| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 06:35:56
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven and brothers and sisters of this ecclesia:
Peace be unto the house.
Steven asks: "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?" [Emphasis added]
We answer: Yes, IF he was doing it for his own reasons. No, if he was a "chosen vessel", doing the will of the Supreme Sovereign.
Thou shall have no other gods[H430] before me.
And once again, we are at an impass if we cannot come to an agreement as to what an 'elohiym is!! We get the impression from some of your statements that you disavow what all dictionaries say, that notwithstanding here once again is the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions NUMBER ONE definition for 'elohiym, which has been translated God, god, gods, godess, judges, etc.:
H430
[Sorry, the Hebrew does not work here.]
'elohiym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
You see by this, dear Steven, that is not just MY rendering of the First Commandment!! How insulting! "...your rendering"?!?! The kosmokrator(s) has/have changed the Word of Yahuwah, from what it is, a Book about government and Law, into a book about religion; THIS is what has rendered it of none effect.
"ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience..." [Excerpt from the Secret Treaty of Varona, November 22, 1822]
If words have no meaning [definitions], then there is no communication via words and we both are wasting our time, end of story!!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 17 Apr 2004 09:23:14 |
 |
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 08:45:41
|
Psalm 96
Sing unto YaHuWeH {LORD} a new song. Sing unto the YaHuWeH, all the earth.
Sing unto the YaHuWeH, bless His Name. Shew forth {you] His salvation from day to day.
Declare his glory among the heathen, His wonders among the people.
For the YaHuWeh is Great, and greatly to be praised. He is to be feared above all the elohim. {gods}
For all the elohim {gods} of the nations are idols, but YHWH made the heavens....
for He cometh to judge the earth, He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His Truth. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 08:50:33
|
Greetings brother Robert,
You said: Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven and brothers and sisters of this ecclesia:
Peace be unto the house.
Steve: Greetings and Peace to you all.
Steven asks from last post: "According to your rendering of the First Commandment did Paul traverse by being one who invoked his STATUS which included the privilege of the LEX ROMANA as it pertains to Acts 25:10?" [Emphasis added]
We answer: Yes, IF he was doing it for his own reasons. No, if he was a "chosen vessel", doing the will of the Supreme Sovereign.
Steve: First let me compliment the house of prayer on your direct clarity in this. All of my work answering your many, many questions was worth this one answer from you. I am going to let your statement above sit for a bit. It deserves it's own thread, which I hope will be the culmination of all the ground we have covered to reach this point..
brother Robert: Thou shall have no other gods[H430] before me.
And once again, we are at an impass if we cannot come to an agreement as to what an 'elohiym is!!
Steve: Wait! Remember for the purpose of this discussion I already stated that I was going to go with your rendering of 'elohiym' as you put forth in your previous essay. Remember again we even had a whole separate post discussing the finer points of the word 'eloyim' just for clarity's sake. What I am trying to do now is understand the application of it, using Acts 25:10. You have given me your answer to my question. And I thank you.
brother Robert: We get the impression from some of your statements that you disavow what all dictionaries say, that notwithstanding here once again is the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions NUMBER ONE definition for 'elohiym, which has been translated God, god, gods, godess, judges, etc.:
Steve: Once again, like feelings, impressions can be very misleading.
I do not disavow dictionaries. Neither of us speak fluent biblical Hebrew so it is a given that dictionaries will be needed. I disavow not looking first to the context to see how the word is literally being used because a) one word has many meanings b) depending on the situation the word is being used. With the knowledge of the context (including situation), then we sit down with the menu and select the proper definition. In your sentence above you show five different
possibilities covering the spectrum of godess to judges, etc. For this very reason context is key. With out it one could start with any idea, a strong's recipe book and stack of dictionary menus, and serve up just about any dish. But if, at the very foundation, we are going to go forth with the belief that the Bible is real and the people and events in it are real then context is key. As you demonstrate above; words, especially Hebrew ones, have different meanings in different situations. I hope we can agree on the importance of context.
brother Robert:
H430
[Sorry, the Hebrew does not work here.]
'elohiym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
You see by this, dear Steven, that is not just MY rendering of the First Commandment!!
Steve: Whoa.... wait a minute. Above you gave five, etc. renderings of elohiym in your statement above. Now here you stop at 1a) ?!?!??!?!?!?!??! What happened to "e - all of the above"?
Do you realize that you made me retract and apologize for originally asserting that your meaning of 'elohiym' was rulers? You requested I retract that "blasphemous definition" while stating that the real definition was "e - all of the above".
brother Robert: How insulting! "...your rendering", indeed!
Steve: You have got to be kidding me here. Emotions and impressions gone wild! Which is it '1 and 1a' or 'e - all of the above'? The two are a far cry from the same. It depends on the context, doesn't it.
brother Robert: The kosmokrator(s) has/have changed the Word of Yahuwah, from what it is, a Book about government and Law, into a book about religion; THIS is what has renered it of none effect.
Steve: Religion, as the term is often used, is not the proper word for the other Spiritual half of the Book that goes with the law and government part. They are joined at the hip. As you know there are prophets in the book who talk deeply about balancing both the Spirit and the Law. It's not just a Law Book but also a history book, a character study of what to do and not to do, as well as Spiritual instructions from YHWH himself addressing a wide variety of topics, all culminating in an undisputed Israelite World Order in the earthly realm. Yes, the book has been changed and depending on how deep you want to go into that is the level you will view some or even all of the claims made in the Book itself.
brother Robert: If words have no meaning [definitions], then there is no communication via words and we both are wasting our time, end of story!!
Steve: Agreed 100%. Whether the correct application is '1 - 1a' or '2c'
or even a blend, is all dependant on context and situation. The answer cannot ever be "e - all of the above" if the word goddess is on the menu. In your answer concerning Paul and Acts 25:10 the definition and application of the word 'elohiym' is buttressed with 'if's' and yes/no on both ends. Rightly so.
I will respond to your excellent answer to my question on a separate thread.
Peace to you all on this great morning.
Steve |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 17:41:08
|
The WORLD according to ... ME!
Steve: Wrong. Caleb you have gone on and on about your position as well ...
Steve: Understanding what * I * mean by Lawful ...
Steve: You think America is Lawful, and by an 18whatever dictionary you may be correct ...
Steve: Let's forget the word CITIZEN for a second and ...
Dear Steven,
Yes indeed, it is a wonderful thing to be alive in a day where every man's opinion can be claimed to be the very words of a god. Throw out your dictionaries. What use are those? I've got this web page that says ...
While your thoughts have been worthwhile discussing, we simply have no interest at all in personal opinions. What we are attempting to share here is not some opinion we made up for our own purposes. We are seeking Truth, and using authoritative sources to demonstrate that this is NOT merely our personal opinion. Finally, this has been tested in practice to see whether it is indeed the Truth we have found or just another idea that sounded good.
You are seeking to justify your voluntary servitude, but no justification is needed. Under the Perfect Law of Liberty, you are free to become bondservant to anyone you choose. As it is a harsh taskmaster you have chosen, we do question your judgement. And as brother Robert has pointed out, we especially question your choice of a god, seeing you have not yet disavowed the Ten Commandments.
Now if there are six million churches in America, I can find you six million pastors who will agree with your position. Slavery to GOVERNMENT is the will of (their) god. Learn to love your bondage, it is earning you points with the man upstairs, so they assure us weekly.
The point for those who have ears to hear, is that it is completely voluntary. You would rather speculate about what choice Paul made, sure that he made the same choice you have. Failing to understand something as simple as the difference between the Law, Federal statute, State statute and Local statute, you lump everything into an overarching LEX ROMANA and claim that Paul swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And all based on a single incident in scripture.
Steve: You say that Paul being a Roman (and not a CITIZEN) is because he was born there. That is not true.
No, * I * did not say this. These are Paul's words from scripture. When you say, "That is not true" you contradict scripture. You also completely ignored the fact that Paul and the Roman captain were discussing freedom. You want to reduce it simply to citizenship status, which we all agree is a form of bondage.
Are we really supposed to continue to take you seriously when you tell us that dictionaries and scripture itself are irrelevant or wrong because your opinion says otherwise? Your opinion is based on ignorance. We have been attempting to dispell that ignorance, but to no avail. You can lead a horse to water ...
What we are sharing has been learned in the school of hard knocks. Until you are willing to take a few blows yourself, you will not learn and no one can teach you. Paul spent years in prison for his faith, but you want to focus only on the one time he appealed to Caesar. Whether this was right or wrong is purely speculation, for none of us is an expert on Roman law (web page references not-with-standing) and the scriptures do not pass moral judgement on his appeal. Scripture records many acts of faith and even more acts of failure, so the fact that it is recorded tells us nothing. What can be known without speculation paints a very clear picture, so this is what we choose to stick with.
For those who are interested, a later post will cover how all this applies in COURT. You have made numerous blanket statements regarding COURT that are simply wrong - because you lack the full picture. Exchanges like the following lead me to wonder if you really want to hear the Truth, so that it can set you free.
Caleb: They are constantly asking you to sign forms because they need your consent. Even when they drag you into COURT for no DRIVER's LICENSE, the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you.
Steve: "I have seen people go to jail with out consenting to the JUDGE."
Caleb: No you have not.
Steve: Yes I have. I have seen a COP jerk up a dear friend who did not consent to a JUDGE ...
