneva Bible] For vnto vs a childe is borne, and vnto vs a Sonne is giuen: and the gouernement is vpon his shoulder… 7 The increase of his gouernement and peace shall haue none end: he shall sit vpon the throne of Dauid, and vpon his kingdome, to order it, and to stablish it with iudgement and with iustice, from hencefoorth, euen for euer: the zeale of Yahowah of hostes will performe this.
HENCEFORTH, adv. hens'forth. From this time forward. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me...
Philippeans 3:20 For our conversation [G4175] is in heaven…
[blue]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
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 15 Nov 2004 21:24:15 |
|
|
|
Solace
Regular Member
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2004 : 19:35:31
|
Peace be unto you and your house as well, oneisraelite;
I will explain my comment of my previous post first, then say what I can of the scriptures you presented. As for my education, I graduated from high school. I have not studied doctrine or theology, or any other professional field for that matter. As I have a high school education I can manage to string a few words together to make a sentence that is, for the most part at least, grammatically correct. As for the foolish comment, I would say that I am most certainly that. I mean that in no self-depreciating manner; I would be gladly foolish in the things of this world, but if God be willing, wise in the things of the Word.
On to the scripture. I can only say as the verses you presented say; that our kingdom is in Heaven. Christ is the head of that kingdom/government. He rules us (the children of God) absolutely. There is no opposition to his rule, for he does not accept "no" for an answer, in the same way that a father will not accept disobedience of a stubborn child. The child is reprimanded and forced to do his father's will. Thus God rules his kingdom as a father rules his family, for he is the father and we are the children. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2004 : 21:31:10
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Solace:
Peace be unto the house.
As far as the lack of formal education goes, you show a distinct advantage...less to "unlearn".
Good Tidings of Thomas (113) His disciples said to him, “When will the Kingdom come?” Yahu’shua said, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”
Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 15 Nov 2004 21:48:43 |
|
|
|
Solace
Regular Member
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2004 : 22:43:00
|
Kind regards once more, oneisraelite;
I do not know the "Good Tidings of Thomas", but I cannot argue with the context of what you posted. It is similar to what was written in the book of Luke.
Luke 19:11 ...and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
As for the parable that Christ spoke in this chapter, we must consider the exact context of how he presented it, and what we know it must mean. The nobleman that Christ referred to was himself. The kingdom that he went into a far country to receive was the kingdom of Heaven. The servants that he left behind were not the citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, for that kingdom was not yet come. They were rather the citizens of the old covenant, whose oath was to the law, and to the letter of the law.
These men hated Christ and the blessing that he represented. By the law they were required to work diligently on the Lord's behalf. For them that did great work much reward was given, as was the precept of the law. For them that did not, no reward was given, and moreover, what that they had was taken away. This was the government that was by law.
When Christ fulfilled the law, he brought to the new kingdom a new law, which was the law of grace. By grace the children of the new kingdom knew and understood who their father was, that he was the ruler of their lives. Where grace did abound, the law did no more abound, so that the letter of the law and the punishment of sin did no more apply to the children of the new kingdom.
Therefore the old covenant did, by its very nature, foster resentment from the citizens of the old kingdom, which is after all what it was meant to do. But the new covenant, the covenant of grace, allowed the children of the new kingdom to know their father, so that there was no rebellion in their hearts. Thus the true design of salvation was revealled, which was the purpose of both covenants, old and new. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2004 : 06:27:26
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, Solace:
Peace be unto the house.
First, "kingdom of heaven" is a term used only by Mattith'yahu [Matthew], but that aside. We ask what is a "kingdom"? Strong's tells us that it is (concretely) a realm. So what is a realm? According to Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language it is:
REALM, n. relm. [L. rex, king, whence regalis, royal.] 1. A royal jurisdiction or extent of government...
Which agrees with what a "kingdom" is from the same source.
KING'DOM, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction.]
So our next question to you is, where exactly is this "jurisdiction" that we may be translated [transferred] into it without seeing physical death?
TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.] 2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.
green]Luke 9:27[/green] But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of Yahowah.
Since it is written that Yahowah is NOT the 'Elohiym [Ruler] of dead, but of the living, contrary to what "churchianity" tells us, dying physically does not appear to be an option. In fact, Luke [assuming it is he who wrote Acts of the Apostles] tells us that David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day, which again seems to indicate that dying physically is not an option. So, how do you perceive that we leave the jurisdiction of the creature [man] and enter into the jurisdiction of the Creator [Yahowah], for it seems obvious that we cannot be in both at the same time, in that they are contradistinct [have opposite qualities], since one is based on the Everlasting Moral Law of Yahowah and the other outlaws them, both in their schools and in their courts [morality, i.e. right and wrong, is not allowed here]?
We anxiously await your answer to these two pressing questions, and thank you for your time.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
P.S. We cannot seem to find the phrase "law of grace" in the versions of Scripture that we have. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 16 Nov 2004 07:02:45 |
|
|
|
Solace
Regular Member
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2004 : 09:05:29
|
Let us reason together oneisraelite;
Romans 3:27 ...By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
We know that we are saved by grace through faith, therefore the law of faith and the law of grace are indeed one and the same, for the one leads only to the other.
Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
If then grace justifies, grace is the law by which we live. Whether or not you find the phrase "law of grace" within the scripture is irrelevant to the context in which I use it. By grace are we saved, and that is a law that has been spoken by God, for truly whatsoever the Lord sayeth is truth and the law which is to be obeyed.
To answer both your questions, we must therefore understand grace and the gospel.
Roman 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in the he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Paul explains it here in a better way than I could ever hope to. We leave the jurisdiction of the law (which was given to man) and do by Christ's death, and our own death with him, enter into the jurisdiction of God, by means of grace. You are therefore incorrect; dying physically is the only option. It is through Christ's physical death, and our own with him, for truly the scripture tells us we are of one flesh with Christ, so that if it was his flesh that died upon the cross it must be our flesh also, that we enter into the kingdom of God. As verse seven says above: he that is dead is freed from sin. And we know that no sin can enter Heaven. Therefore by death (ours with Christ) are we freed from sin and we enter into the kingdom. This is what it means to let the old man of sin die.
This is the very simplicity of the gospel. As you pointed out in Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of Yahowah." The kingdom of Heaven came to them even then, so that when they died with Christ they entered into Heaven. This is why the kingdom is not a thing that can be seen, because we walk on streets of gold already.
I am curious to know two things of you as well. First, you address yourself as we, so I can only assume that you speak for more than just yourself. If it is a matter that you would willingly divulge, whom others do you speak for? A spouse, a family, a church?
Second, and more importantly, what would your own answers to your questions in your previous post have been?
Submitted with all sincerity; Solace.
|
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2004 : 19:12:42
|
Solace,
Your stance on the order and proper place of death is wrong. I don't have too much time, so I'll just touch on the major issues.
You said that we have to die, then we go to heaven. This is completely wrong. Jesus taught, "Whosover liveth and believeth on me shall never die," right after he rose Lazarus' dead body to life again. He was clearly talking about the death of the body, not some arcane, "spiritual death." The death of the body to the grave is part and parcel of spiritual death.
There is not a heaven that you go to when you die. You are commanded to create heaven with the will, power, and spirit that God has given you dominion over. And you are to create this heaven not only for yourself, but for all whom you can include according to the Law.
Jesus was not subject to death. That is why he "laid down his life" because he could live forever in the same body he was born with, without growing old and grey. And why? Because of his faith in the Father. The Greek Diaglot rendering of the scripture is, "And at that time, they who believe will live unto the end of the age." The end of an age is a LONG, LONG time.
What do you think ministering "angels" of old were? They were men from past eons who obeyed the gospel, and became so perfectly obedient to God that they are given power over everything, including the ability to reform the elements at will. This is why Jesus was able to turn water into wine--the power of the Father flowed through him, unobstructed by the impurity of religious delusion.
