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

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 Matters Effecting the Ecclesia
 Circular Reasoning and Presumption
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 05 Apr 2004 :  09:53:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Circular reasoning leads to rabbit trails and when used to try spirituals, ends in a seeming proven presumption.

There are no contradictions, only wrong premises, was the way Ayn Rand described presumption. Most of today's court cases start with a presumption. The original presumption is the reason why only the fact of the law or statute is tried. Presumption is why a jury is allowed to only judge the facts in light of the statute or law transgressed. The presumption of law is taken as fact unless rebutted. A presumption assumes a preceding thought or hypothesis then proceeds on the presumption. The presumption for scientific theory is called the hypothesis but this hypothesis only holds until proved wrong by evidences of scientific experimentation. A scientific theory often holds as fact for years after being proved wrong because of the time necessary to rebut the presumption.

On this forum specifically, several presumptions have been used to try, then prove theory. Scripture cannot be interpreted by starting with a presumption, scripture must be interpreted in spirit.

The presumption of ... if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new ... is spiritually discerned and is not privately interpreted nor indeed can it be. A presumption to compare spirituals to spirituals, starting with an historical precedent may not prove anything, but it will allow for a quickening of the spirit.

The comparison of Daniel serving Jah while keeping mitzvot as a slave in Babylon cannot be used as evidence to prove much. The presumption necessary to use this comparison is slavery. There is no indentured servitude in amerika, the slavery is voluntary.

Using Paul's Roman citizenship to prove there is no Kingdom with a King named Yeshua falls way short as well. The presumption is that Saul's citizenship to Rome and Paul's slavery to the Kingdom were extant. Paul chose the martyrdom in full knowledge of what calling upon that dead man Saul would cost him.

Building arguments to prove a presumption is condemned as judgment of another in the bible. Judgment of persons is a prerogative of a King, otherwise judgment risks the same measure upon oneself.

TN

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 06 Apr 2004 :  08:49:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
True North said: The comparison of Daniel serving Jah while keeping mitzvot as a slave in Babylon cannot be used as evidence to prove much.

Steve: Much can be proved based on Daniel's status of righteousness even in the worst possible situation that has yet to come:

Ezekiel 14:13-14 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it: Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith YHWH Elohim.

Clearly Daniel is an archetype of righteousness even in the worst of future times, per YHWH!

True North: The presumption necessary to use this comparison is slavery. There is no indentured servitude in amerika, the slavery is voluntary.

Steve: When the South lost the Civil War and a new GOVT structure was forced upon the people (which is still up and running).... how can you consider that voluntary? Even today force is used to ensure complience. How do you consider that 'voluntary'?

Given the prophecies concerning the 4th Kingdom exile as well as the fact that there is no physical re-instituted Throne of David plus the
root of our current GOVT structure having it's foundation from the results of the Civil War, I see the BONDAGE clearly. Daniel 11:45 has not been fulfilled, nor has Daniel 12:1. Until the 4th Kingdom is destroyed and the re-instituted Throne of David is set up, we get bondage. Our situation here in USA lines up perfectly with BONDAGE.

True North: Using Paul's Roman citizenship to prove there is no Kingdom with a King named Yeshua falls way short as well.

Steve: Firstly, I never said that there is no Kingdom with a King named Yeshua. Either you are wrongly putting words in my mouth or you clearly do not understand my position. I said that there is no fulfillment of the messianic prophecies that herald a re-instituted earthly Throne of David complete with all of the goyim keeping Succot, paying tribute to the house of David, etc. We have no weapons to plowshares, no everybody from the least to the greatest knowing YHWH, no re-unification of the houses of Yisrael and Yahudah, no destruction of the 4th Kingdom, etc. etc. etc. All listed are as of yet unfulfilled. If Yahushua's Kingdom was of this earthly realm, then his servants would have fought. Yahushua's mission was not concerning these Messianic prophecies else... they would have been fulfilled. I am not saying that Yahushua is not a King of a Kingdom. In fact, I believe Paul was a Citizen of the Kingdom Yahushua set up.... while also being a CITIZEN of ROME..

Secondly, you are not getting my point concerning Paul's CITIZENSHIP.
My question is if being a CITIZEN is a breach of the first commandment as well as 'serving two masters'... then why did not Paul know this being one who upholds the Torah as well as one who had a direct communication with the risen Christ? I am asserting that Paul's message about being a member in the "body of Moshiach" or Citizen of Heaven if you will, is available to SLAVE or Free....

True North: Paul chose the martyrdom in full knowledge of what calling upon that dead man Saul would cost him.

Steve: That statement is a presumption. Paul used his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP with great sucess previously. That is fact if you believe the Bible.

True North: Building arguments to prove a presumption is condemned as judgment of another in the bible.

Steve: You are clearly not understanding my position. These are not presumptions. That Paul was a Torah observant ROMAN CITIZEN is not a presumption. That Paul's ROMAN CITIZENSHIP did not keep him from being a Citizen of Heaven is not a presumption. That the risen Christ
did not tell Paul he was in error by being a ROMAN CITIZEN is not a presumption. That the 4th Kingdom is still up and running and "apportioning land at a price" is not a presumption. That Daniel 12:1 is not yet fulfilled is not a presumpion, unless of course you can prove it has. To do this you would first have to prove Daniel 11:45 has been fulfilled. I am very interested in seeing how you do this. None on this list has yet to show this fulfillment.

None of my positions qualify as being built upon presumptions and most certainly are not circular in reasoning. If you claim that they are, please prove your presumption point by point using my questions put forth in the thread Logic 101....





Edited by - BatKol on 06 Apr 2004 09:23:05
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 06 Apr 2004 :  22:48:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Using the pseudonym Batkol is in itself a bit presumptuous but does not offend for He will have a people ... for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people 2 Corinthians 6:16 ...quoting Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell [among (betoken - in)] them.

What leaves me disconcerted and a bit disadvantaged is your previous relationships and issues I don't understand between you and others of this forum. I have no desire but to grow in grace and truth for he who dwells on what is above, what is below, what is behind and what is ahead, it is better that he had never been born (Gemara).