Caleb: {Detailed ten ways we give CONsent in COURT without knowing it}
Steve: in the case of the brother I am talking about he was two or three days in jail before he even got to see a JUDGE or magistrate. ... So what I am talking about in this instance is that one can go to jail without traversing with the JUDGE.
So when I state that "the JUDGE must get your consent", you change it to "two or three days in jail before he even got to see a JUDGE". This is just one example of how you change the subject so you can keep an argument going for argument's sake. You are no longer asking reasonable questions. Instead, you are asking us to throw out the actual meanings of words in exchange for a ideal in your head that has never existed. Show me one moment in history where a "lawful" government existed, according to your definition. If it has never existed, how does it help us today except to justify complacency?
Lots of Christians are sitting on their hands awaiting the Rapture, so your excuse sure has theirs beat. But those of us who are not making excuses are not only learning the Truth, we are living it. Freedom was available in Paul's day, and it is available in our own. But most are happy to remain slaves.
"You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
-Morpheus
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
Edited by - Caleb on 18 Apr 2004 02:38:02 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 21:18:30
|
The original words to America's national anthem before kosmokrator changed them...
Our fathers' God, to Thee,
Author of Liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King!
-Samuel Smith, 1832
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 22:14:12
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Steven states: "Do you realize that you made me retract and apologize for originally asserting that your meaning of 'elohiym' was rulers? You requested I retract that 'blasphemous definition' while stating that the real definition was 'e - all of the above'."
brother Robert answers: So, in keeping with the typical attitude shown here of late, we state: Wrong! Out of context, out of context...
What you actually said was this: “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'.” [Emphasis added]
And once again... Wrong! Out of context, out of context... Aside from the fact that we would not use the word "deity", we did not ask you to retract that "blasphemous definition"!! Here is what we, in truth said:
"We kindly ask you to retract that blasphemous statement, which you mistakenly attributed to us."
That would be "your statement", dear brother, not ours.
The reason we asked for a retraction, dear brother, is because we never relegated Yahuwah's Authority to earth only; those were your choice of words, not ours; that is what we were referring to as a "blasphemous statement". And knowing that you would not want to bear false witness against your brother, we kindly asked you to retract them.
We know that accuracy is important to you, so we thought we'd best clarify this glaring error before even considering anything else.
...Oh, and by the way, 'elohiym does mean "ruler" or "chief (politically)" if you prefer, but not NECESSARILY relegated to earth only, and definitely not restricted to earth only as in the case of Yahuwah.
Peace.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 17 Apr 2004 22:25:51 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2004 : 02:05:44
|
The Law of the Spirit of Life
in Messiah Yahshua hath made me free
from the LAW of SIN and DEATH
We pause our discourse on the structure of the modern legal system to discuss what this is really all about. Are we merely interested in avoiding taxes, or do we dislike speeding tickets? Well, initially: Yes. For some of us the Truth was stumbled across while acting out of less than the purest of motives. Father's very purpose for our present bondage is to get our attention, and the worse the bondage gets, the more His children start paying attention. He does not seem to care which of Egypts chains is the first one to grow so heavy on us that we cry out to Him for relief.
Of course we were taught to think of those chains as "freedom", so even when we notice the first one, we have no idea how many more chains are dangling around our neck. But in seeking to take that first chain off, we eventually discover there are more. Lots more.
Once one realizes the totality of his bondage, the first reaction is outrage. How dare they enslave me and call it freedom! How dare they not obey the Law! We call "them" all sorts of bad names and accuse "them" of a multitude of crimes. It is common in almost all writing that describes our bondage to hear accusation after accusation levelled at the perpetrators of such a magnificently brilliant prison system - "a prison for your mind." These accusations are, unfortunately, a dead give-away that the writer is himself still in bondage.
The next level of awareness is when one discovers that the foundation of all Law is the scriptures - specifically the King James Version. Statutes that seem hopelessly confusing turn out to be written that way to avoid contradicting the scriptures. Eventually you find out that everything that is done by "them" is carefully structured to be consistent with scripture. Amazingly, their entire strategy for creating voluntary servants is to invite us to violate the scriptures. Somehow they have managed to get every single pastor we have ever met to conspire with them and tell us that these violations of scripture are pleasing to God.
Most who discover they are slaves prefer to devote their energy to complaining about their slavery. A far fewer number reach the place where they accept full responsibility for their own bondage. Yes our parents sold us out as newborns, and yes our teachers lied to us, and yes we were never taught "the Law", but this all turns out to be irrelevant. The only path to freedom is through accepting full responsibility for our own actions. This puts us in complete control, as no one else's actions can now prevent us from achieving freedom.
Once we have accepted that responsibility, the path to freedom is clear: Repent!!! Change your mind. Stop disobeying your Creator and start following His instructions. When we do this we find that His Spirit of Truth indeed leads us into all Truth. We find that the very "rule book" that was used to enslave us (because we disobeyed it) now becomes a sharp, two-edged sword in our hands. It cuts through our chains like butter. This requires faith, for almost no one will affirm with us that this book is the foundational reference for freedom. Instead, everything seems to scream at us that it is another law of slavery, rather than the Perfect Law of Liberty.
"Welcome to the desert of the Real." -Morpheus
But we do not cut those chains immediately. First we must learn in the school of hard knocks - we must step out in faith. No sooner have we done this than we look around and ... where have all our companions gone? We are all alone. Sometimes a solitary brother may be there to encourage us, but other times we know that we must press forward though the entire world says we are wrong. We are being tested, just as Yahshua said we would. Were we really willing to leave EVERYTHING? The road to the Promised Land always goes through the desert.
Then the hard knocks come. Turns out we set off unprepared. We had no idea just how ignorant of the Law we were. We get arrested for nothing at all. They treat us like hardened criminals. Worse, in fact. Nothing works like we thought it would. Soon we are longing to return to Egypt. And here is where we either turn back or make the next leap in understanding.
The issues at this level are no longer about law, they are about Spirit. We have been placed in a system that only knows how to deal with the dead. You can do no wrong to a dead man. Beat him, jail him, steal from him, what does he care? Do these things to a living man and he will react. Do you ever marvel at how much abuse most people will put up with? Then they defend the very system that abuses them. Obviously they are dead. Very, very dead.
Why did we not feel at peace within this same system that others never question? Was there a spark of life in us fighting to break free? If we go back to Egypt, there never was any life in us. But many who get this far know they can never go back. They can no longer tolerate the stench of death in the place they left. They know they are alive and will cling to that even if it kills them.
And this is when we come to see that the present "legal" system, as it is structured, is the most beautiful, just, perfect system ever devised in history. What could be more just than treating the dead as dead and the living as living? Do you still think like a dead man? The system will find this out and use it against you. Will you repent or get mad at the system? Of course you get mad at first. But once you realize how your Heavenly Father is using this earthly system to mould you into the image of His Son, you stop being mad. You see those POLICE and that JUDGE as tools in the hands of your Father. The old man cannot escape from their clutches. The new man has diplomatic immunity.
Modern "law" operates solely in FICTIONS, and fictions are dead. True Law applies only to the living, and todays COURTS are not Courts of Law. So if a statutory COURT has jurisdiction over you, it is because you do not yet have the full mind of Messiah. Once you know who you are and can stand on that, these same COURTS cannot touch you. JUDGES are experts at discerning who is in their kingdom and who is not. Can you see The Kingdom, or is your spiritual vision still cloudy? Will you walk as a free man and take the risk of letting them test your allegiance? Most will not, as they know they will fail. Those determined to be free do not fear this, for any "failure" simply reveals another problem in their heart that they can repent of.
Churches love to talk about "spiritual growth", but this cannot happen to any appreciable extent until you are seeking to walk by the Spirit. The Law is an integral part of this. If you are violating Father's Law, you are in SIN, and cannot be walking by the Spirit. If you are in bondage to modern GOVERNMENT, you cannot be obeying Father's Law. Obeying God rather than men is the true test of faith. Sit there in your ivory tower and shoot all the arrows you want at this. Once you have walked this path just a few steps you see that this is what scripture is refering to time and time again.
This does not truly sink in until you have an experience like sitting in jail and reading one of Paul's letters, such as II Corinthians where he says we are ambassadors for Messiah. A few chapters into it the lightbulb goes on. "This is the writing of a man in the same situation I am in. Paul wrote this while behind bars!" Did you recall this from some commentary on Paul's letters? No, for the first time in your life, you knew exactly what Paul meant in that letter because you could relate to it. Then you realize that no one can possibly understand Paul's letters without having spent time in jail. So much for the pastor of your church.
The bottom line is that this is a spiritual adventure we are on, not just an excercise in avoiding tickets and taxes. Father has a sense of humor. Right when I figured out how to avoid income taxes, He made sure I did not make enough money to worry about them even if I was still in the system. If you are learning His Law to get rich, good luck. If you are in this to allow the world's evil system to mould you into the image of Messiah, then you have figured out the Grand Plan. Why does God allow evil? Can Satan thwart God's plan, or is all his activity used ultimately for God's purposes? Do all things work together for good to those who love Yahuwah, and are the called, according to His purposes? Now I know.
If you embrace the adventure of learning and then living in the Truth of Father's Law, then you cannot lose. When you "lose" in their COURTS, the Spirit will teach you far more than when you "win". And there will be a next time. More encounters. More lessons to be learned. More rough edges to be smoothed. Patience ... the image is being formed. The potter is not done yet.
