| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 20:59:11
|
Robert-James said: Benyamin could not be NUMBERED, as per the story of David's sin in numbering Israel. This is the why the coming son's can not be numbered, i.e. socialist security number's and many other number's.
Steve: That is pure speculation your opinion on what 'numbered' means.
'to number' often means in the Bible, to count your stength of men for battle.
Robert-James: In the days of the fourth beast shall YHWH set up a Kingdom that shall never pass away.
Steve: I have asked you twice for the scripture to back this up.
Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 tells a different story.
|
 |
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2004 : 19:22:35
|
Daniel 2:44.
Speculate comes from a root word which means watch tower.
I ask you then, what is the story about David numbering Israel trying to convey? Through this sin, he found repentance and the place where to build the Temple. Why did Benyamin and Levi not allow themselves to be numbered? One may have to speculate initally, till the revelation comes from the Spirit. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 09:05:06
|
Robert-James,
It seems the history of Benjamin's actions concernign the women of Gibeah has something to do with them not being numbered. Clarke quoting the Rabbis will say that Benjamin's numbers we too low for a battle from the previous incident of the thrashing they took. The Rabbis missed this bit which must have played a role: the tribe of Benjamin were even instructed previously to save their drasticaly reduced bloodline by hiding in the bushes and snatching the virgins of Shiloh up for procreation!!!! I think the Rabbis overlooked that perhaps Benjamin might not be trusted since they were the reason fighting broke out amongst the Israelites. There must have been still some bad blood within the camp. Imagine the father's of the virgins that got nothing short of abducted. They would be expected to fight side by side with Benjamin. Might not be a good idea for maintaining focus. As for Levi, Clarke again quoting the Rabbis says Levi was not numbered because they are not counted for inheritance amongst the Israelites. I can go with that last bit, but as for Benjamin I really think the 'bad blood' factor should be weighed in along with the fact that they almost got wiped out by the other tribes for their disgusting act that started the whole mess.
When I first read this story a few years ago I got very upset and kept thinking that Benjamin deserved to get wiped out. How much more the feelings for those who were actually there! But, YHWH's plan will be carried out and Benjamin was perserved.
As for David finding the place to build the Temple a few key elements to consider are the Angel who smote the people along with the fact that YHWH, through Gad, told David to go to Araunah the Jebusite who had his Temple at this spot. This is also the same place that the ashes of Isaac's binding on the sacrifice alter lay. What is also interesting is the connections between the Brahmin Aryans and the Jebusites. Krishna's (the Aryan-Hindu Jesus) side kick is named Arunyah in the Gita. Some say that this exact place where the Jews constructed the heretical "court of the Gentiles" where Yahushua over turned the tables. He called that section his Father's house and you might notice that David could not drive out the Jebusites and had to share Jerusalem with them. Here is a key connection, IMO, to the Aryan Brahmins, the Magi, and the dying and resurrecting son of God archetype which had been around longer than even the Tanakh! On a side note when the Benedictine Monk Bebe Grifiths went to India many, many years back to preach the Gospel of Christ, he quickly found out that, "The Saviour was already there!"
Also, thanks for providing the Daniel scripture. I will study it tonight.
Peace to you,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 12 Apr 2004 09:15:18 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 10:37:13
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
We know that many, particularly those who are OF the world, may hate us for what we are about to say, but it is something that we have been putting off far too long for fear of offending, but to be True to our King we can no longer conceal the understanding we have been freely given. Please know that this is not an accusation against anyone or their particular beliefs, it is not meant to hurt anyone, it is simply what we perceive to be the “truth of the matter” and we give it to you in brotherly Love.
It is felt on this end that we are at an impasse unless we can come to a consensus on what an ‘elohiym, translated most often ‘god’, ‘gods’ or ‘God’, in the English, is. This is the crux of the whole matter. If we could agree on what this word ‘elohiym means, much of this discourse would be unnecessary.
The ‘religionists’ say it means “the Supreme Being”, period, end of story; there are no other gods other than God.
GOD, n.
1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.
But the Scripture tells us otherwise. It tells us that there are other gods [215 times in the KJV]; that there are false gods.
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
GOD, n.
2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.
It tells us “Ye are gods”.
Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Yahuchanan [John] 10:34 Yahushua [Jesus] answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
In what way could WE be ‘gods’? If Yahweh is the Supreme Sovereign [King] of the universe, and WE are the children of Yahweh, would not His children be His princes and princesses?
GOD, n.
3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel [literally a messenger].
Now, if we wrap all of these together we get the definition of ‘elohiym, and its English equivalent, ‘god’. The following definition, we feel, is the sum total of all of the above.
4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good.
Thus we can state that the definition of ‘god’ is “e, all of the above” and summarized by definition #4; i.e. “Any person or thing…honored as the chief good.”
To clarify this we must figure out what it means to be, “the chief good”.
‘Good’ as it is used here is a noun. What does the noun ‘good’ mean?
GOOD, n. That which contributes to diminish or remove pain, or to increase happiness or prosperity; benefit; advantage [privilege]; opposed to evil or misery.
Thus, we can extrapolate that a god is someone or something that is the “highest [chief] provider of good”, that is to say, “That which contributes to diminish or remove pain, or to increase happiness or prosperity; benefit; advantage [privilege]; opposed to evil or misery.”
We further perceive that the word ‘elohiym is a “twisting together” of multiple concepts, five concepts to be exact, rolled together, Judge, Lawgiver, King, Saviour and last, but hardly least, Creator [Father or Founder].
But to continue, another way to say this is, whoever or whatever is our “benefactor” is our “god”.
Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
BENEFAC'TOR, n. He who confers a benefit…
CONFER', v.t. 1. To give, or bestow…
This word is particularly used to express the grant of favors [also known as grace], benefits and privileges to be enjoyed, or rights, which are to be permanent; as, to confer on one the privileges of a citizen; to confer a title or an honor.
So, with the above understanding of what a god is, who or what should we apply to for the “privilege” of using the modern day mode of movement [one tiny example]? What god do we pray to [make application to] for our benefits, advantages, privileges, favors [grace] and protection? [Note: Do a word study on “apply” and all the key words associated with it, and you will find that it means to “make supplication” or to “pray”.
Most of us, you will find, “apply” to, i.e. “pray” to two gods, for some, it is “the LORD” AND the STATE; for others, it is to JESUS AND the STATE; and still others of us will supplicate to Yahweh [or some variation thereof] AND the STATE.
The STATE is a god when it confers benefits [social welfare], privileges [licenses], advantages [favoritism] and protection. Dear brothers and sisters, if we cannot come to agreement on this most important of topics, all other communion [conversation] falls flat on the ground, dead as a doornail!
When we said we don’t care what Daniel appears to have done, we don’t care what Paul seems to have done, it is with this understanding…
Mattithyahu [Matthew] 6:24a No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Masters in the above verse is the Greek kurios, and is translated, God, Lord or master; take your pick!! If it makes one feel better to choose master and leave the other two off, so be it…but as for me and my house, we shall serve Yahweh.