Paul chose martyrdom in full knowledge of what calling upon that dead man Saul would cost him. Acts 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me ... 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles ... 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

Paul knew what would happen when he used the citizenship of Saul of Tarsus, you accuse me falsely of presumption. I don't accuse you ... For many are called, but few are chosen ... Many will give much but some will give all (Berkano). If you don't feel called to give all then what is that to me? If Robert-James preaches ... Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues ... what is that to you?

The comparison of Daniel serving Jah while keeping mitzvot as a slave in Babylon cannot be used as evidence to prove much ... For John came unto you in the way of righteousness ... notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he ...



TN
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2004 :  09:45:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
True North: What leaves me disconcerted and a bit disadvantaged is your previous relationships and issues I don't understand between you and others of this forum.

Steve: Look past any of that and look at the points I am making.
My relationship with anyone on this list has no bearing on the validity of my points.

True North: I have no desire but to grow in grace and truth for he who dwells on what is above, what is below, what is behind and what is ahead, it is better that he had never been born (Gemara).

Steve: I also want to grow in Truth but "the Truth can with stand any questions. There is no question which can destroy the Truth.. if it is Truth" (Steve Webb)

True North: Paul chose martyrdom in full knowledge of what calling upon that dead man Saul would cost him. Acts 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me ... 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles ... 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

Paul knew what would happen when he used the citizenship of Saul of Tarsus, you accuse me falsely of presumption.

Steve: From my reading it looks like Paul is trying to use his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP to get out of a bind. Why would Paul use his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP if he knew it would get him killed? Acts 22:22-25 shows Paul bound up getting ready to be "scouraged". Paul uses his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP to get out of the bind in Jerusalem.. Acts 23 shows Paul making quite a case, even playing the Pharisees against the Sadducees
knowing that the two sects were at odds on doctrine. Sounds like a guy using his best strategy because his life was no the line. It seemed to work for the Scribes who were on the Pharisees' side proclaimed, "we find no evil in this man". A large troop of soldiers come and get Paul away from the Jews. We find Paul again putting up quite a defense in Acts 24 before Felix. Let's not forget Felix hoping to get some $$ from Paul in verse 26 so that he may "loose him". Obviously Paul did not break Torah and pay the bribe for his freedom because he sat in jail for two years. Now in Acts 25 we see Paul confidant that he broke no law of Rome or of the Jews. Even stating that if he did break a law that he would be willing to die.
Paul knew the Jews wanted to kill him so he thought he would fare better with Caesar. Even Festus said to Agrippa that Paul was not in breach of any law. Paul, while already in ROMAN jurisdiction by being
heard by Festus and Agrippa, was "PROBABLY" in doubt that he was going to survive the Jews who wanted to kill him. Did Paul hear the words between Festus and Agrippa that he would have been set at liberty had he accepted to be judged by them instead of Ceaser? We see he did in Acts 28 but then he would have had to deal with the Jerusalem Jews who wanted to kill him.... Anyway, that Paul had been arguing his case pretty hard to save his hide is right there in the text! Skipping past the problems on the seas we find ourselves in Acts 28. Paul's words are telling in Acts 28:18-20. He says that he was constrained against being let go even though there was no crimes found against him.. because of the JEWS! They wanted him dead that was no secret. Acts ends with the Jews leaving Paul alone and Paul renting a house for two years and preaching the Gospel.... Sounds to me Paul got away with his life. Mission accomplished. Paul is no idiot when it comes to saving his hide... per the Bible.

True North: I don't accuse you ...

Steve: Did you not read some of my arguments before making this thread? You clearly addressed some of them in your opening post.
You made the statement that these items were assumptions, therefore accusing me of building my arguments based on "presumptions and circular reasoning". Now here I am to rebut your presumptions concerning my arguments. Sure you did not use my name directly but let's not play word games here. I am very willing to deal with you point to point

True North: For many are called, but few are chosen ... Many will give much but some will give all (Berkano). If you don't feel called to give all then what is that to me?

Steve: Firstly I do not measure "being called" with your ruler. I am giving my all to rebuting your presumptions concerning my points just as I have been giving my all defending them with any comers who want to take a swing at them. I want see how they hold up. So far very, very well.

True North: If Robert-James preaches ... Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues ... what is that to you?

Steve: That is fine. But Robert-James makes wild statements he can not back up when challanged. I have personally seen the damage caused by this faulty reasoning. Can the "Truth" stand up to examination? That has yet to be seen.

True North: The comparison of Daniel serving Jah while keeping mitzvot as a slave in Babylon cannot be used as evidence to prove much ... For John came unto you in the way of righteousness ... notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he ...

Steve: OK. I notice you have not reponded to use of Ezekiel 14:14.
I notice you have not taken the challange to rebut me point by point for you missed or ignored a great deal of what I put forth.

WHen you are ready to back up your presumptions in detail concerning my points I'll be back on Friday to answer them.

Peace,
Steve

Edited by - BatKol on 07 Apr 2004 09:57:11
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2004 :  12:20:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The following may help relieve the ignorance which makes it hard to understand the nature of the new creature, Paul formerly Saul of Tarsus, and a Roman Citizen.

Herod the Edomite, king of Judea from 37 to 4 B.C.E., paid kingdom tax to Rome in an amount estimated at 2000 talents annually. 1300 talents (3.9 million shekels or about 3.3 million of today's gold value in dollars) came from the taxes of Judea (Encyclopedia Judaica on Herod).

... From the Dead Sea scrolls we discover Herod's ... (method of taxation through his) ... plan for the kingdom of God. He contrived to obtain at least six hundred thousand members to form a New Israel, "the kingdom of Heaven on earth". This political project required a massive evangelism lasting over forty years.

Herod the Great had a grand scheme of a vast world wide membership. This involved sending evangelists out all over the world. There were many participants of this system of social security with a new registered Hebrew name, which they received upon paying the prescribed contribution at Herod's ritual baptism. They proved their membership by showing a white stone token when ever entering homes for the weekly gatherings or at synagogues and the Temple during feasts and to apply for benefits. The temple tax collectors now collected an annual contribution that brought great wealth to the government, Herod and his administrators.

"The missionaries. with their leather wallets full of white stones, would come back with the same wallets full of money, in foreign currency. Once put into Jewish currency by the money-changers [porters of the temple], it would be stored in vaults, ready to be used by Herod for his vast building projects, or any subsequent causes."