Or have you not yet let Him start? Are you doing everything possible to avoid "conflict"? How is He going to mould you if you will not allow Him? If you are not yet free, it is because of issues within your own heart. Your outward bondage is Father's proof to you that He has work still to do. There are many who have deep knowledge of the Law, yet they cannot break free. They are focused only on the dead letter of the law and will not examine their own heart. There are others who figured out Law much faster because they were willing to let their hearts be changed. They saw that the problem was within them. They repented and the Spirit then led them on to the next lesson.
This is the very key to freedom. When the problem is inside you, "they" don't matter, no matter who "they" are or what "they" are doing. The modern legal system can only hold onto those who are still in bondage to Sin. Sin is the transgression of Yahuwah's Law. The modern legal system can only get its hooks into those places where you are still transgressing the Law. Guaranteed. When "they" snag you, know with certainty that you have an issue to repent of. Father is at work. He has turned up the heat to refine the gold. Ouch! But the results are more than worth it.
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field."
The discourse on more practical aspects of the Law will now resume. The catch is, because the Law is spiritual, it can only be spiritually discerned. So most will read this explanation of the modern legal system and dismiss it. It will make no sense to them though laid out in black and white. But to those with eyes to see, it will provide a few more clues for walking in Truth. It adds up - spiritually. Those in bondage will continue to argue, for their problem cannot be solved simply by providing them with the correct facts. They require open heart surgery.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2004 : 07:31:29
|
brother Robert said: Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Steve: Peace to you all as well.
Steven states: "Do you realize that you made me retract and apologize for originally asserting that your meaning of 'elohiym' was rulers? You requested I retract that 'blasphemous definition' while stating that the real definition was 'e - all of the above'."
brother Robert answers: So, in keeping with the typical attitude shown here of late, we state: Wrong! Out of context, out of context...
What you actually said was this: “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'.” [Emphasis added]
And once again... Wrong! Out of context, out of context... Aside from the fact that we would not use the word "deity", we did not ask you to retract that "blasphemous definition"!! Here is what we, in truth said:
"We kindly ask you to retract that blasphemous statement, which you mistakenly attributed to us."
That would be "your statement", dear brother, not ours.
Steve: The point I was trying to make is that originally I was proceeding with the definition of elohiym as "earthly ruler", which is what I thought you were going with, and you said that was not correct, but you corrected me with the response:
"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. "
OK. Fine. But then when we were actually applying the first commandment you backed up your position with this definition
'elohiym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
You see by this, dear Steven, that is not just MY rendering of the First Commandment!!
The only point I am trying to make with this is that this BDB definition was what I originally thought you were going with then you corrected me with "e - all of the above".
Peace to you all,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 18 Apr 2004 13:10:21 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2004 : 11:08:36
|
I don't like what Steve really says..so I'll put words in his mouth
Caleb: Yes indeed, it is a wonderful thing to be alive in a day where every man's opinion can be claimed to be the very words of a god. Throw out your dictionaries. What use are those? I've got this web page that says ... Caleb also states, " you tell us that dictionaries and scripture itself are irrelevant or wrong because your opinion says otherwise"
Steve: Once again you misunderstand. I do not say throw out the dictionaries. I say look first to the context, then hit the dictionaries. I love how you truncate my statements, ignoring the point I am trying to make, not even addressing the point I was trying to make. Why are you resorting to underhanded tactics by wrongly painting words into my mouth concerning dictionaries and scripture? If you would have cared to really understand what I am saying over and over again you would see that all I am trying to do, specifically with brother Robert, is get one to look at the context BEFORE just going strait to the dictionary. Why you do not want to digest these statements by me is very suspicious.
Caleb: While your thoughts have been worthwhile discussing, we simply have no interest at all in personal opinions.
Steve: But of course, your opinion on what something means is acceptable. What a joke.
Caleb: What we are attempting to share here is not some opinion we made up for our own purposes.
Steve: Oh really? It seems to me you are posting scripture and trying to tell us what it "really" means as it pertains to your activities and concepts. And that is fine.
Caleb: We are seeking Truth, and using authoritative sources to demonstrate that this is NOT merely our personal opinion.
Steve: Funny, when my sources show a point contrary to your position you cry, "opinion"! Here is a Truth not an opinion.
"The Constitution is not Lawful as it pertains to Torah".
Are you willing to debate me point to point on this to show that I am wrong? We could save each other quite a bit of time if you are willing to do so.
Caleb: Finally, this has been tested in practice to see whether it is indeed the Truth we have found or just another idea that sounded good.
Steve: The points I was making in my post "Biblically Lawful vs. Patriot Lawful" had nothing to do with your methods but rather to show that these lawful courts you claim to exist are not lawful as it pertains to the Bible.
Caleb: You are seeking to justify your voluntary servitude, but no justification is needed. Under the Perfect Law of Liberty, you are free to become bondservant to anyone you choose.
Steve: What I am seeking to do, specifically in this most recent round of posts, is to show you that what the Bible considers Lawful and what you consider Lawful are two different things. Once again you are making assumptions concerning what I seek to do. Nice tactics.
Am I wrong here in stating that you asserted that the American Constitution is Lawful?
"One born in California is a Californian, or more broadly an American, subject only to the Lawful Government."
I will prove to you and this whole group that the Constitution that backs up being an American is not Lawful as the word pertains to the Bible. Are you willing to debate this issue instead of wrongly putting words in my mouth?
Caleb: As it is a harsh taskmaster you have chosen, we do question your judgement. And as brother Robert has pointed out, we especially question your choice of a god, seeing you have not yet disavowed the Ten Commandments.
Steve: I have given you many scriptures that back my position but you fail to refute them point by point.
Caleb: Now if there are six million churches in America, I can find you six million pastors who will agree with your position.
Steve: Not on every point you will not. Now if there are six million churches in American, I can find you six million pastors who will agree with "SOME" of your positions. You prove nothing with this statement.
Caleb: Slavery to GOVERNMENT is the will of (their) god. Learn to love your bondage, it is earning you points with the man upstairs, so they assure us weekly.
Steve: Last time I went to a church for study was when I was about 15 years only. My positions do not come from anything learned there. I back my positions up with the Bible.
Caleb: The point for those who have ears to hear, is that it is completely voluntary.
Steve: I notice now you have completely ignored any items I have presented about the Civil War. The GOVT forced upon the people of the south was in no way voluntary. It was thrust upon the people by
military conquest. The GOVT we have now continues from that war. If you live in this patch of land that military scrip you use is proof of that we are under an "occupational GOVT" different from the one that existed before.
Caleb: You would rather speculate about what choice Paul made, sure that he made the same choice you have. Failing to understand something as simple as the difference between the Law, Federal statute, State statute and Local statute, you lump everything into an overarching LEX ROMANA and claim that Paul swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And all based on a single incident in scripture.
Steve: Once again you paint words into my mouth.. and the choice of colors you use shows that you still don't understand the point I am making. I never once "Claimed that Paul swallowed anything "hook, line and sinker". That is what "YOU" say I claim. You really should stop painting words into my mouth if you want to retain any credibility. I provided more than one incident in scripture where Paul speaks of his STATUS. Paul's STATUS is relevant against the claims made on this list that CITIZENSHIP and/or going to a COURT for judgement is a breach of the first commandment.
Steve: You say that Paul being a Roman (and not a CITIZEN) is because he was born there. That is not true.
Caleb: No, * I * did not say this. These are Paul's words from scripture. When you say, "That is not true" you contradict scripture.
Steve: Those are not Paul's words from scripture at all that he got his CITIZENSHIP from being born "in" Rome.. Paul's words from scripture say his CITIZENSHIP was from birth, Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.” Not CITIZENSHIP by being "born there" as "there" pertains to the land called Rome or one of it's territories. Paul in no way says that by being born in the land of Rome he obtained CITIZENSHIP(freedom). You said that.
See here:
Acts 22
But when they had tied him up with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who is uncondemned?” When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? This man is a Roman citizen.” The tribune came and asked Paul, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” The tribune answered, “It cost me a large sum of money to get my citizenship.” Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.” Immediately those who were about to examine him drew back from him; and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.
History, along with Rome's own records, show that Roman CITIZENSHIP can be had by being born by ROMAN CITIZEN parents... just being born in a ROMAN province does not get you CITIZENSHIP. By birth of CITIZEN parents, by purchase or by service to ROME.
Paul's came by birth. He said it himself.
Caleb said from a past post: "CITIZENS are "made" not born"...
Steve: That, sir, is what I was commenting on. And I gave you evidence that that statement is "not true" concerning Paul. These are your words above, based on your understanding of scripture. Your opinion, which I refuted.
Caleb also said from the same past post: "As it is the protection of the Lawful Government they are discussing, they refer to it as freedom.
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."
Steve: Again this is more of your opinion. And that is fine you having an opinion. You say the protection "they" (i.e. Paul and the COP) are speaking of is the protection of the 'Lawful Government'. I gave you a detailed rebutal stating that this Rome was not Lawful but you failed to address it in detail showing me my error. I will continue to assert, and prove, that the GOVT Paul was a CITIZEN to was not Lawful as the word pertains to the Bible nor is America via the Constitution Lawful as it pertains to the Bible
Again, just so the point is crystal and it will not get misrepresented: the ROME of Paul's time is NOT Lawful as it pertains to the Covenant. Nor is the American Constitution you claim is Lawful as the word pertains to the Covenant. And this is what we have to deal with until the Israelite World Order is established. What you fail to understand is that access to the privileges Paul received were available only to ROMAN CITIZENS. I provided historical references concerning Rome that perfectly dovetail into Paul's situation. But you did not like them so you tried to discredit them without even proving my references to be wrong, nor offering a point by point rebuttal to my post proving your claim of my error...Being born in Rome or one it's territories was not enough to get these privileges. PERIOD. Jews born in Roman provence who were subjects could not exercise these privileges (unless they became CITIZENS). When you fail to address statements such as these, but instead focus on whether *I* is used in my statements is nothing more, to me, than trying to discredit me while also avoiding a detailed discussion on the meat of the points brought up about Paul. I could be wrong. Either way, let's get down to brass tacks.
