| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Apr 2004 : 21:59:15
|
Dear Caleb,
I agree that perhaps responding to every line might not be nessisary.
I was just hoping somebody would catch on in a kinda 'do unto others type of way' because many of the key items I originally present do not get responded to. It took me this long of hammering just to get a decent discussion about Paul going. It was worth the effort and I look forward to digging deeper... Yes, everything boils down to a small number of points and I would be most happy to advance this topic based on those items. I have already begun re-reading your posts including the essay you linked.
What would help me greatly at this point would be for you to identify exactly what you understand to be the 'Law of the land' based on Torah as it would pertain to America. I'll read the essay you linked again, just in case I missed the answer to my question.
Also, thanks for your constructive comments.
Peace,
Steve
|
 |
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2004 : 18:36:53
|
Caleb, in his essay entitled "What is Caesar's" said:
The only scriptural solution is to “come out of her, my people.” (Revelation 18:4; II Corinthians 6:17). This does not mean coming out of the nation or violating its laws. These laws are still consistent with the Law of God and are what scripture refers to when telling us to obey legitimate earthly authority. However, when we obey judges and police who are sworn to uphold legitimate laws but are instead enforcing a separate and contradictory set of statutes, we become party to their evil.
Steve: I have read your essay a few times and still cannot confidantly identify the exact Law you are speaking of. I don't want to make any assumptions here so let's start at ground zero. The first step in understanding your position would be for you to identify the Nation's Law for America as it relates to your statement above. In your fifth sentence you mentioned police and judges are sworn to uphold legitimate laws. But you have adamantly stated that you are not speaking about the Constitution, so I ponder what Law exactly are you speaking of. Before the Consitution the Colonies were under British Constitution. Is this the Nation's Law you are saying is Lawful for America since it was pre-Constitutional? I got the feeling from the essay you might be speaking about the Common Law, which you described as like the 'traditions of men' , but I don't want to make any assumptions there either. Then I got the feeling that you might be talking about only "God's Law", since it was at the foundation section in your chart under Lawful, but I noticed that you had "The Laws of New Zealand" also mentioned in the same column. If it is not soley "God's Law" for America then I need to know the exact name of the Nation's Law which is "based" on scripture for this country. If you are speaking about "God's Law" on it's own then I want to know exactly what part of the Law. I don't want to assume you are speaking about the whole of Torah. You said if I don't understand just ask. I look forward to getting this strait so we can continue.
Peace,
Steve |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2004 : 22:18:14
|
Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
lawful = just
Lawful = Deuteronomy 17:14-20
Here are a couple of quotes of yours:
______________________________________________________________________
Steve said: 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.
Steve said: 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.
_______________________________________________________________________
You are absolutely right, the GOVERNMENT we now have was “forced” on the people but you stopped a little short of the mark by saying it was “forced upon the people of the south”. It can be clearly proven that the form of government that this nation now has, is not what was agreed to, thus it was “forced” upon all the People, both north and south.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
Obviously, the framers did not contract for a democracy we hope you can agree.
A lawful government, i.e. not using your Pentateuch definition , is one that derives its just power from the governed, i.e. the people, and the people get their just power from Yahuwah. The form of government consented to by the People was a republican form of government, i.e. a republic.
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.
This is the contract that was tacitly agreed to by the people – “Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king [government] that shall reign over them.” “And Yahuwah said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king [government].”
Hearken means, listen attentively and obey. This is the rule of “Torah”, as you would say, “Hearken unto their voice”, established by Yahuwah Himself. However, Yahuwah also gives us further advice in how to do this without breaking His Moral Law, the Ten Commandments, at Deuteronomy 17:14-20. If we do it this way, we have it right, if we do it any other way, we have it wrong but according to “Torah” we did, and do, have the choice…hence, “choose you this day whom you will serve”.
Now, because “they can only legislate to those who volunteer into their jurisdiction”, it is lawful [just], since it is purely voluntary, and again, you are free to opt for a Deuteronomy 17:14-20 type of government, if you so choose. A just government is there to protect your liberty to choose, providing that you do not quash anyone elses equal right to choose.