M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater.] 1. A man who rules, governs…
“Nations that want protectors, will have masters.”
Choose you this day whom you will serve…
It is done.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Apr 2004 05:17:28 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 21:16:50
|
Greetings brother Robert,
I understand that your rendering above of the first commandment is the foundation from which you judge all else be it Paul or Daniel.
Assuming for the sake of discussion and edification you are correct:
Do you condisider that Paul was breaching the first commandment by his statement in Acts 25:10 concerning "standing at Caesar's judgement seat, where he ought to be judged"?
I am re-phrasing my original question "why did Paul not know your version of the first commandment" to one that takes your assertion as correct that the first commandment means 'earthly ruler' instead of 'supreme deity'. The reason why Paul still remains an important figure in this equation is... well.... over half of the New Testament
is attributed to him. How does he fair taking your position on the first commandment as the correct one?
Peace,
Steve
p.s. - Paul had already proclaimed his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP before Agrippa and Festus made the statement that they "may" have set him at liberty if he had not requested to go before Ceasar in Rome. He had already argued his case at that point in that stage of the hearing. |
Edited by - BatKol on 12 Apr 2004 21:32:15 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 22:21:28
|
Steven,
if ye would check around and about, i.e. Caleb {Gordon} one will easily see that to Stand as an American and become the demandant for an impartial court, is still available. Me thinks this is what Paul was doing. Rome was founded as a Republic, aka Commonwealth, by lost Israelites, trying things on their own, away from Father's House. Rome degenerated just as this country has. Many have tried, and are trying, to find Lawful courts. Paul sat under house arrest with the Queen of England, all the while, Rome way trying, by force of arms to make England submit to Roman jurisdiction. Paul was also trying to figure out the mess of jurisdiction. He was a lawyer. In Roman's eight, he was seeing the manifestation of the literal Son's of Elohim. At the end of his course, he awaited his crown on the other side. He taught, children, son's, father's...all at one time. A most gifted man.
Do you deserve the government of the fourth beast? Only you can answer this.
We are nineteen hundred hard ardious years ahead of Paul. If, the IRS ever comes hunting you, all this will become real. Whose jurisdiction do you belong in? Another personal question, and one's works will follow him. This is all we re-present. Paul made tents {even esoterically} in his spare time. Only a fool would think he signed up with ROMAN tax laws. And bring it all up to date! We do get the government we deserve. During the time of the fourth beast YHWH sets up a Kingdom. Been going on a long time now!
Yahushuah never, ever, stated he was King of Israel, the first time around. The people were sore disappointed in that He did not whip butt! They thought He failed! And still do, and Christian's in mass, still obey Caesar, Bush, whoever. {in mass}. The test is still going on, and YHWH is bringing in His wheat, in every generation. FirstFruits. To the carnal man-natural man, spiritual things are foolishness.
A stupid driver's license, is a Catholic indulgance, i.e. a civil right, imposed by Roman {civil} authorities, to those who PRAY...APPLY, for it. You have accused me of being part of the Niciean council's thought form. Say again? Any man holding a license from civil law authorities is the Roman among us.
Early American's knew more Law than lawyer's do today. George Washington when asked to be King of America, by two European parties, answered, "America has no King, except Jesus Christ". He had two famous sayings...one of which was, "may I go under my vine and fig tree". He shared his other quietly famous saying with William Travis, of Alamo fame, " Victory or Death". As do all the Saints. America is an idea whose time has come.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 23:46:48
|
Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be to the house.
It is late, and we must apologize for the hastiness of this response, Yahweh willing, we shall respond in due season, properly. But this statement of yours cannot be left dangling in the air...
Steven said: "...your assertion...that the first commandment means 'earthly ruler' instead of 'supreme deity' sovereign." [We have taken the liberty of editing your statement. The synonym of deist is atheist!! The word "deity" is from the Latin Deus, which is an alternate spelling of Zeus!!]
"INSTEAD OF"??? Where did we say that? We plainly said, "e all of the above", which clearly included: GOD, n. 1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.
We kindly ask you to retract that blasphemous statement, which you mistakenly attributed to us.
Dear brother, He is the "Elohiym [King] of 'elohiym [kings], lest we forget...which of course means that there are others, though "Lesser" by a very wide margin!!!!
What we are saying is that this verse: "...God of gods, and Lord of lords..." from Deuteronomy 10:17 in the Old Covenant is stated this way in the New Covenant: "...King of kings and Lord of lords..." [1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14, 19:16]
He is the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe and that, if we are not mistaken, includes the planet Earth!
"There may be other worlds, where the inhabitants have never violated their allegiance to their Almighty sovereign."
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us and teach their own private interpretation of Romans Thirteen to justify it!!
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of Yahweh [God] into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [man] more than the Creator [Yahweh], who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Psalm 47:2 For Yahuweh most high is terrible [awesome]; he is a great King over all the earth.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 06:49:36
|
brother Robert,
Sorry for that misunderstanding. I retract that statement concerning Elohiym. NOW:
Please answer this question in light of your understanding:
Do you condisider that Paul was breaching the first commandment by his statement in Acts 25:10 concerning "standing at Caesar's judgement seat, where he ought to be judged"?
Peace,
Steve
P.S. - This definition of "e all of the above" cannot work for every situation wherein Elohiym is used. If so then Psalms 82:6 would be having man creating the earth, animals, plants, etc. Clearly "e all of the above" cannot work in all contexts. Do you agree?
|
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Apr 2004 09:33:06 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 07:41:33
|
Robert-James said: Steven, if ye would check around and about, i.e. Caleb {Gordon} one will easily see that to Stand as an American and become the demandant for an impartial court, is still available.
Steve: Wait a minute.. American courts do/did not enforce Torah and a 'resurrected' physical David does not seat any court yet in this country or even the world. The Consititution which gives power to this 'impartial court' is a hybrid containing some Laws from Torah. What we have until King Moshiach comes is varying degrees of exile and 4th Kingdom rulers. You have done a major flip flop on this issue of the Constitution which underpins the American court. One can go back on this Ecclesia website and see you make statements such as, and I quote, "CONstitution" as well as many derogatory statements concerning this hybrid document.
Here is another statment you made concerning the Constitution which empowers one to "Stand as an American and become the demandant for an impartial court:
"Article VI of the Con is a killer. How about the "no religious test" wording? Catholic frosting on their cake.
This CONstitution (as you have frequently called it) is what gives the platform upon which an American would Stand on to demand the impartial court in this land!! I must say your current post is very much in opposition to your BOLD previous claims!
Robert-james said: Me thinks this is what Paul was doing. Rome was founded as a Republic, aka Commonwealth, by lost Israelites, trying things on their own, away from Father's House.
Steve: I say Paul understood the exile...The Rome of Paul's time was a murderous entity. Did you read the remarks of brother Robert's concerning their methods of dealing with 'sedition'? We are dealing with the essense of the 4th Kingdom here NOT Lawful Government. Also there are key words in your statement above, in your own words, which give tell tale signs that the Roman Republic was NOT Lawful but rather an early part of the 4th Kingdom.