"Herod's scheme of initiation into a new form of Judaism was immensely successful. Jews everywhere were willing to join the worldwide society whose meetings were held in the evenings in private houses. Entry was for members only; they had to show at the door an admission token in the form of a white stone from the river Jordan which the missionaries gave them at baptism. On the stone was written their new Jewish name."1

This idea of meeting in homes was not new by any means. The people had been divided into groups of ten families since the time of Moses2. These were the congregations of the people who had one minister per ten families. That minister was the minister of the government, the public servant to the people. The received on tenth of the produce of those ten families and he and his whole family served those ten Families.

A family in Israel consisted of the eldest patriarch of a family Group which could include a number of married sons and their children along with unmarried daughters and household servants. The same is true of the ministers whose wife and sons and daughters all participated in the families ministry. That ministry required a great deal of knowledge and skills as they were literally health, education and welfare for their congregation along with small business administration, family councilors, agriculture extension agents and a multitude of other offices working six days a week for the common welfare of their constituency.

These family ministries were not exclusive to their ten family congregation but also assisted the larger congregation of tens and therefore the whole nation through a network of public servants. The elder of each ministering family Group got together with nine other ministers on the same level and chose someone from this class called Levites to be their minister.

Levites had no inheritance in the land.3 They could own no property as a personal estate4 but there was land set aside for the Levites to live upon. They held all land in common. It was of two types which were called both in suburbs or lands common5 and the houses of the Levites which if ever sold could be redeemed at anytime.

These congregations were strong unites tied by blood, marriage and a history of charity. The chose their ministers by consensus. It was this bottom up network of love and charity that made the people strong and when the nation was threatened the came together in local militias divided along the same lines. From Moses to Arminius such nations were invincible when attacked yet remained free from the arbitrary control of a ruling elite.

Jesus preached this same wisdom to the men he trained concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God and commanded that their leaders be chosen according to these same precepts.

And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; Luke 22 25...29

Through out ancient times people gathered whole nations together in family groups of ten called Kindreds, Hearths, Godhords, Garths, Harrows and Hofs. 6 These Kinships or Tithings7 as they were known in the first Millennium were the core of society. These small groups gathered together in larger groups forming a Hundreds or Hundertschaften.8 The leaders of these groups became the tribal counsel. These men were not rulers but leaders. As leaders they were titular and held no power over the families, "it was the family that wielded the most power. While families were the principle enforcers of the law..."9 The leaders could be called on in managing the settling of disputes or coordinating large activities but could not make law or tax the people. The families remained sacred units which were never to be violated but the real glue of these groups of ten was the system of charity that bound them in peace.

This system "of the people, by the people and for the people"10 was ministered by a landless class who were often called priests. The word priest was simply derived from the Greek word presbus, "elder man" akin to the Latin pristinus. meaning, 'Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by the civil state.' They managed the contributions of the individual families to the community as a part of their responsibilities. For centuries before and after Christ the eldest son of a family would manage the family estate for the good of all its members and were called priests of the family.

The purpose of the ministers of this form of government to remain personally landless but holding all property in common was such practices governed the temptation of becoming wealthy and converting funds from the congregational altars of sacrifice. The rank these ministers held in this separate body was determined not by appointment from the top down but by selection from the bottom up.

We see this direction clearly coming from Christ when he first appointed the kingdom to his disciples who were not to own property in their name as an estate as we see in Luke 12:32-33 and Luke 14:33 where Jesus demands that his appointed ministers sell all their property with the use of the word huparchonta which in the Bible is translated 'hath' in these verses but means 'wealth in the form of, property'11

Jesus also clearly directs these appointed or ordained ministers to follow the ancient tradition or 'the perfect law of liberty' where the people choose their ministers from the bottom up not the top down.

We see the same pattern of the ancient text appearing in Acts 1:15 with one hundred and twenty families represented with 12 apostles. The same pattern appears for centuries amongst the Tithings and Hundreds of Europe which even reached into early America.

Even though historically this form of governance from the bottom up has been the historical norm from earliest time there has always been an elite group that has sought to bind the people into civil states and has attempted to dominate mankind. From Nimrod to Darius and Pharaoh and Caesar to the national socialists of today the idea of binding the people together and directing government from a position of power and force has always fought against God's people and His ways. Yet, the predominate form of Government has always been the congregational network from the bottom up.13

The idea of small groups gathering remained an essential part of the first century Church because of its intimate practicality. But if it was not for the entire network of Christians through their system of interconnected ministers and overseers they could not have faired so well during the economic and violent decline of the Roman Empire and its one world order, the Pax Romana.

Today, what now poses or believes itself to be the Church is composed of large, less intimate groups organized under pastors and priests who vary considerably in power, authority and wealth. These less than intimate gatherings also are isolated and disorganized from the whole body called Christians with governments which exercise authority doing much of the work that use to be the exclusive office of the Church and congregation within the whole Christian community.

Men and women have strayed so far from Christ's teachings that they neither know them, recognize them nor apply them to their life. I have seen this system used in the last century during time of persecution and even by the French underground during World War II. In places like China and Indonesia Christian communities are just now beginning to return to aspects of this extended family and national network of cell churches or congregations but the whole message of the gospel must be incorporated into our lives and practices.

If people would repent and began to gather together in home churches to apply and contribute to the needs of one another they would be making a great step in the return to the perfect law of liberty as free souls under God where they might be no longer unequally yoked with unbelievers.

Christ did not preach a religion or a church but a kingdom and in order for such a kingdom to be manifested the people would have to pray to the Father in Heaven calling no man on earth Father. They would have to repent and began to love their neighbors rights as if they were their own.

The kingdom of heaven is a government of faith and allegiance that only works for the virtuous, diligent, loving and charitable people who love God and his ways as much as they love the life He has given them.

Gregory Williams (references removed).

To hold the presumption that Paul used the citizenship status of Saul of Tarsus as a "tool" to 'cooperate' but not 'participate' in the Roman system of government is simply that, a presumption. Paul chose to use the 'dead man' citizenship of Saul as a martyr. You may chose to use the 'dead man' status in the near perfected system which ... that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect and my HaShem have mercy on your soul.