Let us set up a hypothetical situation. Suppose you agreed to sell a man your Lincoln Continental for 5,000 babel-bux; comes the moment of actual sale and he sticks a gun to your head and only gives you 500 babel-bux; would you call the POLICE on him for this unlawful act? Of course you would! Why, it was “forced” on you and that is not Lawful. We hope you can agree.
Now, because the lawful government, the “republic”, we the People tacitly contracted for would allow us free-choice in the form of government that we and our family opted for, we could choose to be “Torah” observant but if they will not allow us this choice we are now under a defacto government, a government of force, not the dejure government that would protect our liberties as was agreed upon. The question rests on, does the dejure government still exist? To answer this we ask, does the contract you agreed to concerning your Lincoln Continental still exist or was it changed permanently at the point of a gun?
Our position is that the dejure government, the one that protects your liberty to choose, still exists, we feel it must, just as the contract you agreed to on your Lincoln Continental still exists, of course the man with the gun may have to wait ‘till he gets out of prison to take you up on it, but nevertheless it still stands.
One more item we should bring up at this point is that both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, two of the more learned men of their times, agreed on this one thing: “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God”. Why? Because according to the "Torah", the example set by Yahuwah, the government [ruler(s)]is to hearken unto our voice.
TYR'ANNY, n. 1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.
The only authorized [ligitimate] purpose of government is to protect the liberty of the People, when it goes beyond this it becomes tyranny and is no longer lawful [just]. The good news in all this is that the defacto government is only temporary but the dejure government lives on.
We were deceived! Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that what the early Americans were striving for was not so much "freedom of religion" but rather "freedom of government" and this is what a republican form of government gave them.
We shall stop here and see if you agree so far. Thanks for listening.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 20 Apr 2004 22:21:44 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2004 : 06:53:22
|
…continued from last post.
In order to get the People to tacitly agree to their contract [the ORIGINAL constitution] they had to incorporate something into it to protect “freedom of government”; this was the right of the states, which were all sovereign nations [this is why each state has a capital], to secede from the union if the “centralized protector of their fundamental liberties", became to oppressive [tyrannical]. This was in keeping with the original concept put forth in the Declaration of Independence. And again, this and the Bill of Rights, which was a strict limitation on the governments legitimate authority, showed the People that it was a just [lawful] government with impartial courts.
The point you brought out at least a couple of times is, “what about the so-called Civil War”? As you and I both know, Lincoln’s purpose for his unrighteous war was to change the constitution [“the contract”] that had been agreed upon, at the point of a gun. With the use of “force” he took away the right of the states [countries] to secede from this union thus giving the central government unlimited power since there could be no Serious retribution for wielding it. Yes, Yahuwah allowed it, and it is this humble son’s opinion that He allowed it because of slavery and Frederick Bastiat [1848] agrees with us.
“Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.
It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime—a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World—should be the only issue, which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union.”
Let’s face it; what could be a more fitting punishment for a nation that encourages slavery than to make them all slaves that they might learn what slavery feels like personally.
Unfortunately, it would seem that Noah Webster [c.1828] may have been right after all:
"If the people of America ever betray their trust, their guilt will merit even greater punishment than other nations have suffered, and the indignation of heaven."
Let us now restate our position. A change in a contract, a covenant, cannot be “forced”, as it is unlawful for obvious reasons [as in the sale of your Lincoln Continental].
After this usurpation of Power they then began to create men in their own image by amending the original contract, particularly the 14th Amendment, which Black’s Law Dictionary says, “…Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to “person.”
Now, we can debate all day long about whether the Scripture is referring to the word “person” the way it is defined today by the GOVERNMENT [lawyers], however, we put forth the proposition that this word was INTENTIONALLY chosen to represent their created image of men, because Scripture emphatically states that Yahuwah will give no regard to [is not a respecter of] “persons”, regardless of how it was intended in the Set Apart Scripture. What a wry sense of humor!
Do "People Get the Government They Deserve"? Without a doubt!