1. "by lost Israelites" - assuming for the sake of argument that these were actually Israelites, the key descriptor here is "lost".
Hosea had much to say about "lost" Israel. Lo Ami... not my people.
2. "trying things on their own, away from Father's House" -
again, you are speaking of a people in this context of "trying things on their own, AWAY from Father's house. Again, I refer you to any number of Bible scriptures that say Israel is Lo Ami.. NOT my people for this very reason!
Robert-James said: Yahushuah never, ever, stated he was King of Israel, the first time around. The people were sore disappointed in that He did not whip butt!
Steve: Excellent! I have been saying this same thing for well over two years. When we get Moshiach ben David we will get the proper Courts that enforce Torah. There will be no questions as to what the Law means or our obligations to it. America or the constitution does not qualify as Lawful per Torah. Never did. The Torah does not provide for freedom of 'religion'and when Moshiach ben David does come
there will be NO freedom of religion.
Robert-james said: Early American's knew more Law than lawyer's do today. George Washington when asked to be King of America, by two European parties, answered, "America has no King, except Jesus Christ".
Steve: Again, America has never kept or enforced YHWH's Law as it is laid out in the covenant given to Israel in the Bible. The Consitution is not Torah, nor does it enforce it. It is a hybrid containing some elements of Torah but some elements which are anti-Torah. Maybe that is why the Union army defeated America. YHWH overturned America in the Civil War.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 13 Apr 2004 08:16:47 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 12:08:10
|
Greetings In The Life Giver to all,
A very important question we must all ask ourselves is:
Would we persecute a man for not waiving his Lawgiver before man?
|
Edited by - Manuel on 13 Apr 2004 12:11:43 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 12:43:23
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven and brothers and sisters:
Peace be to the house.
We accept your apology and thank you for your retraction, since we had hoped that this was not done intentionally.
And the last shall be first:
Steven states and asks: “This definition of "e all of the above" cannot work for every situation wherein Elohiym is used. If so then Psalms 82:6 would be having man creating the earth, animals, plants, etc. Clearly "e all of the above" cannot work in all contexts. Do you agree?”
brother Robert replies: My goodness, brother Steven, perhaps we over estimate you. To confuse you more, here are the definitions of “lord”…
LORD, n.
1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor.
Man over man he made not lord.
But now I was the lord of this fair mansion.
2. A tyrant; an oppressive ruler.
3. A husband.
I oft in bitterness of soul deplores my absent daughter, and my dearer lord.
My lord also being old. Gen 18.
4. A baron; the proprietor of a manor; as the lord of the manor.
5. A nobleman; a title of honor in Great Britain given to those who are noble by birth or creation; a peer of the realm, including dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts and barons. Archbishops and bishops also, as members of the house of lords, are lords of parliament. Thus we say, lords temporal and spiritual. By courtesy also the title is given to the sons of dukes and marquises, and to the eldest sons of earls.
6. An honorary title bestowed on certain official characters; as lord advocate, lord chamberlain, lord chancellor, lord chief justice, &c.
7. In scripture, the Supreme Being; Jehovah. When Lord, in the Old Testament, is printed in capitals, it is the translation of JEHOVAH, and so might, with more propriety, be rendered. The word is applied to Christ, Psa 110. Col 3. and to the Holy Spirit, 2 Th 3. As a title of respect, it is applied to kings, Gen 40. 2 Sam 19. to princes and nobles, Gen 42. Dan 4. to a husband, Gen 18. to a prophet, 1 Ki 18. 2 Ki 2. and to a respectable person, Gen 24. Christ is called the Lord of glory, 1 Cor 2. and Lord of lords, Rev 19.
Steven MIGHT ask, “Clearly "e all of the above" cannot work in all contexts. Do you agree?”
And we might answer…that is correct, dear Steven, they cannot, for the LORD as in Yawheh is not the same as a lord, as in English noble, for example, his “realm” is a mite bit smaller than Yahweh's. However, brother Steven, we can see that they all do have an intrinsic relationship, can we not? For instance one might “generalize”, a lord to be at the top, i.e. master of a greater of lesser "realm", the universe in one instance, and a local pub, for example, at the other end of the spectrum, and thus we might say this is “e, all of the above”, the "generalized" definition. Do you see [perceive] what we are saying?
At the risk of offending you, we sometimes get the distinct feeling that if we said the top of a tree was up, you would point out that if one were on a cloud it would be down, just to be argumentative!! I can personally attest that because I do not agree with the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, I would not go to their forum and badger them to death. I would simply tell them they are wrong, in my humble opinion, and then go on about my business in a forum more compatible with my own beliefs. I am not asking you to leave, but rather asking why are you here, since you appear to be going against virtually everyone elses tide, so to speak?
Anyway, to get back to the point, in answer to your above “question”…that is correct, brother Steven, it does not mean “e, all of the above” all at the same time, nor in all contexts, but simply that the word ‘elohiym CAN mean all of those things, but we think most would agree that in the case of this word, god, they can “best” be summarized by answer “e”, due to what they all have in common.
We gave you examples from the Scripture where and/or how they could apply.
First of all, man IS a creator; he creates cars, and boats, and planes and sometimes, even PLANTS, at least hybrids that never, as far as we know, existed before.
And earthly gods, such as a caesar, do in fact “create worlds”, IF one can comprehend that 'world' often means a government or an empire, i.e. “an orderly arrangement”. He can create man in his own image and has, IT is called “a person”, he can even create a savior and his own chosen people, as we can readily see in the age we are in today. He can judge HIS CREATION, he can make so-called laws for HIS CREATION [lawgiver], he can be king [ruler] over HIS CREATION, he can even be the BENEFACTOR [SAVIOR] over HIS CREATION if he so desires, for he is the god of that creation!! Just as you would be the ‘elohiym over one of your paintings, providing you did not borrow to create it, or it was not purchased in advance. You could even burn it if you so desired, for it is YOUR CREATION, you are the god of it!
But contrary to the popular belief, the caesar did NOT create me, the sentient moral being, thus he is NOT my god!!! Yahweh is my ‘Elohiym [God], He is my Judge, my Lawgiver, my King and my Saviour, and no man can tell me otherwise.
A partial answer concerning Paul is forthcoming [it has been written] but please understand this, I could be a veritable fountain of good information concerning the Kingdome of Yahuweh, but too weak and faithless to put any of it into action. My point here is this, even if Paul was unable, for whatever reason, to put his words into works [action], this does not mean in any way that his "good words" should be thrown away, only his works. We are not instructed to emulate Paul by anyone but Paul.
We hope this has been helpful.
Peace.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 14:28:25
|
Greetings brother Robert and family,
You said: We accept your apology and thank you for your retraction, since we had hoped that this was not done intentionally.
Steve: Absolutely not on purpose. Thank you for accepting my apology.
brother Robert: Steven states and asks: “This definition of "e all of the above" cannot work for every situation wherein Elohiym is used. If so then Psalms 82:6 would be having man creating the earth, animals, plants, etc. Clearly "e all of the above" cannot work in all contexts. Do you agree?”
brother Robert replies: My goodness, brother Steven, perhaps we over estimate you.
