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

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Civil Governments
 PAUL, the ROMAN CITIZEN
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 13 Aug 2004 :  17:47:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings folks,
I would that some could be able to discern whether he is a U.S. citizen or not. An Ambassador from another place, can participate in buying food, internet services, PAY for gasoline, etc. without aquiring citizenship in U.S., and has no obligation for military service, nor IRS form's, nor driver's licenses, and a multitude of other licensing scheme's.
Most all folk's today here in the good ol U.S.A. are National Socialists... They are numbered things, via the SS#.
If one uses a ss#, one is a 14th amendment created citizen of the corporate U.S... has a bank account, that one is under the obligation to file 1040 form's. Tithe to your master.
But, there is a Way to live within one's birthright, as an American.
The U.S. defacto government operate's because the real Government won't come foreward, i.e. Stand up.
Power contract wrong? No, free mail delivery is wrong. Answering to a FICTIOUS NAME is wrong.
Don't kid yourself, the govt. demand's their VEHICLES be licensed-insured-inspected.
The answer is to live-move-and have our Being in Messiah. Local ecclesia's. Love and care for one another.
Batkol said it once so perfectly..."it's like hearding cat's". United We Stand, divided, we fall.
To live without a social security number is challenge enough. Before 1933-5, everyone did.
Noah Webster, the great wordsmith, stated, "I was born an American, live as an American, and shall die an American". There was no such THING as a U.S. citizen before the un-CIVIL war. {side bar, why is "Jesus" not in the famous 1828 Dictionary?}
It is not so much as living the "good life", as what do I have to trade to have it? EASU is trying his darndest to do to us what Yacob/Israel did to him.
Yoseph's blessings flow through his two son's. The BirthRight son's. Most all of us were born with this Birthright blessing, but trade it in for a mess of govt. benefit's. Yes, through deceit, but Hey...as EASU say's...what goes around, come's around. Fair enough for me.
SomeOne Stand's surety today for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. So as they can find repentance with tear's. It's not too late, individually.
There is something called "the American dream". Time to wake up from a deep sleep. But, waking up is very painful for the flesh man.
As Yahushuah said to his best..."sleep on, come let us go hence".
"A boy at the circus" eh? Say's you. I live in a free country, say what your heart has in it.
I have brought in almost 2 million fed note's through sweat labor since 1983. Nary a complaint from the IRS.
Randy Lee..."a boy at the circus", shut down the IRS completely through no ss# use and no MR ALL CAPS NAME. These "doctrine's" are not PAYtriot myth's.
Don't we all want to live Lawfully and please our Abba?
The next time He come's...He bring's Peace.
And to you that look for Him.....shall he appear.

And the Government shall be upon His shoulder.
Collective Israel is called "he" in scripture.
{but [except] for the elect's sake, all would be deceived}
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 13 Aug 2004 :  18:33:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Robert-James said: I would that some could be able to discern whether he is a U.S. citizen or not. An Ambassador from another place, can participate in buying food, internet services, PAY for gasoline, etc. without aquiring citizenship in U.S., and has no obligation for military service, nor IRS form's, nor driver's licenses, and a multitude of other licensing scheme's.


You still don't get it. This is not a matter of being "an Ambassador".. IT goes beyond that title. FICTIONAL DISCHARGE CONSUMERISM (FDC) is a moment by moment decision and needs no signature. Ambassadors, house-painters, artists, Christians, Hindus, "sentient moral beings', Bondservants, slave or Free, Jew or Greek, etc. can help perpetuate the FDC SCHEME. Just DISCHARGE for GOODS and TAX which go to the very THING you claim to be against. Who is kidding who?

quote:
Tithe to your master.


Yes. Everytime you get into the FDC SCHEME you pay those who maintain IT. THEY don't care what doctrine you spout, only if you pony up.
Ride 'em COWBOY!!

quote:
Power contract wrong? No, free mail delivery is wrong. Answering to a FICTIOUS NAME is wrong.