Endnote: TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made…
"Express consent", we put forth, was brought about with the Social Security Act and this is why we say it is the "mark of the beast[system]". People like Lysander Spooner were telling all their "secrets"; they had to do something to correct the situation!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Apr 2004 09:54:25 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2004 : 08:58:13
|
Greeting brother Robert and peace to you all,
You said:
You are absolutely right, the GOVERNMENT we now have was “forced” on the people but you stopped a little short of the mark by saying it was “forced upon the people of the south”. It can be clearly proven that the form of government that this nation now has, is not what was agreed to, thus it was “forced” upon all the People, both north and south.
Steve: Yes, you are correct by saying all of the people both north and south. Thanks for brining that up. I am sure the Union army soldiers did not even know what they were getting into with the immediate changes that took place GOVERNMENTALLY after the surrender of the South
brother Robert: Obviously, the framers did not contract for a democracy we hope you can agree.
A lawful government, i.e. not using your Pentateuch definition , is one that derives its just power from the governed, i.e. the people, and the people get their just power from Yahuwah. The form of government consented to by the People was a republican form of government, i.e. a republic.
Steve: Agree 100%. However it is not unreasonable to view the term Lawful as it applies to Deut 17, which I am sure you would also agree upon. Especially when we are looking at the "big picture" as it relates to the Bible and prophecy. You know that there is no "freedom of religion" in the Torah and if we even tried to implement some of the specific rulings in Torah we would be in serious hot water with the "occupational government". Even a "lawful government" as the term applies to the non-Pentateuch definition you gave above would find a "Deut 17 lawful government" in violation of it's law. This ties in directly to the 4th Kingdom and all relevant scriptures which give definition.
brother Robert:
This is the contract that was tacitly agreed to by the people – “Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king [government] that shall reign over them.” “And Yahuwah said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king [government].”
Hearken means, listen attentively and obey. This is the rule of “Torah”, as you would say, “Hearken unto their voice”, established by Yahuwah Himself. However, Yahuwah also gives us further advice in how to do this without breaking His Moral Law, the Ten Commandments, at Deuteronomy 17:14-20. If we do it this way, we have it right, if we do it any other way, we have it wrong but according to “Torah” we did, and do, have the choice…hence, “choose you this day whom you will serve”.
Steve: I would only add that "non-Pentateuch Lawful Govt" will not permit one to implement Deut 17 style Law in the land it occupies. Hence BONDAGE...You are correct in saying any other way we do it is wrong... Also Samuel clearly said in 1 Sam 12 that one is expected to still serve YHWH, even under a 1 SAM 8 "mistake by agreement".
brother Robert: Now, because “they can only legislate to those who volunteer into their jurisdiction”, it is lawful [just], since it is purely voluntary, and again, you are free to opt for a Deuteronomy 17:14-20 type of government, if you so choose. A just government is there to protect your liberty to choose, providing that you do not quash anyone else's equal right to choose.
Steve: There is no Deut 17:14-20 type of Government which has authority to implement even 17:2-5 in this land. The occupational "non-Pentateuch Lawful Govt" would arrest us for murder. This is our quandary. This is the essence of the 4th Kingdom BONDAGE. When the 4th Kingdom is no longer in occupation a Deut 17 type Government can exist. Together they are like oil and water. Deut 17:19 says ALL the words of YHWH's statutes and this the Republic will not tolerate.
brother Robert: Let us set up a hypothetical situation. Suppose you agreed to sell a man your Lincoln Continental
Steve: Hey! It's no stinking continental it's a Lincoln townhouse.. that last phrase is very offensive (LOL..just kidding ;-))
brother Robert: for 5,000 babel-bux; comes the moment of actual sale and he sticks a gun to your head and only gives you 500 babel-bux; would you call the POLICE on him for this unlawful act? Of course you would! Why, it was “forced” on you and that is not Lawful. We hope you can agree.
Steve: Yes. Just like the post-Civil War GOVT was forced upon the people of both the north and the south.
brother Robert: Now, because the lawful government, the “republic”, we the People tacitly contracted for would allow us free-choice in the form of government that we and our family opted for, we could choose to be “Torah” observant but if they will not allow us this choice we are now under a defacto government, a government of force, not the dejure government that would protect our liberties as was agreed upon.