Steve: Over estimate? In your post above you are speaking of 'lord' which has nothing to do with Psalms 82:6 and I am speaking about 'elohiym' per Psalms 82:6..I just wanted to be square that you are not using "e all of the above" for the definition of Elohiym all accross the board. One could get that impression from your original post so I just wanted to be strait that you agree that Elohiym has different meanings depending on the context. That is all. Why you are posting 'lord' I have no idea.
brother Robert: To confuse you more, here are the definitions of “lord”…
Steve: Again, the word in context of Psalms 82:6 was "gods i.e. Elohiym" not "lord". Are you saying that "gods" should have been rendered "lord" in Psalms? I am not following why you are bringing up 'lord' here when Pslams was speaking about "elohiym". Anyway, I am just questioning the method of how and why you choose a particular definition from the very, very, very long menue of meanings for one word which can mean many things depending on the context. I am asking these questions to that I can be clear on the how's and why's. As for your use of 'lord' when we are looking at 'Elohiym' I am still not clear on. No worries.
brother Robert said: Steven MIGHT ask, “Clearly "e all of the above" cannot work in all contexts. Do you agree?”
Steve: H430 not 'lord' !!!!!!
brother Robert: And we might answer…that is correct, dear Steven, they cannot, for the LORD as in Yawheh is not the same as a lord, as in English noble, for example, his “realm” is a mite bit smaller than Yahweh's.
Steve: Your original essay was about the word 'elohiym'. I quote you, "It is felt on this end that we are at an impasse unless we can come to a consensus on what an ‘elohiym, translated most often ‘god’, ‘gods’ or ‘God’, in the English, is. This is the crux of the whole matter. If we could agree on what this word ‘elohiym means, much of this discourse would be unnecessary."
I am trying to look into this with you so I asked about the 'e all of the above' formula noting that it cannot be a standard everytime H430 is used. I used Ps 82:6 as an example.
brother Robert: However, brother Steven, we can see that they all do have an intrinsic relationship, can we not?
Steve: Depending on the context. But we cannot use the 'e all of the above' formula eveytime H430 is used lest we have the 'gods which are men' in Ps 82:6 creating the earth, sky and all in them.
brother Robert: For instance one might “generalize”, a lord to be at the top, i.e. master of a greater of lesser "realm", the universe in one instance, and a local pub, for example, at the other end of the spectrum, and thus we might say this is “e, all of the above”, the "generalized" definition. Do you see [perceive] what we are saying?
Steve: I do perceive what you are saying but such a generalized definition cannot be used in Ps 82:6. That was all I was trying to point out. That the 'e all of the above' formula cannot work as a rule across the board.
brother Robert: At the risk of offending you, we sometimes get the distinct feeling that if we said the top of a tree was up, you would point out that if one were on a cloud it would be down, just to be argumentative!!
Steve: That's the problem with 'feelings' they can mislead you. I can assure you you are mislead on your feelings concerning this last statement.
brother Robert: I can personally attest that because I do not agree with the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, I would not go to their forum and badger them to death. I would simply tell them they are wrong, in my humble opinion, and then go on about my business in a forum more compatible with my own beliefs. I am not asking you to leave, but rather asking why are you here, since you appear to be going against virtually everyone elses tide, so to speak?
Steve: Well let's start out with me recently watching one family be destroyed when the head of the house became convinced of this very same doctrine. The wife of this family drove circles around the husband.. all with no tags! Still not good enough! Also about 10 years ago I learned about some of these very claims from some 'believers' and then watched the ill behaviour unfold, ultimately leading to fleecing sheep of money. I am not speaking about you in any of this. You have my love and respect. You really do. ALSO: Nothing short of me and my families' salvation is on the line and if this doctrine cannot hold up to my examination, to my satisfaction, using the same book you are using then it is my job and duty to NOT follow in the footsteps of others. You would not respect me if I just accepted everything at face value with out questioning, would you? And I know the points and observations I am bringing up are solid and worthwhile. One does not have to actually learn by doing that relieving one's self on an electric fence will get you shocked. One can observe and learn that one will get shocked with out personally doing it. My verdict is not in yet 100% but the more I study the more I see that my assertions are solid and have not been refuted to the point where I will give them up. YHWH is a family man and I have seen families destroyed by this doctrine. SOME will go to jail Yahushua said... what about the one's who don't? Maybe they agreed quickly with the advisary before they got thrown before the magistrate and the judge and ultimately jail. I am not saying you are completely wrong but Yahushua does imply that some WILL NOT go to jail. Maybe my points are for those people and yours are for the one who do go to jail.
brother Robert: Anyway, to get back to the point, in answer to your above “question”…that is correct, brother Steven, it does not mean “e, all of the above” all at the same time, nor in all contexts, but simply that the word ‘elohiym CAN mean all of those things, but we think most would agree that in the case of this word, god, they can “best” be summarized by answer “e”, due to what they all have in common.
Steve: OK. Now we get to Elohiym. Thank you. I submit it is all in context. You have agreed.
brother Robert: We gave you examples from the Scripture where and/or how they could apply.
Steve: While at the same time saying, "we perceive that the word 'elohiym is a "twisting together" of multiple concepts, five concepts to be exact, rolled together". The only point I was trying to get strait was that this formula does not work with Ps 82:6. I needed to be clear on this to seriously study your essay. I was taking your quote above concerning the definition of "elohiym" as your
meaning of the word. Thank you for your help.
brother Robert: First of all, man IS a creator; he creates cars, and boats, and planes and sometimes, even PLANTS, at least hybrids that never, as far as we know, existed before.
And earthly gods, such as a caesar, do in fact “create worlds”, IF one can comprehend that 'world' often means a government or an empire, i.e. “an orderly arrangement”. He can create man in his own image and has, IT is called “a person”, he can even create a savior and his own chosen people, as we can readily see in the age we are in today. He can judge HIS CREATION, he can make so-called laws for HIS CREATION [lawgiver], he can be king [ruler] over HIS CREATION, he can even be the BENEFACTOR [SAVIOR] over HIS CREATION if he so desires, for he is the god of that creation!! Just as you would be the ‘elohiym over one of your paintings, providing you did not borrow to create it, or it was not purchased in advance. You could even burn it if you so desired, for it is YOUR CREATION, you are the god of it!
But contrary to the popular belief, the caesar did NOT create me, the sentient moral being, thus he is NOT my god!!! Yahweh is my ‘Elohiym [God], He is my Judge, my Lawgiver, my King and my Saviour, and no man can tell me otherwise.
Steve: OK. You gave quite a list of instances where this general formula would not work: 'elohiym is a "twisting together" of multiple concepts, five concepts to be exact, rolled together". Ps 82:6 is such a case.
brother Robert: A partial answer concerning Paul is forthcoming [it has been written] but please understand this, I could be a veritable fountain of good information concerning the Kingdome of Yahuweh, but too weak and faithless to put any of it into action. My point here is this, even if Paul was unable, for whatever reason, to put his words into works [action], this does not mean in any way that his "good words" should be thrown away, only his works. We are not instructed to emulate Paul by anyone but Paul.