TN
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2004 :  22:15:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
True North said: The following may help relieve the ignorance which makes it hard to understand the nature of the new creature, Paul formerly Saul of Tarsus, and a Roman Citizen... (what followed is a clip from somebody)

Steve: Here is the new creature Paul, an Ambassador of Christ as well as a Citizen of Heaven making a clear political statement when standing in the JURISDICTION of CAESAR'S LEX ROMANA:

Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgement seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well know.

Can Paul get any clearer than this?

True North: To hold the presumption that Paul used the citizenship status of Saul of Tarsus as a "tool" to 'cooperate' but not 'participate' in the Roman system of government is simply that, a presumption.

Steve: This verse below destroys your statment above. Again here is Paul participting in the LEX ROMANA:

Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgement seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well know.


True North: Paul chose to use the 'dead man' citizenship of Saul as a martyr.

Steve: Paul's ROMAN CITIZENSHIP and access to the LEX ROMANA did not lead to martyrdom but rather freedom. You fail to recognize Acts 28:30-31 which show not martyrdom, but rather victory from his oppressors. Paul finally gets the Jews to depart him and Acts ends with this excellent victory:

Acts 28:30-31

"and Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received
all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

Quite a change from the situation previously with 40 Jews who took an oath not to eat until he was dead! Hope those Jews could fast a real, long time!!


True North, please provide the scripture verses that back up your presumption that Paul was a martyr. Thus far you have not.
Aside from evading my other points including but not limited to Daniel 11:45 and Daniel 12:1, you have failed to show where the Bible records Paul being a martyr. I have provided you with plenty of back up scripture to show Paul's benefit of engaging his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP which ultimately resulted in his hide being saved.

In closing I will leave you again with the words of Paul, the Ambassador for Christ:

Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgement seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well know.

Peace to you,
Steve






Edited by - BatKol on 08 Apr 2004 22:26:49
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2004 :  22:42:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would prefer this thread deleted but alas this is out of my jurisdiction. I wouldn't delete it because of content but in light of the info by RJ at http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9 I consider more consideration of these topics moot.

RJ, I echo the sentiments of oneisraelite ... verily Emet & Emet ... thanks for being.

TN
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2004 :  07:32:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings once more:
True North: "Paul chose to use the 'dead man' citizenship of Saul as a martyr."
Though we agree with the majority of what you have posted above we question whether Paul 'chose' martyrdom; or whether it was 'forced' on him for the hainous crimes he had committed against the True Believers?
Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
We perceive that this was no idle threat, and find it odd that Paul continually refers to himself as a 'prisoner' of the the Anointed One [Ephesians 3:1, 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:1, 1:9 to name a few], something we find no other claiming of himself. Also, Paul was "...a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before...kings..." and just perhaps his status [this condition] allowed him to do so. To the Apostles he said: "...ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake..."
And in contrast, we find the Anointed One, not referring to his Apostles as 'prisoners', rather, he said to them: Yahuchanan [John] 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his master doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Just a thought.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 09 Apr 2004 09:45:13
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2004 :  07:43:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings True North,
I find it very telling that you would rather delete this thread instead of providing back up for your original assertions that my questions were based on "circular reasoning and assumptions". So far you have not do so.

You have failed to show the scriptures concerning Paul's being martyred when challanged against my proof from the Bible that Paul was victorious in Rome. You have failed to respond directly to the scriptures which I provided to back up my position concerning Paul's political advantage of ROMAN CITIZENSHIP yet you continued to claim my argument concerning this very point was a presumption. Well I provided you with ample scripture to back up my position but you refuse to show how my assertions are "circular and presumption". I am here to go point by point with you but the record of this exchange shows you are not willing to do this. This does not reflect well on your original claims against my positions in the first opening post.

Also:

Thank you for your kind words of Emet and Emet concerning this thread.
If you look to Hebrew you will find what you are proclaiming is "Truth, Truth" .. This word can be pronounced Emeth, Emet, or even Emes...

Peace to you,
Steven

Edited by - BatKol on 09 Apr 2004 07:47:36
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2004 :  14:47:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings brother Robert and family,

True North: "Paul chose to use the 'dead man' citizenship of Saul as a martyr."

brother Robert: Though we agree with the majority of what you have posted above we question whether Paul 'chose' martyrdom; or whether it was 'forced' on him for the hainous crimes he had committed against the True Believers?
Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Steve: I agree that Paul's problems might be one based on his past actions. Consider that he was a temple cop in league with certain Pharisees and puppet officials. Now, having been converted, he faces
the very people he used to work for. These people would very well consider him a traitor. Let's not forget that 40 Jews put a curse on themselves to not eat until he was dead! That is serious.

brother Robert: We perceive that this was no idle threat, and find it odd that Paul continually refers to himself as a 'prisoner' of the the Anointed One [Ephesians 3:1, 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:1, 1:9 to name a few], something we find no other claiming of himself.

Steve: Yes. Can we imagine the guilt he must have felt? Also, being a Pharisee who believed in resurrection of the dead, it must have been quite an experience to get personal revelation concerning the risen Christ. I can imagine how Paul, one who upheld the Torah, felt when he learned that he was in error and actually breaking one of the top ten words by being a murderer. Ouch squared!

brother Robert: Also, Paul was "...a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before...kings..." and just perhaps his status [this condition] allowed him to do so. To the Apostles he said: "...ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake..."

Steve: Let's not forget that the Jews consistantly played the Christians against Rome. In the COURT cases of both Paul and Yahushua the ROMAN AGENTS knew they were not guilty of any sedition against ROME. I assert the problem was the Jews threatening social unrest. "is it not fitting that one man should die, for the sake of many" was the reasoning. Social unrest was a problem which ROME did not want given the rocky past with the Jewish uprisings.


brother Robert: And in contrast, we find the Anointed One, not referring to his Apostles as 'prisoners', rather, he said to them: Yahuchanan [John] 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his master doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Just a thought.

Steve: Yes. Keep in mind this term prisoner was a label Paul used for himself, not used by Yahushua concerning Paul if I am not mistaken. I can only imagine the guilt Paul must have felt upon the realization that he was a murderer.


Peace to you all on this fine day,
Steve
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2004 :  17:58:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well put Steven.
I don't think Paul was the pattern son, and as to why he said "to follow him {Paul}", well, we are allowed to think about his statements. Wouldn't it be a wonder to have his original letters?
Paul was wracked by guilt, for the things SAUL did. He seems to have burned up all that evil karma {if we don't mind using this term} at the end of his journey...and all's well, that ends well. For the better, he was one of the most influential men, upon history, that ever walked the earth. For the worse, the Catholic Church used his writings for evil, beyond compare!
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2004 :  19:27:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the One True Governor, brother Steven & Family (Hi Sunny!!!)