Steve: I submit to you that even the Republic would not allow us to follow Torah as it pertains to Deut 17:19. Just like the GOVT of the Civil War was implemented by "force of conquest", so was the Republic that the framer's intended. England was defeated by force (or so it seems) and a new Law was established (Constitution). The South was defeated by force and another TYPE of GOVT was established. Neither of them would let us follow the Torah. Why would they? They are 4th Kingdom entities.
brother Robert: The question rests on, does the dejure government still exist? To answer this we ask, does the contract you agreed to concerning your Lincoln Continental still exist or was it changed permanently at the point of a gun?
Steve: The reality is that the Lincoln is gone and force was used. The reality is that conquest and war is used to install whatever style law is coming down the pike (even Torah). The 4th Kingdom has many hybrids, some even considered Lawful as the word pertains to a dictionary. None of "them" have let us implement Torah and neither of "them" is lawful as the term applies to Deut 17. Such is the nature of BONDAGE.
brother Robert: The only authorized [legitimate] purpose of government is to protect the liberty of the People, when it goes beyond this it becomes tyranny and is no longer lawful [just]. The good news in all this is that the defacto government is only temporary but the dejure government lives on.
Steve: Even the dejure Government would not let Torah be implemented as it is written. The dejure would say the Torah violates the liberty of the People.
brother Robert: We were deceived! Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that what the early Americans were striving for was not so much "freedom of religion" but rather "freedom of government" and this is what a republican form of government gave them.
Steve: Again, the Republican form of lawful Government that came after the "defeat" of England would hold us in violation of the People's Liberty if we implemented Deut 17:19.
Peace to you all on this misty morning,
Steve
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2004 : 10:44:50
|
brother Robert said: Now, we can debate all day long about whether the Scripture is referring to the word “person” the way it is defined today by the GOVERNMENT [lawyers], however, we put forth the proposition that this word was INTENTIONALLY chosen to represent their created image of men, because Scripture emphatically states that Yahuwah will give no regard to [is not a respecter of] “persons”, regardless of how it was intended in the Set Apart Scripture. What a wry sense of humor
Steve:Where we might disagree is the application of what it means to pay no regard to the "person". I read clearly from Deut 1:17 that we are not to give regard to whatever a man's "personage" may be. In other words each man has a "person" but whatever that "personage" may be, it must not be factored in concerning the man being judged. Equality for all, regardless of the specific "personage" a man might have. Rich, poor, SLAVE, free all equal under Torah.
Some on this list immediatly look to one's "person" and judge upon that. That is a direct violation of Deut 1:17 (even "IF" the definition of "person" , as it pertains to the Biblical use, "IS" the same as that of a secular law dictionary..which it is not) |
Edited by - BatKol on 21 Apr 2004 19:50:52 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 06:09:19
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
You say: “Even a ‘lawful government’ as the term applies to the non-Pentateuch definition you gave above would find a ‘Deut 17 lawful government’ in violation of it's law.
In fact, we believe you said it, or alluded to this, SEVEN TIMES in this one response to our posting! Save your fingers, dear brother, we get it the first time. We are not as ignorant as you seem to think we are. Pardon us if we are wrong on this, but for the life of us, we cannot figure out why you repeat yourself so many times in nearly all your posts.
However, the statement above is not truth. The “government” they would have no problem with; rather it is the “judgements and penalties” that they would find objectionable, which is no doubt what you meant to say. In fact, we too would find it objectionable to have to take our disobedient child outside the gates and stone him or her to death. We would soon have no children we perceive. Yahuwah does not create impossibility, thus this obstacle, or excuse, was taken out of the way.
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [G1378] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his stauros [stake, pole or cross]…
G1378 dogma
Thayer Definition: 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
A “suggestion of severity”? Well we should hope to shout!
For what it is worth, it would appear that Noah Webster [c.1828] agrees with this concept. We find this under the word “LAW” –
“Ceremonial law, the Mosaic institutions which prescribe the external rites and ceremonies to be observed by the Jews, as distinct from the moral precepts, which are of perpetual obligation.”