Steve: So I am extrapolating from this that you are hinting that Paul perhaps DID traverse in not renouncing his Roman CITIZENSHIP and by going before Ceaser. Yahushua does not mention any errors on Paul's part in Acts 23:11 but instead lifts him up by telling him to "take courage". As for Paul's good words, respectfully, many of them are contrary to what you are teaching.
brother Robert: We hope this has been helpful.
Steve: Yes. I think for the most part I get what you are saying. My error was taking your statement, "we percieve that the word elohiym is a "twisting together" of multiple concepts, five concepts to be exact, rolled together" as your definition of Elohiym across the board. I am strait on this now.
Peace to you all,
Steve and family
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 18:22:29
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Steven asks: Assuming for the sake of discussion and edification you are correct:
Do you condisider that Paul was breaching the first commandment by his statement in Acts 25:10 concerning "standing at Caesar's judgement seat, where he ought to be judged"?
Robert writes: Paul, as we perceive you already know, is a tough nut to crack. We have examples on both sides of this issue. For example, how does the following verse stack up, compared to Acts 25:10?
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey… [Could this be why they (Paul and certain brethren) were accused of doing “contrary to the decrees of [the] caesar”, saying there is another King?]
1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. [The servant in any relationship is the one who seeks his master’s (kurios – god, lord, master) permission, i.e. license, and license demonstrates licentious behaviour [which nullifies freedom of religion in their constitutions], as it shows us to be respecters of persons, since those who do not have license are banned from equal liberties.]
Which of course, fits well with what Paul states here:
Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or Yahuweh [God]? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of the anointed [Christ].
Then there is the following verse of Scripture to contend with…
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. [Actually, after rightly dividing the word, we have concluded that what Paul said here was: All things lawful are mine…but I will not be brought under the authority of anyone.]
Power in this verse is the Greek word exousiaz;, which translates ‘authority’, so how does that compare to Acts 25:10?
And speaking of Acts, how does this verse compare to 25:10 in that very same book?
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey Yahweh [God] rather than men.
We ask you, when Paul made this statement at Acts 25:10, knowing that the Iewes “had put a contract out on him”, could he perhaps fallen prey to this?
Job 2:4 And Satan answered Yahweh, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
What if Paul lied, “to save his hide” that he might spread the Good Tidings of the Kingdome of Yahuweh a short while longer?
Romans 3:7 For if the truth of Yahuweh [God] hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?Rahab was certainly not “judged a sinner” by Yahuweh for her lies.
As a father yourself, we ask you, if Noah [your son] ran a race to the best of his ability, would you think any less of him if he did not win? It is the running of the race, for all you are worth, that is the important thing. This is all we are doing, Steven. We are not perfect, and do not claim to be [as we have previously stated]; our walk is not yet perfected and we know this, but we are simply doing the best that we can at this point, as you no doubt feel you are.
As an example, you claim to follow the teachings of the Tanakh, Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant [#H1285] with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee…[Exodus 34:12] So tell us, how do you follow this red-letter admonition from Yahuweh Himself?
H1285 - berîyth
BDB Definition:
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
1a) between men
1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
1a3) agreement, pledge (man to man)***
…which of course fits nicely with this:
Yahu’aqob [James] 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship [association] of the world is enmity with Yahuweh [God]? whosoever therefore will be a friend [an associate] of the world is the enemy of Yahuweh [God].
I guess we could do as the modern day Pharisees and make “our word of none effect” by invoking the Kol Nidre, but this childish practice reminds us of when we were children, “crossing our fingers behind our backs”, thus nullifying what we were promising. Their father was a liar from the beginning!!
The Tanakh also tells us that the king [ruler] that we shall choose for ourselves shall write, read daily and obey the Decalogue, Yahuweh’s Moral Law, and shall not bethink himself above his brethren [Deuteronomy 17:18-20]. Does yours king [ruler], which you have chosen for yourself, follow this red-letter instruction, which comes from again Yahuweh Himself? Would you say that G.B. Jr. is like-minded with you, i.e. one of the brethren, as further instructed in these verses?
Would Paul, the pharisee, place himself under the authority of someone who didn’t? He says he wouldn’t “…I will not be brought under the power of any”; do we believe him?
Peace,
brother Robert:
P.S. We must also keep in mind that according to some sources, many writings that were attributed to Paul were not his, so much so, as the story goes, that he had to add at least a line or two in his own handwriting at the end to verify that it was from him. Who’s to say that this did not continue after his death?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Apr 2004 18:30:51 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 18:36:05
|
Citizen-SHIP
Steven, you have gone on and on about Paul's Roman "Citizenship", as you think it is equivalent to your U.S. Citizenship. This is pure presumption that does not hold water.
First of all, do a search of the New Testament (KJV) on all variations of the word "citizen". The word appears four times total, and only once is it speaking of Paul. In that verse (Acts 21:39), he says he is a "citizen of no mean city". Hmmm ... Citizen - City, exactly what the dictionary tells us the word is derived from.
Paul calls himself a "Roman" on several occasions, but never once a "Roman citizen". Further, the usage of this word has been changed in modern law. Today it never refers to the inhabitant of a city. Instead, it ALWAYS refers to the members of a voluntary STATE. You were not born with U.S. Citizenship, though your parents eagerly pegged it on you via a birth certificate that was later presented to the U.S. government in exchange for a number of rights and duties.
Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary gives us an enlightening historical perspective on this. Here is the third definition under CITIZEN:
quote:
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
In short: CITIZENS are "made" not born. Compare this with Paul's dialogue with the Roman captain in Acts 22:25-28.
quote:
25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
Verse 28 does NOT say "With a great sum obtained I this CITIZENSHIP ... But I was born a ROMAN CITIZEN." As it is the protection of the Lawful Government they are discussing, they refer to it as freedom. They are discussing their standing under the perfect Law of Liberty, not the rights and duties (bondage) of citizenship.
One born in California is a Californian, or more broadly an American, subject only to the Lawful Government. This is the true equivalent to Paul's being a Roman. There are many times when our status as an American overrides all else, i.e. we have no need to prove "U.S. Citizenship". One example would be crossing the border back into the States. The way you speak is all the "proof" you need to carry with you. An American cannot be denied access to the land of his birth. Things may be a little more complicated since I have done this, but I guarantee that any American who knows the Lawful ground on which he stands will prevail over immigration agents every time, solely on the basis of his accent.
I have crossed the border with foreigners on many occasions and have seen the stark contrast in attitude towards them as opposed to myself. I have never once been challenged by an immigration agent, passport or not. I have even gotten foreigners over the border without having to show their papers simply by my conduct and confidence. How is this possible? The immigration agent never questioned that I was allowed in. Then by observing me he could tell that I knew the foreigners with me had every right to enter the country as well. Therefore, he did not need to see any papers as "proof". My words and/or behavior gave him all the proof he needed.