Caleb: You also completely ignored the fact that Paul and the Roman captain were discussing freedom.
Steve: You completely ignore the reality of today's situation in having a discussion with an US COP concerning freedom would sound the same as the one Paul's with the ROMAN COP. You cry, "opinion" here? No, I have had conversations with COPS and they think US CITIZENS are free. Paul's situation is no different, especially with the understanding that LEX ROMANA is not Biblically Lawful. ROMAN CITIZENS were considered free by most in Rome (surely not by the zealots of the day), just as US CITIZENS are considered free by most in this land (but surely not by you or I).
Caleb: you want to reduce it simply to citizenship status, which we all agree is a form of bondage.
Steve: You fail to see the point I was making. I was making the connection and providing historical back up that shows
Paul's access to the LEX ROMANA is a privilege that is extended to those who are CITIZENS. The issue is, "is it wrong to maintian this STATUS that gets one an "audience and appeal to Ceasar"? I say no.
Caleb: Are we really supposed to continue to take you seriously when you tell us that dictionaries and scripture itself are irrelevant or wrong because your opinion says otherwise?
Steve: Are we really supposed to take *YOU* seriously when *YOU* wrongly put words in my mouth to discredit me and deflect any serious detailed discussion on the points I bring up? I have never once said that dictionaries and scripture are irrelevant. Never once. It is *YOUR* false claim that this is what I assert. One that is dead wrong. I have said, and will say it again so you can be crystal: I support using dictionaries when the context is first established so that one can find the best definition that suits the purpose. Instead *YOU* take it upon yourself to put words in my mouth in an attempt to paint me as unreasonable and ignorant. IF that is what you are indirectly trying to do it's back firing on you.
Caleb: Your opinion is based on ignorance.
Steve: Your opinion of my opinion is based on your ignorance and failure to deal with me point by point. You are great for speeches but how about a debate point to point? I challenge you to the opportunity to dismantle my position on Paul and the unlawfulness of Roman GOVT, American Constitution, etc.. Thus far you have not done so. What do you say? I challenged you before with rules of three rebuttals each but still, to this day, your posts have not even come close to such a method. Instead you wrongly accuse me of calling dictionaries and scripture irrelevant. If this is the same tack you use for understanding the Bible, then I can see how Paul's ROMAN CITIZENSHIP as well as Romans 13 might be a problem for you.
Caleb: We have been attempting to dispell that ignorance, but to no avail. You can lead a horse to water ...
Steve: LOL. Then I Publicly challenge you to a point by point debate concerning Paul. Three rebuttals each on each point. We can agree on how many points in advance. So far you have not responded in any way, shape or form to something as detailed as this.
Caleb: What we are sharing has been learned in the school of hard knocks. Until you are willing to take a few blows yourself, you will not learn and no one can teach you.
Steve: I have watched families destroyed by this very same doctrine you preach. Don't you think it wise for me to examine what backs this doctrine up? What I have found thus far is lots of dictionary appeals without regard to the context the words were used in.... along with people putting words in my mouth and concepts that I did not put forth.
Caleb: Paul spent years in prison for his faith, but you want to focus only on the one time he appealed to Caesar.
Steve: Paul was a ROMAN CITIZEN since birth. Paul wrote Romans 13. We have much more to deal with than the "one time" you assert.
Caleb: Whether this was right or wrong is purely speculation, for none of us is an expert on Roman law (web page references not-with-standing) and the scriptures do not pass moral judgement on his appeal.
Steve: I agree that scripture does not pass moral judgement, nor should we pass moral judgement on somebody who appeals to a Biblically unlawful GOVT while in exile. I submit to you that I can prove that the privileges that Paul received would put him in a like STATUS of a CITIZEN today.
Caleb: Scripture records many acts of faith and even more acts of failure, so the fact that it is recorded tells us nothing.
Steve: Lots of them from Paul who proclaims to be a ROMAN CITIZEN from birth.
Caleb: What can be known without speculation paints a very clear picture, so this is what we choose to stick with.
Steve: There is no speculating on Paul's statement in Acts 25:10. It does not get any clearer than this and gives meaning to his previous statements concerning his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP.
Caleb: For those who are interested, a later post will cover how all this applies in COURT. You have made numerous blanket statements regarding COURT that are simply wrong - because you lack the full picture. Exchanges like the following lead me to wonder if you really want to hear the Truth, so that it can set you free.
Steve: LOL. I will show you from the very words you use below that you are incorrect.
Caleb wrote from a past post: They are constantly asking you to sign forms because they need your consent. Even when they drag you into COURT for no DRIVER's LICENSE, the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you.
Steve wrote from a past post: "I have seen people go to jail with out consenting to the JUDGE."
Caleb wrote from a past post: No you have not.
Steve wrote from a past post: Yes I have. I have seen a COP jerk up a dear friend who did not consent to a JUDGE ...
Caleb wrote from a past post : {Detailed ten ways we give CONsent in COURT without knowing it}
Steve commenting now: Notice you are already in COURT here? What I was originally explaining to you was these people went to jail
before COURT. You are not digesting this! Why?
Steve wrote from a past post : in the case of the brother I am talking about he was two or three days in jail before he even got to see a JUDGE or magistrate. ... So what I am talking about in this instance is that one can go to jail without traversing with the JUDGE.
Caleb commenting now: So when I state that "the JUDGE must get your consent", you change it to "two or three days in jail before he even got to see a JUDGE". This is just one example of how you change the subject so you can keep an argument going for argument's sake.
Steve: Bovine Scat !!! I am not changing anything. I am explaining the incident in more detail so that you can clearly see that these people gave no consent to a JUDGE before they went to jail!!!! You are ignoring this explanation and the clear fact that these people were in jail well before they went to a JUDGE. Does refusal to see what I am stating come from the same place which inspires you to attribute false ideas to me that "I reject dictionaries and scripture"? Anyone reading these posts should be able to see what you are doing here.
Caleb: You are no longer asking reasonable questions.
Steve: This coming from one who attributes false ideas to me that I reject dictionaries and scripture? You have failed to offer a detailed, point by point refutation to my assertions concerning Paul and CITIZENSHIP. Again I challenge you publicly to a debate to prove my points. I continue to assert that The LEX ROMANA or the American Constitution are not lawful as the term applies to the Bible.
Caleb: Instead, you are asking us to throw out the actual meanings of words in exchange for a ideal in your head that has never existed.
Steve: You must really be grasping for straws, aside from painting false ideas you attribute to me. What I am asking is to put the words in context as they pertain to the situation they are used in. Yet again you wrongly claim that I am asking all here to throw out "the actual meaning of words". Nonsense. I am begging for context first. See my detailed posts showing the context of the scriptures brother Robert used in a reply to me.
Caleb: Show me one moment in history where a "lawful" government existed, according to your definition. If it has never existed, how does it help us today except to justify complacency?
Steve: Read about Hezekiah. Read about David ben Jesse. Not 100% perfect 100% of the time but if you believe the Bible this Throne of David's will be once again re-instituted culminating in an undisputed Israelite World Order.
Caleb: Lots of Christians are sitting on their hands awaiting the Rapture, so your excuse sure has theirs beat. But those of us who are not making excuses are not only learning the Truth, we are living it. Freedom was available in Paul's day, and it is available in our own. But most are happy to remain slaves.
Steve: I look forward to your acceptance of my debate proposal and hopefully an apology for wrongly putting words in my mouth.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 18 Apr 2004 15:49:49 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2004 : 19:08:25
|
Greetings Caleb, In His name Yahushuah:
The teaching on "The Law of the Spirit of Life" I understand. Thank you for sharing.
Another way to understand the teaching is also to realize that there are others, not just worldly judges and attorneys acting as copy-cats at-tempting to lure us unto their realm of control or lack there of.
His Grace and Light be upon you and your love ones, Father Willing,
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2004 : 21:50:48
|
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
... a Republic has only titular governmental powers. This is because they can only legislate to those who volunteer into their jurisdiction.
Collin's Latin Dictionary
...the word republic comes from a Latin idiom `Libera res publica' which means free from government things.
And, if one can find an "impartial court", could one stand on the Decalogue [The Ten Commandments] as his Law, since if one was obeying these, he would indeed be righteous?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 18 Apr 2004 22:40:57 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2004 : 22:35:26
|
Did Paul break the First Commandment of Yahuwah if, in fact, he was a Roman citizen?