You are not meant to die. Man is the only known being that meditates on and fears death precisely because our instincts tell us it is not our designed end, yet so many of us don't know how to escape it.
You do not have to lay in the grave to be saved. You do have to pass through a change equivalent to death, but this does not mean the rotting of the body in the grave. You can keep your body, if you want it.
In the beginning Adam and Eve were immortal. Period. They were not subject to death. Right there in Genesis. No getting around it. Man was created immortal to begin with, so to say he now must die, contradicts God's original design.
Death entered by way of sin. Sin is delusion. You can never hit the mark if you continue walking around blinded by your own concepts and the deceit of your own half-sleeping mind.
Death entered man by way of sin. If a man trains to become no longer capable of sin, by becoming awake to the truth, then death has no hold on that man.
We do not have to die. Death is NOT part of the natural order of things in the realm of mankind. Men only think it is and perpetuate this delusion.
-- Berkano |
|
|
|
Solace
Regular Member
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2004 : 21:18:20
|
Then by what you say Paul is a liar.
Did you even read the verses in Romans that I posted above? We were crucified with Christ, therefore we died. Did I or Paul say it ended there? No; once crucified we were resurrected with Christ also. Thus we live anew.
Sin died with the old man on the cross. This is the truth of the gospel, for so it is written in the scripture. The law of God has been fulfilled, and we are no longer subject to it. If no longer subject to the law, then we are no longer subject to sin, for without the law sin is dead. (Romans 7:8)
Sin is NOT delusion. Sin is the transgression of the law. Sin is disobedience to God, pure and simple. That is not delusion, that is something very real that everyone except for the elect do everyday.
Evidently you are a man who believes in works and not faith. You have said that you must create Heaven. What architect are you to create only that which God can create? Know you not what the scripture says;
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Would you then make God your debtor, that you by your work have created Heaven? |
|
|
|
legalbear
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2004 : 14:12:41
|
I don't know whether those people are the same or not; they might be. But the point is the same, these people called Samaritans are keeping the original script while those who should have done kept it have instead preferred a corruption. The parable of the Good Samaritan applies in two ways: being a neighbor to ones fellow man and being a caretaker of God's business.
Another way to say this could be that God will appoint those who we dispise to do our jobs when we don't.
I wanted all to know that I recently discovered this forum and I am really enjoying the discourse. My first post here has to do with some revelation I got recently on Samaritans out of the woman of the well story in John 4:
I start at verse 4:
4 It was necessary for Him to go through Samaria.
When I write Jahshuwah I use a “J” to reach the Yah sound because historically it derived from the Yod, the first letter of Jahowah’s name that looks like a finger pointing, looking more like an “i” than a “y.” Apparently, in the 1500’s, in English, the “i” that had the Yah sound was extended below the line becoming a “j.” If you ask me at legalbear at legalbears.com, I will send you a comprehensive article explaining my use of the “j.”
Anyway, we know from John 5:19 that Jahshuwah only did what he saw the Father doing. From this fact I deduced that the reason it was necessary for Jahshuwah to “go through Samaria” was because He saw the Father doing that very thing.
In verse 8 I saw something of note:
8 For His disciples had gone off into the town to buy food—
My imagination ran wild on this one. The disciples are excited about finding the Messiah. They are enthralled and hanging on His every Word. They are like children that love to be with their parents. It must have taken Him some convincing to get them to go into town and leave Him there by Himself. Jahshuwah needs to get rid of them because He has seen that He has an appointment at this well with what is considered by those disciples to be a member of an unsavory race; at that time one of the lower stratums of that race; a woman.
5 And in doing so, He arrived at a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the tract of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 And Jacob's well was there.
Well look at that! This place has some history that is worth taking note of.
So Jahshuwah, tired as He was from His journey, sat down [to rest] by the well. It was then about the sixth hour (about noon).