Why do immigration agents behave this way? Because their training is that Americans have an inalienable right to their land. This has obviously changed post 9/11, and some unfortunate Amish farmers are caught in the middle because they believe the lie that the "U.S. Citizenship" status they are being asked to prove is the same as their being "American" by birth. The fact is, if the Amish understood their Lawful standing, they would still have no trouble crossing the border without any picture i.d.
The best part about all this is that you have NEVER actually been a U.S. Citizen. Only an ALL CAPS person can be a U.S. Citizen. So once you discover that you are not the same as the ALL CAPS person they tricked you into standing surety for, you will know that you have never in your life been a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, there is nothing to renounce if you want to escape the bondage that this status placed on you. Simply walk in the Truth that, just like with the ALL CAPS person, you can declare, "That's not me."
The STATE and its accompanying CITIZENSHIP are legal FICTIONS overlaying the real. In our day, the language used is predominantly that of the FICTIONS, so few people know about the Perfect Law of Liberty hidden by them. This is a simple but very effective trick that has convinced almost everyone to accept their bondage as a given. Steven, even you admit that it is bondage. So now hopefully you see that this cannot possibly be the same thing that Paul and the captain referred to as "freedom".
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 19:07:03
|
Greetings brethren:
Quick note on something brother Caleb just said.
"The best part about all this is that you have NEVER actually been a U.S. Citizen. Only an ALL CAPS person can be a U.S. Citizen. So once you discover that you are not the same as the ALL CAPS person they tricked you into standing surety for, you will know that you have never in your life been a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, there is nothing to renounce if you want to escape the bondage that this status placed on you. Simply walk in the Truth that, just like with the ALL CAPS person, you can declare, 'That's not me'."
This matches up with the story of the prodigal son:
Luke 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country...
And just for the record, the very first time I was dragged into one of their "courts", the only thing I knew to say was, 'That's not me,' and lo and behold I was released, but at that time, did not fully understand why.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Apr 2004 19:22:03 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 19:47:31
|
Greetings In Him, My Father The Life Giver:
Listen to what is going on around you all, even though you refuse to enter onto those circles. Do not play the game as Jack did, jumping over the candle stick.
Listen to what the "fuzz" is regarding the latest crossers unto this marked land mass. They are allowed to enter first, but wait!... they are commanded second, to obtain a "work permit," then... a priveledge to "drive!" Listen to what the "fuzz" is regarding "same-sex" marriages asking for licenses! Can you hear? Do those sounds not sound uncomfortable?
If you are hungry, would you not cast your line to the water in order to eat, without having to worry about a fishing license? Would Father worry about being arrested for the "thought crime" of saying, "I am a fisher of men?"
"Let that Mind be in you which was also in The Christ."
Manuel |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 21:51:02
|
Greetings brother Robert and Caleb,
I will get back to you both with a worthy post this Thursday, YHWH willing. My time spent here on Ecclesia is most stimulating. Thanks for making it so.
Peace to you all,
Steve |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2004 : 09:29:13
|
Biblically Lawful vs. Patriot Lawful
Greetings All,
I had a few minutes before leaving so I wanted to address Caleb's comments on Paul. brother Robert, I will address your post tomorrow.
Caleb said: Steven, you have gone on and on about Paul's Roman "Citizenship", as you think it is equivalent to your U.S. Citizenship. This is pure presumption that does not hold water.
Steve: Wrong. Caleb you have gone on and on about your position as well and I will show to you that my position is correct in context of going before a COURT "like the nations". American, US, UCC or ROMAN COURTS are not judicating Torah per the Bible and are therefor not Lawful as the term applies to the Covenant. While US CITIZENSHIP is not exactly the same, I will show you how Paul's ROMAN CITIZENSHIP puts him in a LEGAL situation in front of a 4th Kingdom
JUDGE, much like any US CITIZEN in that they are submiting to JUDGEMENT that is not Lawful as the word pertains to the Bible.
Lawful is Torah, not some hybrid taking a bit from Torah, a bit from some other laws, etc.. Understanding what I mean by Lawful is key to digesting the meaning of what I am asserting concerning Paul. You think America is Lawful and by an 18whatever dictionary you may be correct.. but not from 8 BCE (give or take a few hundred years) Torah given at Sinai.
Caleb said: Paul calls himself a "Roman" on several occasions, but never once a "Roman citizen". Further, the usage of this word has been changed in modern law. Today it never refers to the inhabitant of a city. Instead, it ALWAYS refers to the members of a voluntary STATE.
Steve: Let's forget the word CITIZEN for a second and let me show you the actions of Paul and the privlidges he receives for taking those actions. I will prove to you that Paul's treatment by ROME will prove his STATUS. Let's put the dictionaries aside and examine what Paul claims concerning his STATUS and what benefits he gets from those claims.
From my thread Paul, the ROMAN CITIZEN:
Acts 16:22-24; 35-40 In Philippi Paul preaches on the river bank because there was no Jewish Synagogue (Need 10 families) Lydia was converted and when he had ruined the local fortune telling practice then the people rioted again. This time they were arrested and flogged. But Paul protested and exercised his Roman Citizenship (STATUS or standing in LAW concerning the LEX ROMANA).
Acts 22:3, 22-29 Paul is addressing the Jews. They riot at his claim that he was sent to the Gentiles so the commander arrested Paul and took him into the barracks to be flogged. This was a common practice whether one was innocent or guilty. It was 39 lashes on the back. However a Roman Citizen was protected by Roman law. He could not be beaten. Notice the amazing transformation of the commanders attitude when he learns of Paul's free born citizenship.
What was Paul's action that got him out of a beating? His claim to STATUS that put him under the LEX ROMANA. The LEX ROMANA is not Lawful as it pertains to the Bible. The LEX ROMANA is not Torah. The ROMAN GOVT is not governed by the Tanakh. PERIOD. With ROME, just as with America or USA, you are dealing with the 4th Kingdom style GOVT, not a GOVT founded soley on the Tanakh. Sure America came close but still it was not founded soley on Scripture.
America was dismantled by YHWH via the Union army unfortunately.
You say that Paul being a Roman (and not a CITIZEN) is because he was born there. That is not true. Look at the treatment he got once he stated his STATUS. You will find that this treatment is only for those who are ROMAN CITIZENS. An owned slave could be born in Rome and not be a ROMAN CITIZEN. Slaves were just property. Paul was born into his STATUS and never renounced his STATUS. Nay, he utilized it and benefited from it. Just being born in a Roman province does not get you the benefits and privlidges of the LEX ROMANA. You have to be a CITIZEN for that STATUS.
Now that we have established Paul's actions which confirmed his STATUS, let's now look at how ROMAN CITIZENSHIP is obtained.
This information is common, readily available on the net and can be confirmed by a historian if you care to.
Kinds Of Roman Citizens
Roman citizenship could be obtained in a number of ways.
1. By Decree of the Roman Empire. If you worked for the Government upon discharge you would receive a document making you a Roman Citizen. All the soldiers at 6 B.C. or the Pax Romana were Italians so by Paul's time there were a great number of these type of Roman Citizens. Some could obtain their Citizenship by bestowing a favour on some government official. By giving them money, supplies or products. Paul's father probably sewed tents for them.