Peace be unto the house.

We thank you for agreeing, at least in part, to some of our open speculations; a most pleasant and unexpected response. Thank you.

Here is another concept we put up for your perusal; was it merely “guilt” that prompted Paul to state repeatedly that he was the prisoner of the Anointed One or was there something more?
Why was Paul blinded, for what purpose, and what did he have to agree to [purely speculation on our part here] in order to have Ananias restore his "eyesight"?

Steven: “In the COURT cases of both Paul and Yahushua the ROMAN AGENTS knew they were not guilty of any sedition against ROME. I assert the problem was the Jews threatening social unrest. "is it not fitting that one man should die, for the sake of many" was the reasoning.”

Here is some food for thought concerning these issues: Firstly, we ask can a government accuse one of sedition if he is not a part of that government? And secondly, "…is it not fitting that one man should die, for the sake of many" This statement, from what we can gather from historical documents, is due to the fact that they feared that the Roman government would destroy Jerusalem if this "sedition" [In general, sedition is a local or limited insurrection in opposition to civil authority…] movement continued to grow. [Though one be 'civilly dead' to their system/jurisdicition, they nevertheless continue to call it sedition, or doing contrary to the decrees of the caesar, if you prefer.] To believe that the Romans hands were clean is a most unwise assumption, we feel, since impalation on the stauros, again according to history, was reserved for the most part for seditionists, insurrectionists and rebels.
`Away with this one, and release to us Barabbas,' who had been, because of a certain sedition made in the city, and murder, cast into prison. [YLT]

Steven: “I can imagine how Paul, one who upheld the Torah, felt when he learned that he was in error and actually breaking one of the top ten words by being a murderer.”

Robert: Is this not an oxymoron? And Paul himself tells us of his covetousness, does he not? But then, is this not typical of a Pharisee, to say but not do?
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

We must go feed the horses now, so we shall cut this short; there is still much more, regarding Paul, that we must look at with the “mind of messiah”.

And peace to you and yours, brother Steven


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2004 :  22:28:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is clear to me that Paul's two years of liberty to do as any other Roman citizen was a period under 'house arrest'. This is presumption and personal opinion which has some validity rationalized through his beheading at the end of that two years by the very government he had appealed to.

It is also apparent to me that the whole episode of putting himself under the jurisdiction and therefore the judgment of that government could have been avoided and at very least postponed had he heeded the council of ... a certain prophet, named Agabus ... That he used his free will to choose to reject the council of Ruach HaKodesh can be debated and may indeed be not much of a choice given his 'prisoner' status pointed out earlier.

The above is the result of my study and is again my own opinion and not worth any more than that. But that is not the crux of the issues that are being brought forth. It is obvious (as was also pointed out) that certain things, like swords into plowshares etc., remain to be manifest.

The crux, again my opinion, is jurisdiction. He does not change, (Malachi 3:6, as has been pointed out), therefore His Government remains despite any argument to the contrary or any action(s) of His people.

That said, the crux points to me, what is my part or do I have any part? It is obvious that things I do or do not do will not change the timing or maxims set by HaShem but if Ruach HaKodesh is quickening His people to the message that most reject ... Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell [among (betoken - in)] them ... and ... the government shall be upon his shoulder ... then I can do nothing but manifest that government in my own life as HaRa`ah leads by my actions.

I find the measuring stick that some of this forum use ... wanting. HaShem ... hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth ... and that is real-time and potential if you don't harden your heart to jurisdiction.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

TN
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2004 :  03:10:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And it was requested,
"Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them."

Nothing new under the sun.
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2004 :  10:09:33  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Again, I find brother Matthew Henry's commentary most edifying in this matter.
quote:
IV. Paul's appeal to the emperor, and the occasion of it. This gave the cause a new turn. Whether he had before designed it, or whether it was a sudden resolve upon the present provocation, does not appear; but God puts it into his heart to do it, for the bringing about of that which he had said to him, that he must bear witness to Christ at Rome, for there the emperor's court was, Acts 23:11. We have here,
1. The proposal which Festus made to Paul to go and take his trial at Jerusalem, v. 9. Festus was willing to do the Jews a pleasure, inclined to gratify the prosecutors rather than the prisoner, as far as he could go with safety against one that was a citizen of Rome, and therefore asked him whether he would be willing to go up to Jerusalem, and clear himself there, where he had been accused, and where he might have his witnesses ready to vouch for him and confirm what he said. He would not offer to turn him over to the high priest and the Sanhedrim, as the Jews would have had him; but, Wilt thou go thither, and be judged of these things before me? The president, if he had pleased, might have ordered him thither, but he would not do it without his own consent, which, if he could have wheedled him to give it, would have taken off the odium of it. In suffering times, the prudence of the Lord's people is tried as well as their patience; being sent forth therefore as sheep in the midst of wolves, they have need to be wise as serpents.
2. Paul's refusal to consent to it, and his reasons for it. He knew, if he were removed to Jerusalem, notwithstanding the utmost vigilance of the president, the Jews would find some means or other to be the death of him; and therefore desires to be excused, and pleads,
(1.) That, as a citizen of Rome, it was most proper for him to be tried, not only by the president, but in that which was properly his court, which sat at Caesarea: I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged, in the city which is the metropolis of the province. The court being held in Caesar's name, and by his authority and commission, before one that was delegated by him, it might well be said to be his judgment seat, as, with us, all writs run in the name of the sovereign, in whose name all courts are held. Paul's owning that he ought to be judged at Caesar's judgment-seat plainly proves that Christ's ministers are not exempted from the jurisdiction of the civil powers, but ought to be subject to them, as far as they can with a good conscience; and, if they be guilty of a real crime, to submit to their censure; if innocent, yet to submit to their enquiry, and to clear themselves before them.
(2.) That, as a member of the Jewish nation, he had done nothing to make himself obnoxious to them: To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. It very well becomes those that are innocent to plead their innocency, and to insist upon it; it is a debt we owe to our own good name, not only not to bear false witness against ourselves, but to maintain our own integrity against those who bear false witness against us.
(3.) That he was willing to abide by the rules of the law, and to let that take its course, v. 11. If he be guilty of any capital crime that deserves death, he will not offer either to make resistance or to make his escape, will neither flee from justice nor fight with it: “I refuse not to die, but will accept of the punishment of my iniquity.” Not that all who have committed any thing worthy of death are obliged to accuse themselves, and offer themselves to justice; but, when they are accused and brought to justice, they ought to submit, and to say both God and the government are righteous; as it is necessary that some should be made examples. But, if he be innocent, as he protests he is, “If there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, — if the prosecution be malicious and they are resolved to have my blood right or wrong, — no man may deliver me unto them, no, not the governor himself, without palpable injustice; for it is his business as much to protect the innocent as to punish the guilty;” and he claims his protection.
3. His appealing to court. Since he is continually in danger of the Jews, and one attempt made after another to get him into their hands, whose tender mercies were cruel, he flies to the dernier resort — the last refuge of oppressed innocency, and takes sanctuary there, since he cannot have justice done him in any other way: “I appeal unto Caesar. Rather than be delivered to the Jews” (which Festus seems inclined to consent to) “let me be delivered to Nero.” When David had divers times narrowly escaped the rage of Saul, and concluded he was such a restless enemy that he should one day perish by his hands, he came to this resolution, being in a manner compelled to it, [There is nothing better for me than to take shelter in the land of the Philistines, 1 Samuel 27:1. So Paul here. But it is a hard case that a son of Abraham must be forced to appeal to a Philistine, to a Nero, from those who call themselves the seed of Abraham, and shall be safer in Gath or Rome than in Jerusalem. How is the faithful city become a harlot! [*underline& bold mine]