He’s seen His Father sitting on the well; He has also seen that He has an appointment. Prophets do this sort of thing. In 1 Samuel 10 Samuel tells Saul, “3 Then you will go on from there and you will come to the oak of Tabor, and three men going up to Jahuwah at Bethel will meet you there, one carrying three kids, another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a skin bottle of wine. 4 They will greet you and give you two loaves of bread, which you shall accept from their hand.” Another example is 1 Kings 17; Jahuwah tells Elijah, “9 Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to provide for you.” Another example is 1 Kings 20; the prophet had a message for the king, “38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. 39 And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king…” Getting an audience with a king is not difficult when Jahuwah shows you where to wait. Getting a convenient audience with a Samaritan woman is not difficult either when Jahuwah shows you to wait at the well. I’ve had this happen to me personally. I was sitting in one restaurant studying the scriptures when the Father spoke to me, “I want you to leave this restaurant and go to [a different restaurant]. When you get there [a certain man] will be there. I want you to talk to him about the baptism in the Set Apart Spirit.” I went to the other restaurant and it happened exactly as I was told. Another time the Father told me to go to the park and study and it turned out that I had an appointment with a 16 year old woman. The short story is that she got born again, delivered of numerous evil spirits, and baptized in the Set Apart Spirit. It was quite a memorable day for both of us.
7 Presently, when a woman of Samaria came along to draw water, Jahshuwah said to her, Give Me a drink--9The Samaritan woman said to Him, How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan [and a] woman, for a drink?--For the Jews have nothing to do with the Samaritans—
Oh, there’s the one He has an appointment with. I think I found the answer to the Samaritan woman’s question in John 12:50, “So whatever I speak, I am saying [exactly] what My Father has told Me to say and in accordance with His instructions.” Jahshuwah heard the Father start the conversation by asking for a drink.
10 Jahshuwah answered her, If you had only known and had recognized Jahuwah's gift and Who this is that is saying to you, Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him [instead] and He would have given you living water.
So, Jahshuwah is saying that she didn’t know and recognize Jahuwah’s gift, or, who was talking to her. I think most people would get offended by being told that they “failed” at anything; let alone failed to recognize a gift from Jahuwah or who it was that was speaking to them. If Jahshuwah has to tell her that she missed it, then it would also seem likely that His reasonable expectation is that people would recognize who He was and what Jahuwah’s gift was. See John 1:11, “He came to that which belonged to Him [to His own--His domain, creation, things, world], and they who were His own did not receive Him and did not welcome Him.”
11She said to Him, Sir, You have nothing to draw with [no drawing bucket] and the well is deep; how then can You provide living water? [Where do You get Your living water?]
That is one inquisitive Samaritan woman. I wonder if her inquisitiveness is part of the reason she had an appointment with the Anointed One? It seems to me that she, as part of her nature, was continuously asking childlike questions. We know from Malachi 3:6 that Jahuwah doesn’t change. Jahshuwah expressed eternal principles in Mat. 7 when He said, “7 Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking [reverently] and [the door] will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who keeps on asking receives; and he who keeps on seeking finds; and to him who keeps on knocking, [the door] will be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, if his son asks him for a loaf of bread, will hand him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will hand him a serpent? 11 If you then, evil as you are, know how to give good and advantageous gifts to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven [perfect as He is] give good and advantageous things to those who keep on asking Him!” This woman must have already been asking the Father all kinds of questions. In keeping with His eternal principles, he’s sending the answer and a Gift this day at the well. It is written in John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of Jahuwah. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
12Are You greater than and superior to our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well and who used to drink from it himself, and his sons and his cattle also?
Look what this woman has been thinking about; her ancestry! She’s proud to be a descendant of Jacob and Jahshuwah doesn’t disagree with her on that point! Jahshuwah eventually explained further a general principle of why He waited at the well that day in Matthew 15:24, “…I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
13 Jahshuwah answered her, All who drink of this water will be thirsty again. 14 But whoever takes a drink of the water that I will give him shall never, no never, be thirsty any more. But the water that I will give him shall become a spring of water welling up (flowing, bubbling) [continually] within him unto (into, for) eternal life. 15 The woman said to Him, Sir, give me this water, so that I may never get thirsty nor have to come [continually all the way] here to draw.