And in case we do not know what Noah Webster considers the “moral precepts”…
“By way of eminence, a precept of the decalogue, or moral law, written on tables of stone, at Mount Sinai; one of the ten commandments.”
And while we are at it, for the five hundredth time [perhaps a slight exaggeration to make a point  ] you give us the Scriptural definition of “person”…WE GET IT STEVEN, WE GET IT, COUNT ON IT! However, we said that aside, kosmokrator, we feel, used this word INTENTIONALLY in making men in his image and you go on and define it again. Save your fingers, Steven, save your fingers we are not stupid [un-trainable] people, we assure you.
Now, with that having been said, the question remains; can the contract [confederacy] that the People tacitly agreed to, i.e. "a republican form of government", where one must volunteer into their jurisdiction, where a state can secede from the union if the "protector of their basic liberties" becomes oppressive, be changed at gunpoint?
We thank you for your attention.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 22 Apr 2004 07:11:44 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 15:57:40
|
Greetings brother Robert,
Sorry about the repeats. Here is a more direct post to keep the pace flowing:
You said: For what it is worth, it would appear that Noah Webster [c.1828] agrees with this concept. We find this under the word “LAW” –
“Ceremonial law, the Mosaic institutions which prescribe the external rites and ceremonies to be observed by the Jews, as distinct from the moral precepts, which are of perpetual obligation.”
And in case we do not know what Noah Webster considers the “moral precepts”…
“By way of eminence, a precept of the decalogue, or moral law, written on tables of stone, at Mount Sinai; one of the ten commandments.”
Steve: What about the commands written on stone in Exodus 34? Just to be clear, what would you say has been done away with exactly? just the ceremonial parts? This is important that we identify exactly what has been 'nailed to the cross'. Please elaborate on this more. If it is just the ceremonial parts, as Webster says, then we still have much more then the ten commandments. Example: Exodus 34:13. Still valid?
You said: Now, with that having been said, the question remains; can the contract [confederacy] that the People tacitly agreed to, i.e. "a republican form of government", where one must volunteer into their jurisdiction, where a state can secede from the union if the "protector of their basic liberties" becomes oppressive, be changed at gunpoint?
Steve: Firstly, as you pointed out earlier, anything other than a Deut 17:14-20 Government is, to use your word, "wrong". So, in that respect concerning Torah, it does not matter if you under a Republic or Democracy. Neither would allow one to fulfill Deut 34:13 which was written on stone (assuming if we have moral laws and judgements beyond the ceremonial laws). This point is very important to my position so that is why I asked for more details from you concerning what parts of Torah exactly do you consider nailed to the cross and which ones are still valid.
To answer your question above. Can the contract of the Republic be changed at gun point? Yes. By military conquest. After a war the law of the land get's replaced by whatever the victors choose. Such is the case with the GOVT we have today. You might say, "it's all voluntary" but is it really when the MILITARY POLICE "ensures" everybody complies one way or another?
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 22 Apr 2004 16:14:07 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 23:31:50
|
Greetings Steven:
Steve: "To answer your question above. Can the contract of the Republic be changed at gun point? Yes."
Then you just sold your Lincoln, "whatever it is", for 500 babel-bux and don't you dare call the POLICE, because you say it is lawful to change a contract at the business end of a gun.
Steve from a previous post: "Steve: The reality is that the Lincoln is gone and force was used."
That was a deceitful answer. The "reality" is, you have recourse, you have the lawful right to seek redress!!
But if you truly believe what you have just said, your moto should be "Might Makes Right". And Romans thirteen should be interpreted that we are to honor and obey whoever has the biggest gun!
My dear boy, you just "perfectly" defined a defacto government, which by "their" own admission is illegal or illegitimate!
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 287:
De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.
It must be "accepted for all practical purposes" until you can gain the upper hand, just like any other situation with an armed thug!!
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
Does the word "overturning" have a familiar ring to it? ...as in "upside down" perhaps. LOL
Would it be unlawful to follow an illegal government that is using "force against the will of the rightful legal government"?
Would this be akin to following a multitude to do evil?
Telling people that they should obey an illegal government, when you just admitted that you know full well that it is...would this be similar to calling evil, good?
You crack me up!!! 