2. Another way is to purchase your way to freedom. But it would cost a slave about $200.00 - $600.00 dollars (Canadian) a great amount.
3. You could be born in a family of a Roman Citizen and acquire your Citizenship that way.
Privileges Of Roman Citizens
1. Justice - only Roman Citizens could have the following benefits. He could not be flogged if he was untried. He had the right to appeal to Caesar and the governor had no right to block this. And finally no Roman Citizen could be crucified only beheaded.
2. A Roman Citizen could hold a government office, conduct business unhindered, travel freely throughout the empire.
Caleb, did Paul bypass a few beatings and even escape certain death at the hands of the Jews because he had access to the LEX ROMANA, a LAW that was only available to ROMAN CITIZENS? Yes. That is crystal from reading the Bible.
Paul did not say, "it's not me". Paul said, "I stand at Caesar's judgement seat, where I ought to be judged". Why could he say this?
Because he was a ROMAN CITIZEN, a privlidge and STATUS that goes far beyond just being born in a Roman controlled city. A STATUS that he did not revoke, rescind, or deny.
The LEX ROMANA, the UCC, the Constitution, whatever. They are NOT Torah given at Sinai. They are hybrids. While each might have some elements of Torah, they are NOT the Covenant given to the Israelites at Sinai. PERIOD.
Paul very well understood the situation he was in. Paul lived amongst exiled Jews who discussed this BONDAGE non-stop for hundreds of years. Romans 13 is a very "exiled Judean mindset" in that the understanding of 4th Kingdom BONDAGE is here until the reinstituted Throne of David is set up again. Romans 13 is not about righteous Church government as only ROME had the power of the sword. Anyway, Yahushua said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword... which proved to be true in Rome's case... If Romans 13 is about righteous Church government then they directly breached a direct quote from Yahushua himself. You say the Consitution is Lawful and maybe it is from an American patriot point of view. But not from the view of the Torah Covenant given at Sinai. Robert-James was very correct when he said the other day that "Yahushua never, ever claimed to be King. The people were very angry that he did not kick butt". Indeed. Why? Because Yahushua was not the Moshiach ben David appointed for this purpose. Until you see a global Torah World Order with all of the nations observing Succot and paying tribute to the reinstituted house of David.. we get Cops, Tax at every purchase point, and non-Torah Laws, LAWS, and STATUTES. I can respect what you are doing, but Paul's access to the LEX ROMANA is much the same as what my CITIZENSHIP gets me when it comes to access to COURTS. It matters not if the COURT or Court is Lawful as the term applies to a Bovier's dictionary, but rather Lawful as the word pertains to Torah. From the Torah view point the Constitution is not Lawful. Even being Governed by the Constitution (or the CON as Robert-James has called it) is being submissive to a non-Torah GOVT. It's our punishment per Lev 26 and Deut 28.
I am not trying to be ugly with this. I am trying to be clear so you can see what Dictionary I am using for my definition of Lawful. That dictionary is the Torah itself and the Constitution, the UCC, LEX ROMANA or whatever other rule of law is not considered Lawful as it pertains to Torah. Paul going before Ceaser is not different than me going before today's COURT.
Peace,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 14 Apr 2004 09:45:46 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2004 : 11:05:05
|
Steven, later on in the book...Revelations, Yahushuah lays claim to Kingship. Since resurrection day, many, many, have agreed to crown Him King.
The Throne of David, with the Levites ministering, are here now...operating in the fictional kingdom. But, the old natured man, be it old David, or modern Queen Elizabeth, can not inherit the promised Kingdom, for they are not the promised seed...son. They are just the first Adam, natural man. The clay pot man, is the fictio...fiction.
Most all of have missed the tremendous Truth that Peter-James-John witnessed at Yahushuah's transfiguration. Yahushuah basically said, "hush", keep this to yourselves.
All of us have much to learn about the mind of Yahushua/Yahuweh/Messiah.
As did Paul.
A Nation-Commonwealth, is an idea, spirit. It was set up a long time ago, though few see it.
The 4th beast is mighty big if we concentrate our eye's on it. Overwhelming, to the natural man. {actually it is the eighth beast-of the seven}
The "Great Work" must be done in us firstly, then the manifestation outwardly. The men of 1776 fame, were trying to do this Work in the wrong Order. Did they goof up? No, it was another stage in Kingdom building. They were attempting to finally honor the Chief Cornerstone.
Did Gideon or all the Saint's listed in Hebrews 11 succeed? Yep, yet something more still needs to be done.
Not much will make sense till we can answer,"Was YHWH literally in Yahushuah"? Yahushuah stated to Phillip, "Phillip, you see me, you see the Father". But the people wanted Ceasar, for that was all they could see.
Paul said that we all see through the glass {mirror} darkly. As to why Israel stays so blinded, well, two reasons I read about in scripture. 1] They have hard hearts and love not the Truth. 2] In each generation, Father chooses His Elect, and puts them through the 'suffering servant' process, that agape may be produced in His Spiritual Children, that some day they will have the character to Rule and Reign with Him.
Moses "chose" rather, to suffer afflictions, than enjoy the pleasures of Egyptian bondage.
The U.S. citizenship today, is Egyptian bondage. And the message is to come out of her, My people...Ammi}. Paul quoted Hosea 1:10 1900 years ago.
Mark Twain said, "all of mankind suffers from one disease, some more than other's. The disease is selfishness". |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2004 : 01:29:23
|
Greetings brother Robert and family,
Peace to you all.
Here is my detailed response:
brother Robert: Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey… [Could this be why they (Paul and certain brethren) were accused of doing “contrary to the decrees of [the] caesar”, saying there is another King?]
Steve:
Romans 6:16 has nothing to do with Acts 25:10 in that
A) It is from a speech given by Paul, not a statement made in a LEX ROMANA COURT.
B) The context for the key words "obey" and "slave" is to be found 6:11-21. When you read the whole statement of Paul a clear picture unfolds:
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should OBEY it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. * 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Paul is speaking about not yielding to being a servant of sin concerning the mortal body. You are trying to shape Paul's words into being a servant who is not to submit the GOVT.
brother Robert: 1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. [The servant in any relationship is the one who seeks his master’s (kurios – god, lord, master) permission, i.e. license, and license demonstrates licentious behaviour [which nullifies freedom of religion in their constitutions], as it shows us to be respecters of persons, since those who do not have license are banned from equal liberties.]
Steve:
1 Cornithians 7:23 has nothing to do with Acts 25:10 in that
A) Paul is not giving a statement before a court on a political issue.
B) The surrounding verses paint a much different picture than the connection you trying to make to Acts 25:10. See here 1 Cor 7:17-21
17Nevertheless, each one (new convert) should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God had called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Where you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you - although if you can gain freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's Freedman; similarly, he who was a freeman when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; to not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to do.
brother Robert: Which of course, fits well with what Paul states here:
Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or Yahuweh [God]? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of the anointed [Christ].