The Worldbook Encyclopedia, 1974, book 16, page 378:
The Romans believed that loyalty to the emperor [imperator = commander in chief] involved honoring the gods of the state and often the emperor [commander in chief]. They regarded christians who refused to give such honor as traitors and atheists. [Definition added in brackets]
We think, if the foregoing is truth, he would have had to have broken the First and Second Commandments or be labeled a "traitor and [an] atheist" by the Romans, and of course, he would have been be-headed [the penalty for "citizens"] for treason if he was found to be honouring and obeying ONLY Yahuwah [as per the Ten Commandments] instead of the state gods, and possibly the commander in chief [emperor]. And it would seem that the "Romans" still feel this way today, since they forbid the Ten Commandments of Yahuwah in their COURTS or their SCHOOLS, and is nowhere mentioned in their CONSTITUTIONS.
There are some who claim that this form of capital [capit means "head"] punishment [decaptitation] is about to be reinstituted once again with the signing into law, by father Bush, of the so-called "Noahide laws".
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 18 Apr 2004 22:58:08 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 01:17:46
|
Dear Steven,
There are a few things standing in the way of our communication, and I do not believe that they involve a failure on my part to understand you. So far, it is very clear that you have not understood me. I will address three issues here to show why we are getting nowhere fast. Should you see why these have caused a problem and change your ways, our debate can continue.
1) Law is words and words have exact meanings
When I accused you of disregarding the dictionary, you obviously missed what I meant. I will take your use of the word "lawful" to show what I meant by that.
I wrote concerning "Lawful Government" and tried to lay out in detail what that is. I also explained that this word "lawful" did not have the meaning that you attributed to it. I showed from Romans 13 that the meaning has not changed in nearly two thousand years.
You attached the word "Patriot" to this word to distinguish your meaning for the same word from the correct meaning. But you have done several things here:
First, you have put words in my mouth (the exact thing you accuse me of. You know how it makes you feel. How do you think it makes me feel?) I have never once used the word "Patriot" to describe any of the concepts I have put forward, and find it extremely insulting to have this word associated with my writing.
Second, you have hijacked a word and changed its meaning to suit your own purposes. Your use of the term "Lawful Government" cannot be found anywhere, including in the scriptures. I have used the term with its correct meaning in its correct context. Use another term to discuss your ideas, but do not muddy the waters by appropriating a word that does not mean what you are saying and then argue to the death over you own private meaning.
I have already pointed out that "Lawful Government" by your private interpretation, has never existed in all of history. Your "almost" examples of Hezekiah and David were both AFTER I Samuel 8. They were kings "like all the nations", and completely contrary to Yahuwah's will, as Samuel makes crystal clear. Surely you are not going to argue this point. David and Hezekiah may have been "mostly" pleasing to Yahuwah, but as the role they filled was contrary to His plan, their kingship is disqualified from your definition of "Lawful Government" regardless of how good they were.
Third, you avoid addressing the substance of what is being said by instead creating a side controversy based on your private definition. The implications of understanding what a True, historical, and presently existing "Lawful Government" is, are enormous. Do you want to understand this? Presently you lack sufficient understanding of it to even discuss it, much less refute what is being said.
You want to claim that we have no "Lawful Government" to appeal to, while I am telling you we do. Before you allow me to finish describing the reasons why this is and why so few are aware of it, you create your own definition of a "Lawful Government" that has never existed in history, and so naturally we cannot appeal to it. People who love their slavery discuss pie-in-the-sky theories to prove that they can ONLY be slaves. I am not interested in joining such a discussion, and it is extremely rude to write volumes on these forums in an attempt to turn discussions that are practical, substantive, and applicable in the here-and-now into fuzzy theories that only justify complacency.
So please use the correct words for what you mean, and do not trash the words of others when they are using them correctly and in context.
2) Understand what the other side is saying before you respond to it
Our exchange about CONsenting to a JUDGE has now reached the point of absurdity. It began with a single assertion on my part:
Caleb: Even when they drag you into COURT ..., the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you.
Now stop and think about what has just been said. This is a claim I made. It was not a direct answer to something you said, so this statement originated with me. How can you have a discussion initiated by this statement that then has nothing to do with it? I don't know, but you have. Here is what happened:
Caleb: The sky is cloudy
Steve: The sky is blue
Caleb: (assuming this response was an answer to the first statement) No, there are clouds up there, see?
Steve: I'm telling you the sky is blue
Caleb: {presents his evidence that clouds are presently in the sky}
Steve: The sky that I'm familiar with has always been blue
Caleb: (now realizing that Steve is having another discussion, unrelated to clouds) You have changed my claim about the sky being cloudy into a discussion about the color of the sky
Steve: !@#$%@#!&*. I'm explaining the color of the sky to you (implying I am too dense to know what color the sky is)
My intial claim said "when they drag you into COURT", so yes, I was already in COURT. How come you were not? Was it not reasonable for me to assume that you were responding to my initial statement? Sorry, but I thought you were rebutting my claim, not deliberately changing the subject to a non-issue so that it could appear my claim had been refuted. Why did you answer with an unrelated and obvious statement, in this case that the POLICE can put you in jail before you see a JUDGE? I have been there, done that. Have you?
This is the nature of "debating" with you. You never rebuted my initial claim that "the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you." Yet you created a tempest in a teapot to disguise the fact that you did not (because you could not) respond to what was said. It is customary to limit one's response to issues where one actually has something meaningful to say. You could greatly shorten your writing and we might actually be able to get around to the issues you want us to answer.
If you take others seriously, thoughtfully considering their points before answering, they will respond in kind with the points you raise.
3) Which version of Scripture is The Law?
I also accused you of contradicting scripture. I see now from your quoting Acts 22:28 that we are using different translations. So this is the actual problem: you were quoting a modern translation that contradicts the King James Version. Unfortunately, ALL popular modern translations are, without exception, deliberately deceptive. They are riddled with slave-speak such as "tax" and "citizen", so that Christians will be happy, obedient slaves, sure that they are obeying God by giving their first-fruits to the IRS. To compare, do a search on all derivations of "tax" in the KJV, and try to use the three verses that come up to make a case for paying taxes.
The King James Version, while not flawless, is The Law throughout the former British Empire. So if we are going to discuss God's Law as it applies to us today, the KJV is the only version that matters. You have called Paul a "Roman Citizen" based on the fact that your translation uses this terminology. Read Acts in the King James and a very different picture emerges. Nowhere is the word "citizen" used (except once referring to a city), and for good reason.
Needless to say, we will never agree on anything if we cannot agree on a common translation of scripture. So the entire debate about Paul's status cannot go any further until we agree on some simple rules here. They are:
a) Only the King James translation is to be quoted as authoritative
b) If you want to clarify the meaning of a word, a Strong's concordance or similar authoritative Bible dictionary is appropriate
c) The words used have definite meanings, so do not paraphrase (use other words) without backing it up very well.
As an example, to determine what scriptural government is, we would do a search on the word "government" in the King James. Only those verses using the word would be used to determine the scriptural meaning of "government". If we want to call a biblical character a "citizen" we do a search on all verses that refer to him as such. When not a single one calls him a "Roman citizen" the debate is over, at least as far as that point goes.
If we apply these rules to Acts 22:28, we find first that Paul and the captain are discussing "freedom", not citizenship. We simply cannot sustain any claim that they are discussing a form of bondage called citizenship and calling it "freedom". Yes, today this type of lie is engaged in all the time, but we are talking about scripture, and if scripture has this kind of lie embedded in it, then how do we know it is EVER telling the Truth? But digging deeper we do find that the word "freedom" is from a Greek word that also implies citizenship. Uh Oh, looks my position is crumbling. Then we look at Paul's response and notice that the word "free" is italicized, telling us it is not in the original text. So Paul's response is simply, "but I was born." Not much help in proving either side in this case, but it is at least clear that Paul is NOT saying he is a citizen.
The prison that holds the slaves these days is a prison for the mind. Words are a key part of this, especially those used in the scripture. When you take the modern use of a word like "citizen" and import it to scripture, especially in places where it does not occur, you completely change the meaning and you are no longer seeking to discern what scripture says. This is not the way the Spirit leads us into all Truth.
Conclusion
What I am in the process of with this thread is unearthing buried treasure. There are incredible truths we were never taught because our forefathers forgot them. Some of us are rediscovering them and sharing our discoveries. That is the purpose of these forums. If you are not interested, that is your choice, but don't pass judgment on the treasure until you have seen the whole thing.
Right now you are arguing side issues that go away once the bigger picture is seen. I have been ignoring these, and this frustrates you. You have not been comprehending what I have shared, and this frustrates me. I am trying to answer your questions and challenges seriously and completely, and I have not yet gotten to everything. Getting sidetracked on non-issues does not benefit any of us.
Go back and understand what a "Lawful Government" is. If you cannot understand it, please ask questions. If you do not want to understand it, please do not continue to "debate" me. One thing you will see is that I have NEVER once claimed that the CONstitution is the basis for Lawful Government in America. To the contrary, I stated that Lawful Government predated the CONstitution. Read the following that explains, among other things, why the CONstitution is a CON job:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/caesars.html
Ideas have consequences. Are you willing to consider the possibility that I may be right?
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 07:35:28
|
brother Robert:
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
... a Republic has only titular governmental powers. This is because they can only legislate to those who volunteer into their jurisdiction.
Steve: Have you factored in the Civil War which happened well after the 1826 Dictionary was written? Were there not big changes AFTER the Civil War? Seriously.
brother Robert:
Collin's Latin Dictionary
...the word republic comes from a Latin idiom `Libera res publica' which means free from government things.
Steve: Again I refer you to the military conquest called the Civil War.
brother Robert:
And, if one can find an "impartial court", could one stand on the Decalogue [The Ten Commandments] as his Law, since if one was obeying these, he would indeed be righteous?