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Apr 2004 06:52:59 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 06:50:45
|
Greetings brother Robert:
You said:
Steve from a past post: "To answer your question above. Can the contract of the Republic be changed at gun point? Yes."
Then you just sold your Lincoln, "whatever it is", for 500 babel-bux...and don't you dare call the POLICE, because you say it is lawful to change a contract at the business end of a gun. Then your moto should be "Might Makes Right". And Romans thirteen should be interpreted that we are to honor and obey whoever has the biggest gun!
Steve: You are mixing apples with oranges. I should have given more detail to your original question. Allow me to do so here so I can be clearer on my position.
The taking of a Lincoln which was the private property of one man by another man is not the same as an army coming in and taking over a country against a defending army. Here is what you are not digesting and here is the root of the problem between us. What is the same is that the means used was force. That is what I was agreeing upon. But, to go deeper, one was a private matter against which the ruling POLICE would have authority. However, in the instance of a country being taken over this is a military conquest wherein a war was fought between two armies. One was the winner and one was the looser. Now back to your hypothetical question. The very POLICE I would have to call on in the private matter would have already been installed BY the military victors. There was no war fought between two countries in this private matter, there was no lives taken in your private scenario with the Linclon. Romans 13 has nothing to do with private matters as it relates to the hypothetical scenario.
brother Robert: My dear boy, you just defined "perfectly" a defacto government, which by "their" own admonition is illegal or illegitimate!
Steve: Again you are using the wrong model for this situation for the same reasons I posted above.
brother Robert:
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 287:
De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.
It must be "accepted for all practical purposes" until you can gain the upper hand, just like any other well armed thug!!
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
It must be "accepted for all practical purposes" until you can gain the upper hand, just like any other well armed thug!!
Steve: So then when the Yankees defeated Britian and the Republic was formed thereafter, that new Republic would be a defacto government in your eyes? Maybe defacto is the wrong word here concerning a military conquest. Is it considered a "legal" victory when a war is won? Was that Republic a "defacto goverment" since it was installed by military conquest? Please give us the details.
brother Robert: Does the word "overturning" have a familiar ring to it? ...as in "upside down" perhaps. LOL
Would it be unlawful to follow an illegal government that is using "force against the will of the rightful legal government"?
Steve: OK. Look at it this way. When Israel invaded the land of Canaan and achieved military victory, were they a defacto goverment or a lawful government? Please explain in detail the how's and why's
of your answer.
brother Robert: Would this be akin to following a multitude to do evil?
Steve: You tell me. When the Republic was set up after the defeat of Britian, would following the Republic be akin to following a multitude to do evil?
brother Robert: Telling people that they should obey an illegal government, when you just admitted that you know full well that it is...would this be similar to calling evil, good?
You crack me up!!!
Steve: You might not be laughing so hard once you ponder the scenarios I just put to you above. I can't wait to see your answers
But I do notice that you ignored these important questions from the last post. Please answer them as they are key in relation to the statements you made earlier 
What about the commands written on stone in Exodus 34? Just to be clear, what would you say has been done away with exactly? just the ceremonial parts? This is important that we identify exactly what has been 'nailed to the cross'. Please elaborate on this more. If it is just the ceremonial parts, as Webster says, then we still have much more then the ten commandments. Example: Exodus 34:13. Still valid?
Thank you in advance to your answers to these questions. |
Edited by - BatKol on 23 Apr 2004 07:00:08 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 07:02:30
|
No, brother Steven, we are done. This is taking up all of our time and we can see that it is fruitless. Please do not infrer from this that we don't love you and yours, but it is done.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 08:06:45
|
Greetings brother Robert and family,
I do not take this in any way that you do not love me or mine. Just as I hope and pray you all don't take any of this as a sign that we don't love you and yours. You might think this is fruitless but we have really covered so much ground that the answer to this one question would bring closure to this topic and give me a clearer understanding of your statement concerning what laws have been done away with.
If you could just answer one question to sum all of this up. You don't have to take any more time, just answer "yes or no" to this one crucial question. Two seconds is all that is needed....I, too, have put in many hours answering in detail your every question. Please just one more from you:
Exodus 34:11 - Attend thou to ALL that I command thee...