LOL..You have just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. When one signs a POWER CONTRACT one is SIGNING a document that states one is a RESIDENT who recieves POWER at a NUMBERED ADDRESS. These are for those who agree to abide by the terms set forth. LEGAL FICTIONS need only apply.. The POWER CORP will only SELL you POWER if you sign THEIR CONTRACT...Unless you get a SHABBOS GOY to put everything in their NAME for you (so much for causing a brother not to sin), it's YOUR name with your signature... and your hard earned FRNs which pay the BILL.


quote:
To live without a social security number is challenge enough.


But using the FRN which is backed up by the very SS CONTRACTS you claim to hate is OK! How very selective of you..... and how convenient.

quote:
It is not so much as living the "good life", as what do I have to trade to have it? EASU is trying his darndest to do to us what Yacob/Israel did to him.


ESAU is having the last laugh on you when you say SS# is enough but paying FED and STATE TAX when we go about participating in the FDC SCHEME is OK.... and if you have to do any CONTRACTING, for let's say POWER, and you don't want to 'adultrate your walk' by signing a RESIDENTIAL POWER CONTRACT, just get a 'friend' to sign it and put it in their NAME. Use the Talmudic SHABBOS GOY loophole when you don't want to dirty your own paws.

quote:
"A boy at the circus" eh? Say's you. I live in a free country, say what your heart has in it.


Indeed a boy at the FDC SCHEME circus, FRN tickets in hand.. but as you said, you live in a free country. You choose to pay TAX when you go to the CORP.

quote:
I have brought in almost 2 million fed note's through sweat labor since 1983. Nary a complaint from the IRS.


2 MIL!! you must have hemoraged that MONEY somewhere...Think of all of the TAX and CONSUMERISM that 2 MIL has produced with your wilfull participation in the FDC SCHEME. No wonder the IRS has no complaints... FDC SCHEME got ya first.. The BEAST should send you a MOST VALUED CONSUMER plaque.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert-James said: "Yes, we make practical use of the legal fictious government. Why not? They are pretend, and dead as a door nail."

Edited by - BatKol on 13 Aug 2004 18:40:15
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 14 Aug 2004 :  08:35:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Robert-James said: Nary a complaint from the IRS. Randy Lee..."a boy at the circus", shut down the IRS completely through no ss# use and no MR ALL CAPS NAME. These "doctrine's" are not PAYtriot myth's.

BatKol: Ah.. this is the very same Randy Lee I had a phone conversation with in summer 2001 and when I told you the details of the conversation, you called him up to 'test the spirit'. Don't you remember calling him a cretin after you talked with him and also telling me, "your going to listen to somebody who does not even know the Father's name"? You told me he was bunk among other things, yet now you sing his praises? "Those people don't understand the Spirit... it's all Spirit." Now listen to yourself..
and you wonder why nobody around my parts takes you seriously... Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert-James said: "Yes, we make practical use of the legal fictious government. Why not? They are pretend, and dead as a door nail."

Edited by - BatKol on 17 Aug 2004 05:32:47
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 16 Aug 2004 :  16:17:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Rei;

I appreciate your sincerity and that you inquire above:

quote:
I have been "down this road" for several years. Everyone that I ever read or discussed this thread had the ability to discribe the problem and then tell me they have no obligation to offer an answer. The only thing left for me is to ponder and search how to get out of this impossible place. Are you any different?


I was attracted by the discussion topic but seem to have entered the conversation after Paul has become tangential. Just the same there is a lot to be gleaned from The Acts. Maybe we can get back to those for nuts and bolts - for instance Paul declared a municipal citizenship (Tarsus) not a provincial (State) citizenship (Cilicia). And his purpose in remanding the case to Rome against Felix's advice?

I advocate strongly that "getting out of this impossible place" begins with identity. Your true name. For instance in the Reply directly above it indicates that Robert-James (truly Robert James) has defiled Randy Lee's name to "Randy-Lee". If Batkol would kindly confirm by editing that paragraph into a quote form please. I might be reading that wrong. [In retrospect the hyphen in Randy Lee's name was a typo by Batkol.]