Steve:
Galations 1:10 has nothing to do with Acts 25:10 in that
A) Paul is not making a statement to the ROMAN GOVT in a LEGAL matter.
B) Paul is speaking to gentile non-Israelites about NOT becoming yoked to the Torah (another gospel which is not another gospel) because they received the Spirit of Christ directly w/o Torah.
This is the center piece of Galations. The letter should be taken as a whole, not just one verse out of context.
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Who are the 'Men' that Paul has no interest in pleasing? The ones who are preaching another Gospel contrary to Paul's Gospel of the uncircumcision.. which was specificaly for the uncircumcised.. This has nothing to do with ROMAN GOVT. Torah was not written to Gentiles and Paul's statement concerning Gentiles and their relation Torah is not a breach of Torah itself. They came in direct through Christ Paul says.
How can I prove that this "another gospel which is not another" is the Torah that was being put upon the Gentiles ?
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
and here
3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Paul is telling the new gentile believers to continue according to his Gospel to the uncircumcision, which was different from the one for the circumcision because they, being non-Israelites, are not required to follow it, being Gentiles, as they received the Spirit directly.
brother Robert: Then there is the following verse of Scripture to contend with…
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. [Actually, after rightly dividing the word, we have concluded that what Paul said here was: All things lawful are mine…but I will not be brought under the authority of anyone.] Power in this verse is the Greek word exousiaz;, which translates ‘authority’, so how does that compare to Acts 25:10?
Steve:
1 Corinthians 6:12 has nothing to do with Acts 25:10 in that
A) Paul is writing a letter not making a testimony before the ROMAN COURT
B)Paul is speaking about not being brought under the power of carnal desires, i.e sexual imorality. Look at the following verses
1 Corinthians 6:
12All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s
To connect this verse with Acts 25:10 is out of context to it's original meaning. This verse you quote has nothing to do with appearing before a ROMAN COURT but everything to do with not being brought under the "power" of any WHAT": carnal desires!
Read all around the text. That will give you which definition of "power" to select from the dictionary menue of many meanings for one word.
brother Robert: And speaking of Acts, how does this verse compare to 25:10 in that very same book?
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey Yahweh [God] rather than men.
Steve:
Acts 5:29, while a bit closer to the topic, compares not in the way you asserting:
A) this verse is not about making a case before ROME but rather
B) refusing to obey the command from the Sanhedrin about preaching about Jesus... Because the subject matter surrounding Acts 25:10 is about Paul defending himself against false accusations
See the context here by including more than just one verse:
27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. 33When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. 34Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 36For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 37After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 38And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. .
Clearly this has nothing to do with ROMAN CITIZENSHIP but about not listening to the 'commands of men of the sanhedrin' to stop preaching in the name of Yahushua (Jesus).
brother Robert: We ask you, when Paul made this statement at Acts 25:10, knowing that the Iewes “had put a contract out on him”, could he perhaps fallen prey to this?
Job 2:4 And Satan answered Yahweh, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
What if Paul lied, “to save his hide” that he might spread the Good Tidings of the Kingdome of Yahuweh a short while longer?
Steve:
I see it pointless to speculate of "what if "and "maybe" in this instance when we have the whole story which surrounds Acts 25:10 which clearly shows Paul demonstrating before the COURT his innocense
which even the GOVT recognizes.
brother Robert: Romans 3:7 For if the truth of Yahuweh [God] hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?Rahab was certainly not “judged a sinner” by Yahuweh for her lies.
Steve:
Romans 3:7 has nothing to do with Acts 25:10 and when you look at the whole statement, in context, you will see that Paul is not saying he lied. He is speaking hypothetically. see here:
1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. 5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. 9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
brother Robert: As a father yourself, we ask you, if Noah [your son] ran a race to the best of his ability, would you think any less of him if he did not win?
Steve: No, but I would try to make sure he had an accurate map of the course.
brother Robert: As an example, you claim to follow the teachings of the Tanakh, Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant [#H1285] with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee…[Exodus 34:12] So tell us, how do you follow this red-letter admonition from Yahuweh Himself?
Steve:
Exodus 34:12 Make no covenant with the inhabitants of "what" land whither they go? The promised land! They botched that. The Israelites were getting ready to take the land that was promised to them and this statement is in context to that conquest at that time. That they breached this commandment is one of the reasons they got exiled and then put into bondage. And bondage is what they were under even during Acts 25:10 (4th Kingdom ROMAN BONDAGE). The reinstituted Throne of David will rectify that (and it ain't England).
brother Robert: Yahu’aqob [James] 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship [association] of the world is enmity with Yahuweh [God]? whosoever therefore will be a friend [an associate] of the world is the enemy of Yahuweh [God].
Steve:
Exodus 34:12 was advice for going into the promised land. James is giving advice for not mixing with wordly "adulterers and adulteresses". More flesh stuff not ROMAN CITIZEN stuff.
brother Robert: The Tanakh also tells us that the king [ruler] that we shall choose for ourselves shall write, read daily and obey the Decalogue, Yahuweh’s Moral Law, and shall not bethink himself above his brethren [Deuteronomy 17:18-20]. Does yours king [ruler], which you have chosen for yourself, follow this red-letter instruction, which comes from again Yahuweh Himself? Would you say that G.B. Jr. is like-minded with you, i.e. one of the brethren, as further instructed in these verses?
Steve: G.B. Jr. is not a Deut 17:18-20 type of King. He is a 4th Kingdom RULER and his group took this land by military conquest via the Civil War. I did not choose this, YHWH did.
brother Robert: Would Paul, the pharisee, place himself under the authority of someone who didn’t? He says he wouldn’t “…I will not be brought under the power of any”; do we believe him?
Steve: Please see my comments on this verse above.
brother Robert: P.S. We must also keep in mind that according to some sources, many writings that were attributed to Paul were not his, so much so, as the story goes, that he had to add at least a line or two in his own handwriting at the end to verify that it was from him. Who’s to say that this did not continue after his death?
Steve: Ah.. I have a library full of this type of material saying exactly that. If you are going to use this line of thinking with equal weights and measures then why stop with just Paul? I have gone down that road already and am willing to go down that road with you here in public...... it is a heavy burden.
In closing let me say that if YHWH is instructing you with this formula, then so be it. YHWH's Will is ultimately done for his pleasure. You always have my respect just in the fact that you doing what you are called to do. For me, I am interested in seeing how it all works out in scripture. So let me, in fairness, ask to exchange all my answers to your many questions for just one clear answer from you to my question below. Please no other verses except the first commandment (and surounding context if needed) and Acts 25:10 (and surrounding context if needed). I need to see how you would apply the first commandment to Paul to better understand your concept.
According to your rendering of the First Commandment did Paul traverse by being one who invoked his STATUS which included the privlidge of the LEX ROMANA as it pertains to Acts 25:10?
I hope this finds you all in peace and in prayer for our mutual friends David and his wife.
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 16 Apr 2004 09:09:50 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
People get the Government they deserve