Is Exodus 34:13, which was written in stone on the two tablets Moses brought to YHWH, still valid as it would relate to your concept?
Peace,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 23 Apr 2004 08:13:43 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 12:13:28
|
My dearest brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Dear brother, there is no simple yes or no with you. Watch and see...
COMMANDMENT, n. 2. By way of eminence, a precept of the decalogue, or moral law, written on tables of stone, at Mount Sinai; one of the ten commandments. Exo 34.
If this is what you are asking, and we can just about guarantee that it is not, the answer is, Yes...Yahuwah's Moral Law, the Ten Commandments, stands for ever.
Dear brother, we cannot even agree on which direction is up, let alone what the Book of the Scripture means, thus we shall let someone more learned than ourselves debate you.
Give our love to all. Thank you for the family time you have given us.
P.S. Have you noticed that virtually everyone has quit posting?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 14:40:30
|
Greetings brother Robert,
A simple "yes or no" would most certainly do but maybe I was not clear enough in wording the question for such an answer because you stated "If this is what you are asking, and we can just about guarantee that it is not".. Please let me re-phrase the question in a way that would suit a "yes or no" response from you while at the same time get me an answer that will cure my ignorance.
Are the commands of YHWH from Exodus 34:10 to Exodus 34:27 still binding today as they relate to your concept? yes or no.
I am not even asking you to explain why "yes or no" but just please, for my understanding help me out here.
Thank you as well for the time spent away from your family while studying with me. Believe it or not it means a great deal to us.
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 23 Apr 2004 14:58:01 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 20:37:19
|
The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Exodus 15:18 Yahuwah shall reign for ever and ever.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Apr 2004 21:27:17 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2004 : 07:37:57
|
Greetings List,
It seems all of the many posts between us concerning "People get the Government they deserve" has boiled down to two simple questions:
For those who claim to have severed all CONTRACTS with the GOVT:
1)Are the commands of YHWH from Exodus 34:10 to Exodus 34:27 still binding on you today or were they part of the statutes that were "nailed to the cross"?
2) What is the written law (which is *based* on the Bible)that the Republic regards as "lawful" in the land know as America?
Two very simple questions that arise from the volumes of posts which surround this topic.
Thanks in advance to any willing or "learned" enough to directly answer these questions.
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 24 Apr 2004 12:35:01 |
|
|
|
Surveyor
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2004 : 14:40:59
|
The ten commandments were the foundation of a law covenant written for the nation of Israel. They were written in stone and given through Moses to a self willed people that did not have the righteousness of the LORD written
in their heart and knew not the ways of the Creator. This covenant was a package deal. All the commandments under that covenant were nailed to the cross because the compelling force behind the commandments in that
covenant was the letter of the law and not faith.
His Righteousness is not found in a commandment made up of dead words whether it is written in stone or under a code of law. It is not just a commandment but the relationship or standing with the authority and power behind the
commandment that counts. Do we need a commandment against unrighteousness in order to come to know and love the ways and works of the King of Righteousness.
Most governments of would be gods have laws based on some form of the ten commandments. Doesn’t the State say thou shalt have no other gods before me. Will they allow idols or images of what they have designed to be set
up for the people to worship. Don’t they have their holy days. Don’t their law say don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and honor the fathers set over the people and so on.
Did Yeshua send his disciples out with warnings against breaking the law or did He send them out to do a work and preach a kingdom at hand.
Clarence
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2004 : 21:13:49
|
Clarence said: The ten commandments were the foundation of a law covenant written for the nation of Israel. They were written in stone and given through Moses to a self willed people that did not have the righteousness of the LORD written in their heart and knew not the ways of the Creator. This covenant was a package deal. All the commandments under that covenant were nailed to the cross because the compelling force behind the commandments in that covenant was the letter of the law and not faith.
His Righteousness is not found in a commandment made up of dead words whether it is written in stone or under a code of law.