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg

Once identity is sound, then relationships (contracts) fall into proper perspective. The entire system is predicated upon voluntary compliance:

quote:
Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress. [emphasis added - persuade]
Franklin D. Roosevelt; March 6, 1933 - Address before the Governors' Conference at the White House.


The "same credit" back of them (Government bonds) used humans for chattel. That is the way it is. But you are presumed under any appearance to be that chattel for even receiving the benefit of discussion. The theater is paramilitary under the "War" on the Great Depression.

In other words the only adjudication that it is voluntary is going to come from you. Roosevelt already got the pledge for the State you are in. Any daughter-corporation courts will have you the enemy without a Writ of habeas corpus - suspended in the theater of war.

So become the True Name captain of the Legal Name vessel and take charge as well as responsibility for the contracts that it enters into on your behalf. If you do not take this authority to heart, the world full of debt action in assumpsit will presume benefit of discussion, all sorts of obligations to perform and demand the man, fulfil those obligations. If you do not know your own name, how will you ever begin to defend your right of avoidance?


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Mostly banks and employers will honor the judgment of your court of competent jurisdiction. http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/suitors.zip
But in a preventive measure I recently sent a suitor to his bank to inquire of the tariff - the contract behind the "signature card". Interesting that it says first off the contract is to be in the lobby on prominent display at all times. It took five minutes for the upper echelons of the bank to pry the tariff loose from behind locked doors. They gave the suitor a copy and that night, he discovered the "prior lien" clause I wanted him to look for was three pages of probably at least fifty. [I used to edit Phone Company tariffs typically 120 pages.]

So the suitor struck the offending clauses from the contract and returned it to the bank saying, "This is our new contract." After about three days it goes into effect if the bankers do not Refuse for Cause. That would be foolish because that would be actionable discrimination [for presuming, "My money will be safe here?"]. If pushed, then it could come forth on the record(s) that this three-page clause is kept unconscionable from literally everybody; creating the illusion thier money is safe in the bank. The suitor summarized the three pages, "They basically say the Bank can give my money away to whoever they please whenever they want to."

So get control of your contracts. That will be illusive until you have capital integration in your life.

Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Aug 2004 11:26:54
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 17 Aug 2004 :  06:16:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David,

You said: Maybe we can get back to those for nuts and bolts - for instance Paul declared a municipal citizenship (Tarsus) not a provincial (State) citizenship (Cilicia). And his purpose in remanding the case to Rome against Felix's advice?

Me: Keen observation. Note also that Paul's status got him ROMAN privileges and the benefit of appeal to Ceaser. As for why Paul exersized appeal to access ROME, maybe it was to escape the Jews who had in-roads to Felix who was "willing to shew the Jews a pleasure. Add to that "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."

Regards,
Steve

p.s. - thanks for pointing out the name error the post above. I guess my mind was still in hyphen mode when addressing Robert-James. My apologies.


Edited by - BatKol on 17 Aug 2004 06:23:46
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 17 Aug 2004 :  09:28:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
"And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."


In context, the Lord was lifting Paul's spirits. Paul had ignored the warnings to avoid Jerusalem - Acts 20:22.

quote:
Ac 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:


contrasted with:

quote:
Ac 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.


I have heard that King James was early Illuminatti so it is not surprising that the true history may be found embedded in the case style. Note the "spirit" (of guilt about Philip?*) drove Paul into Jerusalem against warnings from the (noun in specific) "Spirit" (Holy Spirit).

Could God have been telling Paul that since he went into Jerusalem through disobedience this had changed Paul's destiny? That the Word would travel through the pagan nations fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant through Christianity?

Paul, being convinced he must get into Rome, demanded the remand. Two years of house arrest and being allowed to communicate to the church through epistles did indeed create the Christian religion, the New Testament by and large.

I think I agree with your point:

quote:
As for why Paul exersized appeal to access ROME, maybe it was to escape the Jews who had in-roads to Felix who was "willing to shew the Jews a pleasure.