This woman is ready to go; whatever He has for her, she’s up for it! She doesn’t know how it works, but, she’s ready for supernatural water.
16At this, Jahshuwah said to her, Go, call your husband and come back here. 17The woman answered, I have no husband.
This woman is interested in truth even at the cost of her own reputation. This is a Way that we should all be; ready to die for the truth! Philippians 2 says it this way, “5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Jahshuwah HaMashaich: 6 Who, being in the form of Jahuwah, thought it not robbery to be equal with Jahuwah: 7 But made himself of no reputation,…”
Jahshuwah said to her, You have spoken truly in saying, I have no husband. 18 For you have had five husbands, and the man you are now living with is not your husband. In this you have spoken truly. 19 The woman said to Him, Sir, I see and understand that You are a prophet.
Amazing! How did this woman come to the conclusion so quickly that He was a prophet? How about this? Do you think she may have had said a prayer asking that a prophet be sent with the answers to her questions? If she had been expectantly believing that her prayer would be answered it would explain her quick conclusion.
20Our forefathers worshiped on this mountain, but you [Jews] say that Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary and proper to worship.
See how she keeps her balance and is not caught off guard? She has been rehearsing this moment and has her questions all lined up. Here’s the answer to her prayer and she’s seizing the moment. What is the number one issue on her mind; getting to the truth! She wants to know about the “necessary and proper” way to worship. What her forefathers said carries some weight with her. Isn’t it just like religious people? They assert the truth and then erect barriers to keep what they consider the social outcasts from obtaining or accomplishing it. They must have said something like, ‘You’re supposed to worship in Jerusalem, but we don’t want you here.’
21Jahshuwah said to her, Woman, believe Me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither [merely] in this mountain nor [merely] in Jerusalem.
Oh man, this has to be music to her ears; the prophet says that she is not an outcast and that she “will worship the Father.”
22 You [Samaritans] do not know what you are worshiping [you worship what you do not comprehend]. We do know what we are worshiping [we worship what we have knowledge of and understand], for [after all] salvation comes from [among] the Jews.
To me it is very offensive to be told that not only are you wrong, but you’ve been wrong to the point of not even comprehending or suspecting how wrong you are. To be told that you don’t even know what you have been worshipping; ouch! Jahshuwah didn’t candy coat the truth and neither should we. People who use the pagan names “God” and “Jesus” to describe the Father and the Son are in much the same position; wrong and not even understanding how wrong they are.
Skipping to verse 25:
25 The woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming, He Who is called the the Anointed One; and when He arrives, He will tell us everything we need to know and make it clear to us. 26 Jahshuwah said to her, I Who now speak with you am He.
Wow! This Samaritan woman believes in and is waiting for the Messiah! She is excited about His coming and clearing up everything. Look what she gets! I can’t think of many other places, if there are any that exist at all, where Jahshuwah comes right out and says straight up, I am the Anointed One. To me, this happening to this woman makes her special.
27 Just then His disciples came and they wondered (were surprised, astonished) to find Him talking with a woman. However, not one of them asked Him, What are You inquiring about? or What do You want? or, Why do You speak with her? 28 Then the woman left her water jar and went away to the town.
Now this is a woman that you can tell is going to bear some fruit. She left her water jar behind. The cares of this world described in Mark 4:18-19 do not enter in, allowing the word that she just heard to become fruitful.
And she began telling the people, 29 Come, see a Man Who has told me everything that I ever did! Can this be [is not this] the Messiah, the Anointed One? 30 So the people left the town and set out to go to Him.
So, she becomes an effective evangelist for Jahshuwah in this Samaritan town; of all places.