Steve: "impartial" to what.. religion or faith? The court one would stand in front of would be ruling from the Law that governs it, no?
In the case of America, would that not be the Consitution?
Would that same Law be in harmony with The Ten Commandments? The Consitution is not in harmony with the Ten Commandments.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 07:38:23
|
Greetings in the name of our King, brother Caleb:
Peace be unto the house.
A statement you made in the above reply leads us to believe that, perhaps we once understood that Yahuwah was to be our King. Maybe you are right.
[quote]
Our fathers' God, to Thee,
Author of Liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King!
The crowd was scattering away then, but Laura stood stock still. Suddenly she had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind, and she thought: God is America's king. She thought: Americans won't obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own conscience. No king bosses Pa; he has to boss himself. Why (she thought), when I am a little older, Pa and Ma will stop telling me what to do, and there isn't anyone else who has a right to give me orders. I will have to make myself be good.
Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means, you have to be good. 'Our father's God, author of liberty’ – The laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow you with a right to life and liberty. Then you have to keep the laws of God, for God's law is the only thing that gives you a right to be free.’
If a fourteen year old girl could put this all together, maybe we can too? What do you think, brother Caleb? Is it possible?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 08:09:05
|
brother Robert:
Did Paul break the First Commandment of Yahuwah if, in fact, he was a Roman citizen?
The Worldbook Encyclopedia, 1974, book 16, page 378:
The Romans believed that loyalty to the emperor [imperator = commander in chief] involved honoring the gods of the state and often the emperor [commander in chief]. They regarded christians who refused to give such honor as traitors and atheists. [Definition added in brackets]
We think, if the foregoing is truth, he would have had to have broken the First and Second Commandments or be labeled a "traitor and [an] atheist" by the Romans, and of course, he would have been be-headed [the penalty for "citizens"] for treason if he was found to be honouring and obeying ONLY Yahuwah [as per the Ten Commandments] instead of the state gods, and possibly the commander in chief [emperor].
Steve: Paul, in his appearences before the COURT, consistantly defends his innocense concerning both the Torah and the LEX ROMANA.
Agrippa and his staff also knew Paul was innocent:
Acts 2:2 "King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, 3and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently. 4"The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. 5They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me.......
30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
If we believe Paul's defense of himself then we see that he broke no Laws in the Torah as well as no LAWS of the LEX ROMANA.
Same for Yahushua. Pilate knew that the Jews were railroading Yahushua and that he was innocent. What we have here in both cases is false charges which both Agrippa (in relation to Paul) and Pilate (in relation to Yahushua) could see were bogus.
brother Robert: And it would seem that the "Romans" still feel this way today, since they forbid the Ten Commandments of Yahuwah in their COURTS or their SCHOOLS, and is nowhere mentioned in their CONSTITUTIONS.
Steve: Yes. The Ten Commandments never should have been put up in the first place. The Law of America is the Consitution. Just as the LEX ROMANA was the LAW of ROME. Both Yahushua and Paul were known by the JUDGES of their times to be innocent concerning both Torah and LEX ROMANA. In Yahushua's case Pilate gave in to the pressure of the crowd against his conscience.
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 09:10:25
|
America is not the U.S. corporation.
American's existed way before the Constitution was penned.
American's claimed this land for the advancement of the Christian faith.
A civilly dead "religious" man can return to America.
Where usury is unknown. Where socialist security is an abomination, and can't come into America.
U.S. citizen's follow profits.
American's follow prophets.
Philippians 1:12...for I would ye should understand, brethern, that the things {which happened} unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherness of the gospel. [Paul's inprisonment}.
So that my bonds {are}for messiah in all Caesar's Court, and to all others.
And many of the brethern in The Body, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the Word without fear.
Paul didn't let a little jail time defeat his purpose. He became a spectacle...to hopefull open up the spiritual eye's of blinded Israelites, lost in the bowels of Roman life.
Philippians 4:22... all the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.
Men and women are still willing to become spectacles, fool's for messiah's sake.
To have a high I.Q. can be a curse.
A fourteen year old girl, could see the Kingdom, as Brother Robert just posted.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 09:59:18
|
You see, only on a place where the word is not respected can a fellow lackey not regard the meaning of "Is" and get away with it... so they think.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 11:25:55
|
Caleb said:
Dear Steven,
There are a few things standing in the way of our communication, and I do not believe that they involve a failure on my part to understand you.
Steve: of course you don't. But hopefully we will get lined up, on both our parts, from this post.
Caleb: So far, it is very clear that you have not understood me.
I will address three issues here to show why we are getting nowhere fast. Should you see why these have caused a problem and change your ways, our debate can continue.
Steve: Let's continue. Perhaps there might be some changing on your end too.
Caleb:
1) Law is words and words have exact meanings
When I accused you of disregarding the dictionary, you obviously missed what I meant. I will take your use of the word "lawful" to show what I meant by that.
Steve: In case you did not get the meaning from the "context" of my posts and my repeated reference to Torah as my definition of Lawful I'll clear it up now:
The Law that I am referring to is the Torah and it is found in a book called the Bible.
H8451#8233;úÉ to#770;ra#770;h#8233;to-raw', to-raw'#8233;From H3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch:—law
I thought that my position was clear since I kept repeating it over and over again.
Caleb:
I wrote concerning "Lawful Government" and tried to lay out in detail what that is. I also explained that this word "lawful" did not have the meaning that you attributed to it.
Steve: From reading your piece called California I have clipped your statements that have the phrase Lawful Government:
Caleb said from a past post: The Lawful Government has no ability to change "The Law"
Caleb said from a past post: and the Lawful Government's jurisdiction is based on geography.
Caleb said from a past post: So if you are a man on the land in the Republic of California, you have a Lawful Government that will protect your natural rights.
Caleb said from a past post: Today, the Lawful Government we are under is based on Torah - the King James Bible specifically.
Steve: What is the written 'Law' that empowers the Republic of California? Is it not the Constitution of the United States of America ?
Please identify the written law that your version of "lawful Government" follows so I can study it. Thus far you have not done so.
Your last statement sums it all up. "Today, the Lawful Government we are under is based on Torah - the KJV specifically."
You are trying to tell me that this last sentence is not speaking about the Constitution? OK. Then what written Law ARE you talking about? If you are speaking about America, then it seems you are speaking about the Constitution. If you are not it sure sounds like you are. I'll wait until you provide me with the written Law that is "based" on Torah before making any more assumptions.
Caleb: I showed from Romans 13 that the meaning has not changed in nearly two thousand years.
Steve: I can show you that the ROME under which Romans 13 was written under a non-lawful GOVT (as it relates to Torah). But that is OK for Paul seeing as he was still in exile and the Moshiach ben David had not yet set up the Israelite World Order.
Caleb: You attached the word "Patriot" to this word to distinguish your meaning for the same word from the correct meaning.
Steve: How could I not get that impression from your writings? You speak of "Republic of California" and the Lawful Government "based" on Torah. Christian Patriots make the same claim concerning the Constitution. If you are not speaking about the either a State Constitution or the American Constitution (both of which are "based" on Torah) ... then what Law are you speaking of that is "based" on Torah?
Caleb:
But you have done several things here:
First, you have put words in my mouth (the exact thing you accuse me of. You know how it makes you feel. How do you think it makes me feel?) I have never once used the word "Patriot" to describe any of the concepts I have put forward, and find it extremely insulting to have this word associated with my writing.
Steve: Firstly I never said that "you" said Patriot. That was used in my title and I did not assign it coming from your hand or mouth. I used the word based on my presumption....Secondly, what gave me the impression (and yes, impressions can be misleading) is when you paint pictures using such words as Republic of California, Law "based" on Torah, it leads me to think you are speaking about some form of pre-Civil War Constitution. With out telling me what Law you talking about is, you don't see how one could get that impression you are speaking about the Constitution given your words?????
Caleb: Second, you have hijacked a word and changed its meaning to suit your own purposes. Your use of the term "Lawful Government" cannot be found anywhere, including in the scriptures.
Steve: Like a broken record in my posts I am referring to the "Torah" as the Law that backs up what the Bible would consider a Lawful Government. See my post given on March 9th which is a very clear definition. You still fail to digest that. Come on man, I have been spelling this out... again and again and again and again..
You don't think that the Bible would define the Torah provisions as that of a Lawful? Come on now.
Caleb: I have used the term with its correct meaning in its correct context.
Steve: So by me saying that the Torah is the Law for what the Bible would consider a lawful goverment is incorrect? COme on. Then Caleb, if it is not some type of American Constitution you are speaking about, then what are you are speaking about here when you said: "Today, the Lawful Government we are under is based on Torah - the KJV specifically."
Caleb, what is the Law followed by the Lawful Government you speak about which is 'based' on Torah? If a Law is 'based' on Torah it most certainly is NOT the whole of Torah. It must be some hybrid. Please identify the written Law you speak of that is "based" on Torah.
Caleb: Use another term to discuss your ideas, but do not muddy the waters by appropriating a word that does not mean what you are saying and then argue to the death over you own private meaning.
Steve: My use of the word Patriot was based on the language you used in your posts when speaking about Lawful Government. I never said that it was the word you used.
Again, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE WRITTEN LAW THAT IS USED BY LAWFUL GOVERNMENTS, specifically concerning the "Republic of California".
Caleb: I have already pointed out that "Lawful Government" by your private interpretation, has never existed in all of history.