Steve: Thanks for your thoughts Clarence. You are bringing in an interesting perspective at this juncture seeing as the thread has spent much energy focusing on the Law. This statement brings in another point of view: "This covenant was a package deal. All the commandments under that covenant were nailed to the cross because the compelling force behind the commandments in that covenant was the letter of the law and not faith."
Clarence: It is not just a commandment but the relationship or standing with the authority and power behind the commandment that counts. Do we need a commandment against unrighteousness in order to come to know and love the ways and works of the King of Righteousness.
Steve: Some would argue that the commandments are the very definition of righteousness. From those people I seek to identify if Exodus 34:10 - 28 is still valid from their conceptual perspective.
Clarence: Most governments of would be gods have laws based on some form of the ten commandments. Doesn’t the State say thou shalt have no other gods before me. Will they allow idols or images of what they have designed to be set
up for the people to worship. Don’t they have their holy days. Don’t their law say don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and honor the fathers set over the people and so on.
Steve: Yep. Hybrids, some even qualify as Lawful in a secular Law dictionaries. But hybrids none-the-less.
Clarence: Did Yeshua send his disciples out with warnings against breaking the law or did He send them out to do a work and preach a kingdom at hand.
Steve: Both, I thought. This topic has moved forward with the concept that the Law is what Governs "the Kingdom". It is claimed that this Kingdom can be available if one, "makes no covenants with the inhabitants of the land" and other such commandments which define Kingdom behavior. If this concept be True, then I must know if Exodus 34:10 - 28 still stands as Covenant (Kingdom) Law.
What you are stating is a much different position and I will give it some thought. Thanks.
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 24 Apr 2004 21:17:24 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 22:31:40
|
I always enyoy reading BatKol's posts, as he is my son-in-law, an exceedingly talented muscian, who wastes his time making FRN's. { my opinion}
He has brought up an exceedingly important thought....Exodus 34:28...jump to vs. 30.
Moses veiled the summation of the Law with a veil 'over his Face'.
Now, turn to second Corinthians 3rd ch. Read the whole chapter, and pause at vs. 13....and read through vs. 18. To complete the thought, read through the sixth chapter.
I can not add to this.
Now, I Am gonna go and pick out a song, an old Martin guitar, clear night, songs so bright, I will sing Thy Delight, come what may, come what may, come what may.
Moses unveiled the dead letter. Messiah Yahushuah, on the stake, rent the veil, in our hearts. So as We can enter into the veil, by the shed blood of Messiah Yahushuah, yes, a mere man, who paid the price, that We may enter in...into what?
Enter in, through the shed blood,and ye shall understand.
Self-Government...is The YaHuWeH's Government. It has been here, is here, and shall be here, through the ages.
Some men still look for that Government, well, in fact, most all men look for that Government. Until they find "that Government", within themselves, they look for other's {4th beast} to rule over them.
And it is for this reason...I cry daily, tears of sorrow, that "the children of Israel" are the blinded, that the faty tissues of their heart will be removed.
PEOPLE GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESEREVE.
I have traveled about for the last two years now, with Kingdom tags...as LICENSE plates. Never, have I been bothered.
And I thank YHWH and His Risen Son, for the Power, to Rise also. For in me, is nothing. But, that I may know the Power of His resurrection, I bear all.
I must surmise...I get the Government I deserve! For I Will bear that government, upon, my shoulder, and bear the punishment, and the Glory. Daily, I ask, in prayer, "Father, where are my brethern?" For I, as Paul was, have become an example, for ye to follow.
The first, and foremost freedom, a man may avail himself of, is, the free travel of his Body.
hello? any american's about and around? american@madison.main.nc.us.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 01:01:37
|
I hear you Robert-James, In Him, The One:
I remember as a young child looking at the heavens and thinking to myself that North America was where liberty awaited. My fathers aquaintances constantly warned my father that I was in danger of being killed if I continued to stay there. Little did I know that those hypocrites also travel over sea and land to win converts and make as fit for hell as they are themselves. The nighmare is over, for His Light has pierced the very veil over my slumbering eyes.
His Kingdom Is Here, There, Everywhere. He Is The Alpha, The Omega, All. From the first to the last, all labouring for Him will not be forgotten, and their just rewards will He hand.
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
People get the Government they deserve