31 Meanwhile, the disciples urged Him saying, Rabbi, eat something. 32 But He assured them, I have food (nourishment) to eat of which you know nothing and have no idea. 33 So the disciples said one to another, Has someone brought Him something to eat? 34 Jahshuwah said to them, My food (nourishment) is to do the will (pleasure) of Him Who sent Me and to accomplish and completely finish His work.
Yeah, like waiting at a well for an appointment with a truth seeker to answer some questions and start a revival.
Skipping to verse 39:
39Now numerous Samaritans from that town believed in and trusted in Him because of what the woman said when she declared and testified, He told me everything that I ever did. 40So when the Samaritans arrived, they asked Him to remain with them, and He did stay there two days. 41Then many more believed in and adhered to and relied on Him because of His personal message [what He Himself said]. 42And they told the woman, Now we no longer believe (trust, have faith) just because of what you said; for we have heard Him ourselves [personally], and we know that He truly is the Savior of the world, the Anointed One.
|
|
|
|
legalbear
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2004 : 15:36:55
|
[/quote]Greetings, Daron:
The messiah's name is indeed now Yahweh.
From Deborajah Taylor's article "Hallowed be Thy Name" which I will send you if you request by email at legalbear at legalbears.com:
What About Yahveh or Yahweh?
For centuries the Jews have insisted that the Sacred HaShem be substituted and hidden in order that it not be proclaimed aloud. As stated previously in this article, YHWH openly charged the Jews of profaning and altering his Shem. Now suddenly their records state the true pronunciation of the HaShem is Yahweh.
Since the Scriptures openly tell us the Scribes have falsified the Torah44, can we indeed trust these records or is it just another big cover-up? Does this name of Yahweh have anything to do with the Sacred Hebdomad and the worship of the Seven Planets? Has that “old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” once again deceived us? Let’s find out.
It is a well-known fact that the Samaritans were transplanted to the land of Israel from ancient Babylonia, as related in 2 Kings 17. What is not well known is their connection with the ancient Amorites and their mutual god Yahweh. The Samaritans were descendants of the ancient Amorites and remained in the region of Babylonia after the collapse of Dynasty I of Babylon. Mari was the name of their kingdom before Dynasty I of Babylon. The god of the ancient Amorites was Yawi, also spelled Yawe, Yahwi, or Yahweh.
Nimrod, as god of the Mysteries, was worshipped under many different names. Yahweh was just one of the numerous names of Nimrod. The Amorites worshipped Nimrod as Yawi and Semiramis as Mari.
The Biblical Amorites were Hamitic, not Semitic.45 Prominent gods of the Amorites were Dagon, Hadad and Anat.
Dagon – a fish god, who was just another image of Nimrod.
Hadad – also known as Baal-Hadad. The Hebrew word D-D means “uncle.” One such Baal worshipped in our land is better known to us as “Uncle Sam.”
Anath – a goddess portrayed as having an intense love for Baal/Lord and is usually paired with him as his consort and ally. Victories over certain enemies,
44 Jeremiah 8:8
45 Insight on the Scriptures – Volume 1
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2004 : 18:07:50
|
Dear LegalBear;
I have done some research and the Father's name is pronounced Yehovah - with a long "o" sound after the first h. B and V are hybrid half-way between the two sounds as we know them. When used in a prefix, like for God is (my) salvation the long O sound stays: Yehoshuah.
Some Jewish books reveal the simplicity of the ineffible name to simply be the same vowel sounds and fully expressing each letter. "Yodi-Heheh-Wavoh-Heyah". This is the name that the letters add up to 72; the "72-Fold Name" allegedly spoken only by the high priest on Yom Kippur - the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 23.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 08:48:50
|
Greetings and salutations:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Nimrod, as god of the Mysteries, was worshipped under many different names. Yahweh was just one of the numerous names of Nimrod. The Amorites worshipped Nimrod as Yawi and Semiramis as Mari.
If this can be verified as truth, then one can understand why the Masons apparently used this name at one time as their "password".
It certainly is worthy of more exploration. Thank you.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
His name is not Yahushua