Steve: Not true Caleb. 2 Kings 18:3, 5-7 Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of YHWH, according to all that David his father did . . . He trusted in YHWH Elohim of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him . . . For he clave to YHWH, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which YHWH commanded Moses. And YHWH was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.
This fits with my definition given to you concerning "Lawful Government" on March 9th. You never rebutted this but instead, after a few more exchanges, said "you have valid questions which I will answer when I get back"... You never showed me where and how my definition was wrong... you just "said" it was.
Caleb: Your "almost" examples of Hezekiah and David were both AFTER I Samuel 8. They were kings "like all the nations",
Steve: Not true and I apologize for not being clearer. Yes, David was not 100% but Hezekiah was. Hezekiah was not a King "like the nations" but rather one who adhered to Deut 17:14-20.
Caleb: and completely contrary to Yahuwah's will, as Samuel makes crystal clear. Surely you are not going to argue this point.
Steve: I am not going to argue except up until Hezekiah but I am going to give more detail.. something which I wanted to do when I first wrote about the 1 sam 8, 1 sam 12 situation as it relates to the first commandment. Firstly, the sin was asking for a king "like the Nations" not asking for a King as the Torah outlines. Now let me be very detailed here so as not to confuse you concerning the difference. Let me paste the requirements of a Lawful King (Lawful as it pertains to Torah)
Deut 17:
14When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
YHWH knew the Israelite would ask for a KING like the Nations so he gave specific rules for the King that would please him. Line these Deut 17 equirements up against 1 Sam 8 and you will see the problems. All previous kings until Hezekiah did not quite cut it.. including David. But in Hezekiah we have one who was able to get it right per Torah. What I find most interesting is that one can still follow YHWH, as Samuel commanded, while still submiting to a 1 Sam 8 style King, like the nations. Hezekiah was not a 1 Sam 8 King but rather a Deut 17:14 - 20 King. Too bad the Israelites could not get it together when they finally had a proper King!!!
Caleb: David and Hezekiah may have been "mostly" pleasing to Yahuwah, but as the role they filled was contrary to His plan, their kingship is disqualified from your definition of "Lawful Government" regardless of how good they were.
Steve: Nope. 2 Kings 18:3, 5-7 Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of YHWH, according to all that David his father did . . . He trusted in YHWH Elohim of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him . . . For he clave to YHWH, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which YHWH commanded Moses. And YHWH was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.
Caleb: Third, you avoid addressing the substance of what is being said by instead creating a side controversy based on your private definition. The implications of understanding what a True, historical, and presently existing "Lawful Government" is, are enormous. Do you want to understand this? Presently you lack sufficient understanding of it to even discuss it, much less refute what is being said.
Steve: Give me a break. I was very clear in my posts concerning what I defined as Lawful Government. You indirectly recognized this by referring to Hezekiah above. You just happened to be wrong concerning your assumption concerning Hezekiah. Again, I apologize for lumping Hezekiah in with David.
Caleb:You want to claim that we have no "Lawful Government" to appeal to, while I am telling you we do.
Steve: OK. Where is this Lawful Government today and what written law "based" on Torah does it follow? You have never identified this Law or the Government that judicates this law.
Caleb: Before you allow me to finish describing the reasons why this is and why so few are aware of it, you create your own definition of a "Lawful Government" that has never existed in history, and so naturally we cannot appeal to it.
Steve: Wrong. It has existed in history. 2 Kings 18:3, 5-7 Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of YHWH, according to all that David his father did . . . He trusted in YHWH Elohim of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him . . . For he clave to YHWH, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which YHWH commanded Moses. And YHWH was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.
The Law that Hezekiah followed was the Torah. According to this Torah I have not found, since Hezekiah, a Lawful Government as the word would pertain to Torah. You say there is one which is Lawful. But is it Lawful as the word pertains to Torah, i.e. - complient with Torah? The burden of proof then lies with you. I have proven that a Lawful Government, by my definition given on March 9th, did exist at one time, even though you refuse to accept this.
Caleb: People who love their slavery discuss pie-in-the-sky theories to prove that they can ONLY be slaves. I am not interested in joining such a discussion, and it is extremely rude to write volumes on these forums in an attempt to turn discussions that are practical, substantive, and applicable in the here-and-now into fuzzy theories that only justify complacency.
Steve: You are peddling nonsense. All of my posts have been backed up with scripture. My claim of Lawful Government does have a reference in Hezekiah. I told you up front my definition of Lawful Government on March 9th:
Lawful Govt
1. Steve asserts: "1 Sam 12 instructs one can indeed serve YHWH while also shouldering the burden of 1 Sam 8 style GOVT."
Caleb: When you claim that today we are under a I Samuel 8 style government (or one similar to Babylon or Rome) you are either ignoring or simply cannot see the essential difference. All three of these were lawful governments. The modern ALL CAPS BEAST is not. Do you know what a lawful government is?
Steve responds:
A) According to Torah, an Israelite Monarchy wherein Torah is the Law of the land. Rome or Babylon do not qualify if my definition is correct. Am I wrong, and if so why?
Caleb, please show me where you ever answered my last question!
Caleb: So please use the correct words for what you mean, and do not trash the words of others when they are using them correctly and in context.
Steve: When I see words such as Republic of California I think Constitution. Sorry. Please tell me what written Law you are talking about that a Lawful Government follows. On March 9th you stated that Rome, Babylon and 1 Sam 8 were Lawful Governments. Are you going to stand by that today?
Caleb: 2) Understand what the other side is saying before you respond to it
Steve: You stated that on March 9th that Rome, Babylon and a 1 Sam 8 GOVT is Lawful Govt. I submit to you that the written Law that rules these GOVTS is not Lawful as it pertains to Torah. This is the meat of the debate I am looking forward to having with you.
Caleb: Our exchange about CONsenting to a JUDGE has now reached the point of absurdity. It began with a single assertion on my part:
Even when they drag you into COURT ..., the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you.
Now stop and think about what has just been said. This is a claim I made. It was not a direct answer to something you said, so this statement originated with me. How can you have a discussion initiated by this statement that then has nothing to do with it? I don't know, but you have.
Steve: My goodness Caleb. For clarity's sake let me post the exchange again. You still responded to my statement and I responded to your response. Let me show you:
Steve wrote from a past post: "I have seen people go to jail with out consenting to the JUDGE." (This is a statement made by me.)
Caleb wrote from a past post: No you have not. (This is a statement by you in response to my statement).
Steve wrote from a past post: Yes I have. I have seen a COP jerk up a dear friend who did not consent to a JUDGE ...
Caleb wrote from a past post : {Detailed ten ways we give CONsent in COURT without knowing it}
Steve writing today: Caleb, this exchange continued because you said "no you have not" to the statement I made. Again, I tell you I have seen people go to jail with out consenting to a judge..
Instead of focusing on this exchange you should have spent the time answering my question in the snip form March 9th!!!!!
Caleb: My initial claim said "when they drag you into COURT", so yes, I was already in COURT. How come you were not?
Was it not reasonable for me to assume that you were responding to my initial statement?
Steve: You missed the point I was originally trying to make. I was saying that Jail was already in the equation before any consent was given to a JUDGE. Then you wanted to tell me , "no I have not"... and then we went round and round. You are the one bringing this up. Funny, out of all the many exchanges I went back and looked at you harp on this one while ignoring other items which could have advanced this topic.
Caleb: Sorry, but I thought you were rebutting my claim, not deliberately changing the subject to a non-issue so that it could appear my claim had been refuted. Why did you answer with an unrelated and obvious statement, in this case that the POLICE can put you in jail before you see a JUDGE?
Steve: You are full of assumptions. I was not deliberatly changing the subject because I could not answer your question.. As to why I answered the way I did: Uh.. let's see. I consider the persecution and punishment starting from the very beginning with the COP and AGENTS and Jail before one even gets in front of a Judge. Call me crazy.
Instead of focusing on this exchange you should have spent the time answering my question in the snip form March 9th!!!!!
Caleb: I have been there, done that. Have you?
Steve: Yes.
Caleb: This is the nature of "debating" with you. You never rebutted my initial claim that "the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you." Yet you created a tempest in a teapot to disguise the fact that you did not (because you could not) respond to what was said. It is customary to limit one's response to issues where one actually has something meaningful to say. You could greatly shorten your writing and we might actually be able to get around to the issues you want us to answer.
Steve: More assumptive nonsense. I was not changing the subject because I could not answer you.
Instead of focusing on this exchange you should have spent the time answering my question in the snip form March 9th!!!!!
Caleb asked from a past post: Do you know what a lawful government is?
Steve responds:
A) According to Torah, an Israelite Monarchy wherein Torah is the Law of the land. Rome or Babylon do not qualify if my definition is correct. Am I wrong, and if so why?
Caleb: If you take others seriously, thoughtfully considering their points before answering, they will respond in kind with the points you raise.
Steve: I do take you seriously even though I asked you specifically to
show me how and why me definition of Lawful given on March 9th was incorrect IF you did not agree. YOu never did show how and why but you did go on a tirade of false claims about me.
Caleb: 3) Which version of Scripture is The Law?
I also accused you of contradicting scripture. I see now from your quoting Acts 22:28 that we are using different translations. So this is the actual problem: you were quoting a modern translation that contradicts the King James Version.
Steve: I have many bibles. Including the Hebraic Roots Version from Aramaic. If you are going to tell me the KJV is superior translation I will disagree with that. I will laugh at that.