Supposing you are saying that Felix was so eager to grant Paul freedom only because Paul would not have lasted long in Israel. That is interesting and new to me. That fits right it with my opinion of Paul's character.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Paul's remarks about having desired marriage may support an arrangement with the Herodians for a wife as bounty on the survived Yehoshuah. Paul was on his way to Damascus to apprehend Yehoshuah but met with Peter and Yehoshuah on the road there and was discouraged; probably by the armed and known violent Peter (Barrabas = "my father's son". Peter was the released convict, convicted of cutting the guard's ear in the Garden). For details on this wild hypothesis: http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=376&whichpage=1

Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Aug 2004 11:32:02
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 17 Aug 2004 :  12:16:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Rei;

This is suitor Crosstalk;
[A group email that I copied over here on this Forum.]

quote:
Dear Suitors;





On Signature Cards





One suitor had some interesting experience at his bank. After refusing for cause a “Final Notice – Intent to File a Notice of Levy” the suitor wanted to take preventive measures to protect his funds. I suggested he take a look at the tariff at the bank, the contract agreed to by signature card.



He called me a little before closing time at the bank. I suggested he wanted to walk in a few minutes before closing to catch the personnel off guard, wanting to balance drawers and get locked up. Just the same, it took five minutes to retrieve the document from behind locked doors. The first clause of the contract is that it must be on display in the lobby for the public (even people considering opening an account). Which makes sense. They gave him a copy.



The clause I wanted the suitor to look for about the Treasury having a ‘prior lien’ on the funds in the account turned out to be three pages long. [I am guessing the tariff itself in the range of about 50 pages. I have edited Phone Company tariffs and they are over 100 pages.] The suitor reported the ‘clause’ basically, “The bank can give my funds away to whoever they please whenever they want to.”



So he struck through the three pages, signed and sealed it and returned it to the bank saying, “This is our new contract.”



Today, he is shopping for a new bank. I am not sure what is wrong with the old one aside from that the IMF knows about it. But it seems to me that after three days with no refusal for cause from the bank on the novation (innovation), his money will be safer than ever there. But that is his decision, not mine.



Now that he knows about the tariff contract in the background behind the signature card he can start fresh with the certified cashier checks. He suspects he may have trouble opening the new account with the stipulation his money will be safe from diversion to third parties. I think this may be true but only until the bank’s counsel hears what it is saying by the actionable discrimination. They will be admitting that nobody’s money is safe but this suitor’s. They will be discriminating against him for being careful with his money by demanding the bank not give his funds away to any third parties.



I suspect it may take an hour but he will get his safe new account opened.





Regards,



David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Aug 2004 12:23:36
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 17 Aug 2004 :  14:52:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Back to Paul.

Let's suppose that Paul was that unpopular in Jerusalem/Israel. We should ask why?

I should read The Acts again but for now I will speak from memory. Forty rabbis were hateful enough to vow a suicide pact by starvation until Paul was killed dead. What could one man say or do to provoke such anger?

That would probably be his new bought Roman citizenship. This borrowed from another thread about the centurion's servant, it likely depicts feelings about the Wicked Kingdom as it was. We must consider all the desecration to the Temple alone (Macabees, eagles on the Gate etc):

quote:
Matthew 8 and Luke 7 contradict each other and neither can be accepted as it stands. Jesus must have resented the centurion's view of him as a magician who could send familiar spirits flying on whatever missions he pleased. The lesson which the evangelists are preaching here, as in the case of the other centurion who glorified God at the Crucifixion, is that Roman army officers venerated Jesus, and with good reason....

Luke 7:5 is incredible since a Roman centurion could neither have afforded, wanted, or been permitted, to build a synagogue. And his obsequiousness, in both versions is out of keeping with his official status. It is safe, therefore, to assume that he sent a message to Jesus peremptorily ordering him to heal his favourite Jewish servant; and that Jesus, when he arrived, ironically praised the centurion's faith; and that, though he refused to compound with the Wicked Kingdom by entering the barracks, he offered up an effective prayer outside. The suppressed sequel will have been that the servant resigned his appointment, lest the illness should recur...