Again, brother Matthew Henry makes some interesting points on civil government and the position we have with it.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2004 :  21:25:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
True North: It is clear to me that Paul's two years of liberty to do as any other Roman citizen was a period under 'house arrest'. This is presumption and personal opinion which has some validity rationalized through his beheading at the end of that two years by the very government he had appealed to.

Steve: Again, I am not finding that beheading in scripture. It seems like a very important item yet I find it nowhere.

True North: It is also apparent to me that the whole episode of putting himself under the jurisdiction and therefore the judgment of that government could have been avoided and at very least postponed had he heeded the council of ... a certain prophet, named Agabus ...

Steve: But if he did not continue he could not have fulfilled the prophecy... also he had a mission to go to ROME per Yahushua.

True North: That he used his free will to choose to reject the council of Ruach HaKodesh can be debated and may indeed be not much of a choice given his 'prisoner' status pointed out earlier.

Steve: I think it would have been impossible for Paul to not do the will of YHWH which was to experience every single thing that happened. Including his final freedom from the Jews that sought to kill him. I don't see a martyr in Paul but rather a victory from
his situation with the Jews who wanted to kill him. Paul also used his sister's influence via a letter to help his cause.

True North: The above is the result of my study and is again my own opinion and not worth any more than that. But that is not the crux of the issues that are being brought forth.

Steve: I believe, personally for me, the crux of the issue with Paul is that his wilfull participation in the LEX ROMANA or his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP is a serious item against the doctrine that being subject to GOVT is serving two masters. Clearly Paul was able to be both a Citizen of Heaven as well a ROMAN CITIZEN subject to the LEX ROMANA.

True North: It is obvious (as was also pointed out) that certain things, like swords into plowshares etc., remain to be manifest.

Steve: Agree 100%.

True North: The crux, again my opinion, is jurisdiction. He does not change, (Malachi 3:6, as has been pointed out), therefore His Government remains despite any argument to the contrary or any action(s) of His people.

Steve: Agree again. YHWH is in total control at all times and the Bible has many general statements that all GOVTS rise and fall by His Will.

True North: That said, the crux points to me, what is my part or do I have any part? It is obvious that things I do or do not do will not change the timing or maxims set by HaShem but if Ruach HaKodesh is quickening His people to the message that most reject ... Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell [among (betoken - in)] them ... and ... the government shall be upon his shoulder ... then I can do nothing but manifest that government in my own life as HaRa`ah leads by my actions.

Steve: I agree that you must do what you are called to do. Not everybody has the same roll to play in YHWH's plan.. My issue is that if serving two masters is being a CITIZEN then Paul did not know it.

True North: I find the measuring stick that some of this forum use ... wanting. HaShem ... hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth ... and that is real-time and potential if you don't harden your heart to jurisdiction.

Steve: I see this freedom coming upon the fulfillment of Daniel 12:1.
The 4th Kingdom beast must be destroyed first.

Peace to you,
Steve
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2004 :  22:16:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The "City of London" unincorporated, {listen up} is the ecclesia for the "City of London" boys. St. Paul's cathedreal is the unincorporated "church" for the 'boys'. The Church of St. Paul...is...unincorporated. As is English FreeMasonry. Unincorporated, means, not subject to man's law's. {So kill the MR ALL CAP NAME}. No where is Truth ever stated that Paul was beheaded by Rome, though John the baptiser definately was. I imagine Paul died quietly in Londinium.
Yahushuah circumcised all those born in the wilderness experience, for they had not been circumcised by their parents, and this was at Gilgal. And this breaking of the circlular reasoning, gave them the strength, to enter into the promised state. Paul preached in London, of the resurrection, which is NOT rercorded in the Catholic cronicles of the KJV. King James was a prisoner of Roman law. He owed his throne to the Pope...via a Treaty from 1213.
American's are Freeborn.
I would that ye would continue in the circular correspondence about Paul and Samuel, but I must digress, in that times continuely change, and he who notes not the change, will be stuck in the past. Everything is in the Now, including the Kingdom of {ie]YaHuWeh. iowa.
Many men around the Anglo-Saxon Lands ae finding Lawful courts, as they demand. The Landmarks were left by our Godly ancestor's, and it is up to Us to find them.
True North, keep pointing to the Pole, BaTKol, pick apart the hebrew words, Robert, stay forth on the English-American understanding of the words. Gideon {Caleb} make common sense to Divine knowlege. Daniel-Jacob, add commom sense and practical works. Manuel. strike forth with righteousness vengance. Loy Bost, where are you?
Before ye enter into the promised land...state...ye must be circumcised, in heart, and deed. Who does the circumcicison? Yahushua, Jeshua, Jesus, Yahushuah, Yeshua? Hebrews 8:8-9-10.
Circular resoning and presumptions are for the un-illuminated.
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2004 :  22:40:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Verily emet & emet (Aleph = Yah, Mem = blood, Ruach Hakodesh, water, tau = the crux, the beginning and the end, the first and the last)

Daniel-Jacob I appreciate the writings of my peers to better put off falsehood and misconception through historical precedent but ... the context of a writing and the perspective of the writer (to whom the writing is for) must be examined "... in light of all knowledge known ..." (Briggs).