Caleb: Unfortunately, ALL popular modern translations are, without exception, deliberately deceptive.
Steve: and the KJV is not deceptive? LOL. You have got to be kidding me. Hugh Broughton, the foremost Hebrew scholar of England at that time the KJV was published, rejected the suggestion that he endorse the work by saying that he would rather "be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had any part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people."
Caleb: They are riddled with slave-speak such as "tax" and "citizen", so that Christians will be happy, obedient slaves, sure that they are obeying God by giving their first-fruits to the IRS.
Steve: Your opinion.
Caleb: To compare, do a search on all derivations of "tax" in the KJV, and try to use the three verses that come up to make a case for paying taxes.
Steve: If we are going to do comparisons are you willing to accept that I can show you some serious errors between the OT and the NT of the KJV?
Caleb:The King James Version, while not flawless, is The Law throughout the former British Empire. So if we are going to discuss God's Law as it applies to us today, the KJV is the only version that matters.
Steve: Do you see what you are saying? Former British Empire. The KJV was written under the divine rights of a gay King aka Queen James. I do hope you are not going to assert that these Kings were Lawful? The KJV was written from their view of politics!
Caleb: You have called Paul a "Roman Citizen" based on the fact that your translation uses this terminology.
Steve: Not only that. Like I was intending to convey to you by the statement, "let's put aside the issue of Citizenship for a moment". I can prove to you by Paul's actions that he was a Citizen as the word pertains to the privileges available only to Roman Citizens.
Caleb: Read Acts in the King James and a very different picture emerges. Nowhere is the word "citizen" used (except once referring to a city), and for good reason.
Steve: Again, I will show you from Paul's actions, statements and by the privileges he received that he had a STATUS that got him special attention far beyond those who did not have this STATUS.
Caleb: Needless to say, we will never agree on anything if we cannot agree on a common translation of scripture. So the entire debate about Paul's status cannot go any further until we agree on some simple rules here. They are:
a) Only the King James translation is to be quoted as authoritative
b) If you want to clarify the meaning of a word, a Strong's concordance or similar authoritative Bible dictionary is appropriate
c) The words used have definite meanings, so do not paraphrase (use other words) without backing it up very well.
As an example, to determine what scriptural government is, we would do a search on the word "government" in the King James.Only those verses using the word would be used to determine the scriptural meaning of "government". If we want to call a biblical character a "citizen" we do a search on all verses that refer to him as such. When not a single one calls him a "Roman citizen" the debate is over, at least as far as that point goes.
Steve: Are you serious? The KJV does not even interprate the Torah or any of the institutions, (even Hezekiah's) listed in it as being government. The translations will not be faithful to the general word Government. If we can agree in advance that the word "government" can mean "a body of ruling political power" then we can at least get somewhere. The KJV does not consider Hezekiah's to even be in this category! Hezekiah, about whom it is written, "For he clave to YHWH, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which YHWH commanded Moses. And YHWH was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth." Hezekiah is out if we go by your rules.
Caleb: If we apply these rules to Acts 22:28, we find first that Paul and the captain are discussing "freedom", not citizenship. We simply cannot sustain any claim that they are discussing a form of bondage called citizenship and calling it "freedom".
Steve: Let's cut it right to the meat: Paul's actions and STATUS got him privileges of Ceaser who judicated a Law that was not "Lawful" as the word pertains to the Torah.
Caleb: Yes, today this type of lie is engaged in all the time, but we are talking about scripture, and if scripture has this kind of lie embedded in it, then how do we know it is EVER telling the Truth?
Steve: Bottom line is Paul appealed to Caesar. Paul's STATUS gave him that privilege!
Caleb: But digging deeper we do find that the word "freedom" is from a Greek word that also implies citizenship. Uh Oh, looks my position is crumbling. Then we look at Paul's response and notice that the word "free" is italicized, telling us it is not in the original text. So Paul's response is simply, "but I was born." Not much help in proving either side in this case, but it is at least clear that Paul is NOT saying he is a citizen.
Steve: Look to Paul's actions which tells his STATUS. Look at what type of people get those privileges that Paul gets. You will find that these are called Roman Citizens if you study some historic info on Rome.
Caleb: The prison that holds the slaves these days is a prison for the mind. Words are a key part of this, especially those used in the scripture. When you take the modern use of a word like "citizen" and import it to scripture, especially in places where it does not occur, you completely change the meaning and you are no longer seeking to discern what scripture says. This is not the way the Spirit leads us into all Truth.
Steve: Look to the actions and behavior of Paul and you will see and understand that the privilege of appealing to Caesar is available only to Roman Citizens. We need the context and the actions of the man in question to get the real Truth of the matter. Get out of that prison called the KJV and let the context and actions also give substance to the man in question. Fact: Paul appealed to Caesar. Paul was already in ROME jurisdiction before he appealed. Go learn about who gets these privileges and what STATUS that is. You say Rome and Ceaser were Lawful, but not as the word "lawful" pertains to Torah... By the way, please post what you consider the definition of "lawful" to be just so I can have it close by.
Caleb:
Conclusion
What I am in the process of with this thread is unearthing buried treasure. There are incredible truths we were never taught because our forefathers forgot them. Some of us are rediscovering them and sharing our discoveries. That is the purpose of these forums. If you are not interested, that is your choice, but don't pass judgment on the treasure until you have seen the whole thing.
Steve: That is ...the whole thing according to ONLY the KJV and your rules. I am very interested. I would not be taking precious time away from my beautiful wife and children to sit here and dance with you as well as suffer you putting false words in my mouth if these issues were not important.
Caleb: Right now you are arguing side issues that go away once the bigger picture is seen.
Steve: So says you. If something is lawful as the word applies to being lawful in the Torah, it is the root, not the side issue.
Caleb: I have been ignoring these, and this frustrates you.
Steve: You pick and choose what you respond to, while I have been answering most every sentence you put forth. You are being selective because you think these are side issues, while I say Torah is the root of what is Pleasing to YHWH when it comes to Government. An idea your rules of debate will not even let me advance. You think this is pleasing to YHWH??
Caleb: You have not been comprehending what I have shared, and this frustrates me. I am trying to answer your questions and challenges seriously and completely, and I have not yet gotten to everything. Getting sidetracked on non-issues does not benefit any of us.
Steve: You will find that these items I bring up are not side issues but rather the root of what YHWH considers Lawful Govt, i.e. the Torah. You say this is my private interpretation. I say it is not private but what the Torah itself says about itself!!
Caleb: Go back and understand what a "Lawful Government" is. If you cannot understand it, please ask questions. If you do not want to understand it, please do not continue to "debate" me. One thing you will see is that I have NEVER once claimed that the CONstitution is the basis for Lawful Government in America. To the contrary, I stated that Lawful Government predated the CONstitution. Read the following that explains, among other things, why the CONstitution is a CON job:
Steve: Then I ask you again. Identify the "Lawful" written law that you say is "based" on Torah. You have not done so in ANY of your posts yet you cry foul when I am lead to believe you are speaking about the Constitution.
Caleb: Ideas have consequences. Are you willing to consider the possibility that I may be right?
Steve: What about if I am right? Are you going to expect me to take you seriously when your rules concerning the KJV will keep me from even bringing up the Torah or institution that Tanach itself says are righteous just because the Queen Jimmy does not associate them with Government?? You must be mad if you think that I would submit to those rules seeing as my argument is based on the Torah and what it says about proper Israelite Leadership!!!
Peace to you,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 19 Apr 2004 15:02:24 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 16:30:25
|
Dear Steven,
You could really help yourself and this whole process if you would simply do one thing:
Rather than replying line by line, read my entire post and then make each of your counterpoints only once.
The longer your post, the lower the chance that I will re-read it to make sure I have covered every point you raise. Best I can tell from the first reading, you raised only two or three major points in this last response. This is good, because it increases the possibility that I will answer you coherently. However, you made these points so many times that I may have missed additional ones among the sheer volume of words.
For example, the first umpteen responses mostly came back to the fact that you had assumed that by a "Lawful Government" in America, I meant one created by a CONstitution. Had you read to the end of my post before writing all these responses, they could have been reduced down to a single, "Oops, I assumed you were referring to the Constitution, but obviously you are not. Please clarify ..."
Yes, I pick and choose what I respond to. It is a basic survival skill when dealing with the sheer volume you put forth. I do hear you the first time, and I try to answer completely when there is a reasonable number of issues to deal with.
I will answer the key questions/issues you raised in my next post. For now, can you do me one more favor and try to eliminate this kind of thing from your posts:
Steve writing today: Caleb, this exchange continued because you said "no you have not" to the statement I made. Again, I tell you I have seen people go to jail with out consenting to a judge..
You appear to be saying that this statement of yours was not a response to my statement that "the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you." Yet the way you wrote it made it appear to be just that, so I treated it as such. Thus I misunderstood what you were saying and why you were saying it.
Now that I know what you were saying, my question is: why say it at all? For anyone who has dealt with the POLICE, it is as obvious as telling them that the sky is blue. I went to jail without consenting to a JUDGE. The next day I was in front of the JUDGE, giving him my consent without knowing it. I never said you couldn't spend a few nights in jail without consenting to a judge. Why waste our time with this? Either you were responding to my statement or you were not. Either way, the statement was unproductive, as it failed to respond to my claim and it failed to add any new information to the discussion.
You could say more with far fewer words.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
People get the Government they deserve