But the hatred was likely exacerbated by his lies too. James the Just had a qualm with Paul but Paul simply shaved his head and went through the Torah cleansing ritual like a good law-abiding Jew. That was probably disingenious but it worked. James could not rightly accuse Paul of teaching the Law was dead in Asia Minor.

But neither could James prove that Paul left Asia Minor with a great deal more alms for the poor missionary widows back home than he arrived with. Paul says he steered clear of Cyprus but arrived in Jerusalem with Mnason, a Cypriot Jew. If Paul had a Roman citizenship all the while, why did he not avoid beatings with it before his final trip to Jerusalem? Paul bought the citizenship papers in Cyprus. Being born in Cilicia made Paul eligible, not entitled. That is why the Roman guard challenged his "free" citizenship.

The accusations by word of mouth of Paul's anti-law teachings were probably prevalent enough that the rabbis were incited to assassination? Not likely. Jews are nowhere near as murdrous as modern Mel Gibson Christianity says. They would ban Paul from the synagogues maybe. The conversion to Roman paganism by citizenship would have been enough to incite such hatred.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Aug 2004 15:25:04
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 17 Aug 2004 :  22:22:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Under the presumption that God's use of Paul glorifies Him - that he could use cowardice and weakness, lying etc. for the usage He did to fulfil the Abrahamic Covenant through the Messiah of God, Yehoshuah;


I suppose what I am really looking for is correlation between Paul, the founder of Christianity as a religion and the current "sell-out" of the 501(C)(3) religious non-profit organization posing as the Church, being Paul's work-product.

Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Aug 2004 22:27:19
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 18 Aug 2004 :  00:32:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David,
From my perspective at this point, one can present the case of a sell-out, but ultimately YHWH will be done in the end... if that case be made, then Paul is a central figure.

S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert-James said: "Yes, we make practical use of the legal fictious government. Why not? They are pretend, and dead as a door nail."
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 18 Aug 2004 :  04:51:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Excellent point!

Does this delve into destiny and fate? Did Paul have any control about whether to go into Jerusalem? Knowing he had a new-bought citizenship to Rome - what role would this have played?

There is an article by Marcus Levi RAVAGE in Century Magazine, early 1928 about Paul's war by propaganda against Rome (Christianity). Written from a very Jewish perspective. I should pull a quote or two from there.

Presuming an omniscient God of Creation, we can see that the Lord was in control over the whole project - for Israel to spread His Word throughout the pagan nations of the world. But is that to say Paul had no decision?

Edited by - David Merrill on 18 Aug 2004 04:53:40
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 18 Aug 2004 :  08:34:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David said: James the Just had a qualm with Paul but Paul simply shaved his head and went through the Torah cleansing ritual like a good law-abiding Jew. That was probably disingenious but it worked. James could not rightly accuse Paul of teaching the Law was dead in Asia Minor

Steve: I think you have really touched on something here. I think Paul got misunderstood by the Jews who were present during his visits with 'the gentiles' he was sent to. True to Judaism's view of gentiles, Paul was simply telling them that the Torah was not nessisary for them. The Jews present must have been urging the new Christians to undergo Judaic conversion. The Galatians must have really bought into this idea but Paul, being the son of a son of a pharisee who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, goes out of his way to detail why Torah is not nessisary for them seeing as they were 'fast-tracked' into the body of Christ via faith.. and of course adherence to some basic Noachide type laws like not eating living flesh, etc.

David said: Presuming an omniscient God of Creation, we can see that the Lord was in control over the whole project - for Israel to spread His Word throughout the pagan nations of the world. But is that to say Paul had no decision?

David said: Presuming an omniscient God of Creation, we can see that the Lord was in control over the whole project - for Israel to spread His Word throughout the pagan nations of the world. But is that to say Paul had no decision?

Steve: The best way I can describe the 'no free will' point of view concerning our actions in YHWH's plan is such: He will never make you go against your will, but He'll make you willing to go. With this in mind, Paul's 'sketchiness' somehow works out for the best in the end.