Matthew Henry (from your post) "... Paul's owning that he ought to be judged at Caesar's judgment-seat plainly proves that Christ's ministers are not exempted from the jurisdiction of the civil powers, but ought to be subject to them, as far as they can with a good conscience; and, if they be guilty of a real crime, to submit to their censure; if innocent, yet to submit to their enquiry, and to clear themselves before them ...".

" ... Christ's ministers are not exempted from the jurisdiction of the civil powers ..." This statement must be kept in the context of Lawful Authority as defined by Exodus 18:21 and following. I'm sure you would amen this. If you don't agree, please say so, it bears discussion.

Matthew Henry's protestant doctrine derived from his quoted example of "... Paul's owning that he ought to be judged at Caesar's judgment-seat plainly proves Christ's ministers are not exempted from the jurisdiction of the civil powers ... " is wrong and does not bear up to scriptural scrutiny. The whole context of Paul's situation is distorted by Matthew Henry through the protestant doctrine derived from Romans 13:1 and Titus 3:1.

Paul's situation is analyzed thus by me ... He is obeying God preaching the Kingdom and to keep the commandments (Matthew 4:23 & Matthew 28:20) ... This preaching threatens the Jews and incites the religious rulers and powers that be to prosecute him ... Paul appeals to another jurisdiction for relief from the religious right.

This scenario cannot be fitted into today's scenario for Christ's ministers, at least not yet. God is Sovereign and His ministers are exempt from any other jurisdiction. His Law is recognized by the highest court of this land.

Supreme court
"In the United States the people are sovereign ..." Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 (1967)
Hale v Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74 "The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation … He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
Since 1905 the case of Hale v Henkle has been cited by the Supreme Court over 144 times and by the lower federal and state courts over 1600 times.

And numerous lower court decisions ...The People, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King nor the People. The People have been ceded all the Rights of the King, the former Sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the king shall be bound by such and act, though not named; but when a statute is general, and any prerogative right, title or interest would ve divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound ..." The People vs. Herkimer 15 Am Dec 379, 4 Cowen (N.Y. 345,348 (1825)
"People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9, 20.

I could go on except that I am a "... peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth ... " (Deuteronomy 14:2) and " ... a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: ... " (1 Peter 2:9) and legal jurisdictions have no truck with me. I am answerable to Lawful Authority only not civil jurisdictions.

Many concepts in Protestantism began with Luther. About 98% can be traced back to not more than 250 years ago, some as early as 100 years and some are brand new. Add to this the fatalistic Calvinist doctrine of "everything that happens is God's will" and you completely remove yourself from the teachings of Yeshuat Elohim.

TN
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 11 Apr 2004 :  08:22:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Robert-James: Well put Steven.

Steve: Thank you.

Robert-James: I don't think Paul was the pattern son, and as to why he said "to follow him {Paul}", well, we are allowed to think about his statements. Wouldn't it be a wonder to have his original letters?

Steve: I'll go back and see who Paul was talking to on that statement of his. I agree it would be great to see his original letters. If you go to the yahoogroups JesusMysteries you will see a few scholarly guys there who are deeply into finding the answer to that question concerning his original letters. I highly recommend that list.

Robert-James: Paul was wracked by guilt, for the things SAUL did. He seems to have burned up all that evil karma {if we don't mind using this term} at the end of his journey...and all's well, that ends well.

Steve: Yes. Saul probably thought he was doing right by the Torah.
Being a Pharisee who believed in resurrection of the dead he must have taken part in the endless debates concerning this topic. Even the idea that there is a Moshiac ben Yoseph (suffering servant) is from the Pharisees... anyway.. I notice that he was baptised for forgivness of sin after his blinding visitation. Talk about forgiveness! My issue is that Paul, the guy who wrote Romans 13, was a ROMAN CITIZEN who used the LEX ROMANA after his baptism. Yahushua even came to him again inbetween the Jerusalem incident and Rome.

Robert-James: For the better, he was one of the most influential men, upon history, that ever walked the earth. For the worse, the Catholic Church used his writings for evil, beyond compare!

Steve: Agree 1,000,000% The Katti are part of the 4th Kingdom drama, which is not yet complete.

Robert-James: The "City of London" unincorporated, {listen up} is the ecclesia for the "City of London" boys. St. Paul's cathedreal is the unincorporated "church" for the 'boys'. The Church of St. Paul...is...unincorporated. As is English FreeMasonry.

Steve: Funny, I grew up in a town called Seminole in FL that was 'un-incorporated'. I remember my Dad always liking that fact.

Robert-James : Unincorporated, means, not subject to man's law's. {So kill the MR ALL CAP NAME}.

Steve: I'll have to check on the meaning of unincorporated. From my understanding it seems one is subject to the laws of whoever is controlling the land militarily (as appointed by YHWH be it good or evil for His purposes in the moment).

Robert-James: No where is Truth ever stated that Paul was beheaded by Rome, though John the baptiser definately was. I imagine Paul died quietly in Londinium.

Steve: Yes. I do not get the impression at all that Paul was martyred from the reading the Bible. As you say, he was a slickster. I would add that he was very smart and could think on his feet (aside from being able to heal people, he could also be so boring during his speeches that one might fall asleep and then fall out of a window!)

Robert-James: Yahushuah circumcised all those born in the wilderness experience, for they had not been circumcised by their parents, and this was at Gilgal. And this breaking of the circlular reasoning, gave them the strength, to enter into the promised state. Paul preached in London, of the resurrection, which is NOT rercorded in the Catholic cronicles of the KJV. King James was a prisoner of Roman law. He owed his throne to the Pope...via a Treaty from 1213.

Steve: All of what you are bringing forth, to me, is just giving detail and confirmation of the 4th Kingdom.