I also wanted to ask you: The Abrahamic Covenant, how do you see this being fulfilled? I was always under the impression that it was an unconditional, no strings attached deal for all who are Abraham's seed. The word seed being plural in context just as sheep would be plural. All that a descendant of Abraham would need to do to fulfill it is make a claim to the land promised.

S

Edited by - BatKol on 18 Aug 2004 08:37:09
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 18 Aug 2004 :  11:40:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Steve;


I suspect your comprehension of the Abrahamic Covenant is fuller than my use of it. Primarily I utilize the term to combat ignorance in terms of Futurism. Yehoshuah was clearly under the impression at the time of his coronation that the kingdom of heaven was immenent. He spoke exclusively of the 'lost sheep of Israel'. That there was about to be an upheaval against Rome in Israel that would liberate and restore. After the near death experience, Yehoshuah confronted two men on their way to Emmeas who felt the same way - completely devastated that Yehoshuah, the new king, promising that a zealous and violent (barking the fig tree; ordering Peter to purchase swords) recapture of the Eretz (Land) was in the near future, then just croaking on the Cross like that. At that time, Yehoshuah explained out of the Torah and Laws of Moses how Israel was not there for Israel but for the pagan nations all over the world. For no man knoweth the hour.... Yehoshuah was regretting he had immenentized with his actions a few nights prior.

quote:
All that a descendant of Abraham would need to do to fulfill it is make a claim to the land promised.


True from a Jewish perspective, Abraham is the patriarch of Israel and the Jews. But God's grace allows faith to bring us into a character of heirs apparent. True? At least I would like to hope so. [But be careful in the reading. This promotes racist British/Israel type doctrine.] I do not want to have to prove my Jewish or Israelite heritage to own property in this kingdom of heaven (on earth). My character (sense of identity and relationship; after all a covenant is a contract, unilateral or not) will morelike, prove relationship with the Almighty. See The Law of the Flag in the counterclaim and at Exodus 13:16.

quote:
Ex 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 18 Aug 2004 11:50:48
Go to Top of Page

Rei
Regular Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 18 Aug 2004 :  13:00:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear David and Batkol:
Thank you for your gracious replies. I appologise for the interruptions on this thread. I am somewhat akin to the second-grader stepping in on a doctorial discussion. My past teachers fed me false notions that I am now aware. Like observing the magician, at first I was astonished and then angry that I could be tricked. I have spent my life with my nose to the productive grid-stone ony to find out the devices of parasites have stolen my bread after I made it.

I will retreat back into my student mode and perhaps I will get up to speed so that I may run with the big dogs.

Thank you again, and may the Lord continue to bless your hard efforts to keep to truth moving forward. I believe there are many like my self that know there is something very wrong in the world.

Robert Dennis (aka Rei: your friend and companion or my evil or my breaking 1 kings 1:8) I now know my true name, thank you. Now I must learn more how to use it.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 18 Aug 2004 :  18:43:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Robert Dennis;

Yes.

Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 19 Aug 2004 :  11:54:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I understand this brings up derogatory slurs on Paul's character and reputation. There is a purpose to bringing this forth. I am seeing correllation between the founding of the Christian 501(c)(3) Church and that same non-profit religious organization today.

It may be insignificant but I pay particular attention to Paul claiming citizenship through the City of Tarsus/METRO instead of State of Cilicia. METRO has no boundaries and so it was then. Tarsus was under the home rule doctrine of Rome - unified policy with Rome. Then as now, under whatever name, could this be global municipality - City of Babylon?

"Daniel's Calendar" shows my thoughts that the Christian Church was sold out for assets on March 17, 1997 in the foreclosure process of the United States. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg So this keeps me thinking that once the mission field was complete the Christian church cashed in and became quite anti-Christian (in financial alliance). The event in Daniel's week was the "cessation of the daily oblation".

Edited by - David Merrill on 19 Aug 2004 17:52:52
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000