Robert-James: American's are Freeborn.

Steve: We still must factor in the defeat of America during the Civil War and the Leiber Code (sp?). Both underscoring the 4th Kingdom in this land.

Robert-James: I would that ye would continue in the circular correspondence about Paul and Samuel, but I must digress, in that times continuely change, and he who notes not the change, will be stuck in the past. Everything is in the Now, including the Kingdom of {ie]YaHuWeh. iowa.

Steve: Again, I refer to the 4th Kingdom prophecies as explaination of why we are having to deal with these AGENTS, food CORPS, and many TAXES put upon us at purchase point. It all makes so much sense to me when viewed from this perspective.
Everything I have learned concerning the 'conspiracy' if you will, just underscores the 4th Kingdom prophecies.

Robert-James: Many men around the Anglo-Saxon Lands ae finding Lawful courts, as they demand. The Landmarks were left by our Godly ancestor's, and it is up to Us to find them. True North, keep pointing to the Pole, BaTKol, pick apart the hebrew words, Robert, stay forth on the English-American understanding of the words. Gideon {Caleb} make common sense to Divine knowlege. Daniel-Jacob, add commom sense and practical works. Manuel. strike forth with righteousness vengance. Loy Bost, where are you?

Steve: To quote the infamous Hillary, "It takes a village".. LOL.

Robert-James: Before ye enter into the promised land...state...ye must be circumcised, in heart, and deed. Who does the circumcicison? Yahushua, Jeshua, Jesus, Yahushuah, Yeshua? Hebrews 8:8-9-10. Circular resoning and presumptions are for the un-illuminated.

Steve: I might also add that each being has specific things that need circumcision and that on this level one can be a SLAVE or Free. YHWH does the assignments and some shall include CITIZENSHIP for his purposes.

Edited by - BatKol on 11 Apr 2004 10:15:17
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 11 Apr 2004 :  08:59:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
brother Robert said: Greetings and salutations in the name of the One True Governor, brother Steven & Family (Hi Sunny!!!)

Peace be unto the house.

We thank you for agreeing, at least in part, to some of our open speculations; a most pleasant and unexpected response. Thank you.


Steve: Greetings back to you all. Sunny says greetings and love to you all as well. Please don't get the impression that I am mostly disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. I am sincerely trying to figure all of this out, just as you are. I am still convinced that somewhere in the walks of Daniel, Noah and Job there are paralells that relate to three different paths (Ezek 14:14). I will say right up front that this notion is speculation until I can put forth a strong case for the idea.

brother Robert: Here is another concept we put up for your perusal; was it merely “guilt” that prompted Paul to state repeatedly that he was the prisoner of the Anointed One or was there something more?
Why was Paul blinded, for what purpose, and what did he have to agree to [purely speculation on our part here] in order to have Ananias restore his "eyesight"?

Steve: Not sure if he had to agree to anything but I am willing to examine this item more closely with you. I do note that he was baptised for forgiveness of sin.

Steven from the last post: “In the COURT cases of both Paul and Yahushua the ROMAN AGENTS knew they were not guilty of any sedition against ROME. I assert the problem was the Jews threatening social unrest. "is it not fitting that one man should die, for the sake of many" was the reasoning.”

brother Robert: Here is some food for thought concerning these issues: Firstly, we ask can a government accuse one of sedition if he is not a part of that government?

Steve: The Temple personel at that time was allowed to exist by the occupying ROMAN forces. I suspect that it was easier to keep peace in the ethnic regions by allowing the pre-existing infrastructure to continue (with ultimate polictical power going to ROME of course)

brother Robert: And secondly, "…is it not fitting that one man should die, for the sake of many" This statement, from what we can gather from historical documents, is due to the fact that they feared that the Roman government would destroy Jerusalem if this "sedition" [In general, sedition is a local or limited insurrection in opposition to civil authority…] movement continued to grow. [Though one be 'civilly dead' to their system/jurisdicition, they nevertheless continue to call it sedition, or doing contrary to the decrees of the caesar, if you prefer.] To believe that the Romans hands were clean is a most unwise assumption, we feel, since impalation on the stauros, again according to history, was reserved for the most part for seditionists, insurrectionists and rebels.
`Away with this one, and release to us Barabbas,' who had been, because of a certain sedition made in the city, and murder, cast into prison. [YLT]

Steve: Yes. I am not saying ROME'S hands were clean at all. The Bible shows that the ROMAN JUDGES were being manipulated by the Jews politically when they knew full well that both Paul and Yahushua were not guilty of the charges made against them. These two figures were causing much ruckus concerning the Jews and their doctrine when they entered into debates and disertations. Some of the Pharisees sided with both Paul and Yahushua during these exchanges and became followers. This was not good for the current Temple appointees and I get the impression that ROME did not care if there was a 'religious' change up, just so long as there was no revolts to quell. What really stands out to me is that the ROMAN sub-rulers knew that the charges against both Paul and Yahushua were false and without merit. Also, as a side note, it has been recorded that the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD is because of the murder of James by the pharisees. The story goes that James was very respected amongst most of the Pharisees and the people and that ROME was called in by certain 'pro-James' pharisees who blew the whistle on the bad guy pharisees. See the book "James, the brother of Jesus".

Steven from the last post: “I can imagine how Paul, one who upheld the Torah, felt when he learned that he was in error and actually breaking one of the top ten words by being a murderer.”

Robert: Is this not an oxymoron? And Paul himself tells us of his covetousness, does he not? But then, is this not typical of a Pharisee, to say but not do? The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Steve: I believe that Saul originaly thought he was doing right. After the conversion experience he realized he was in error and even admitted to his errors. What I find interesting is that Paul did not consider being a ROMAN CITIZEN something that needed repenting from. I speculate that Paul was very familiar with the 4th Kingdom prophecies.

Peace to you all,
Steve

Edited by - BatKol on 11 Apr 2004 10:20:48
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 11 Apr 2004 :  09:24:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Daniel-Jacob,
Thanks for that clip on Paul. I have been meaning to get back to your original post of this info and I was glad to see it brought up again in this thread. I agree that there are some good items to be considered in that essay. I link it all into the 4th Kingdom prophecy
which I think Paul knew quite well being a Pharisee as well as a ROMAN CITIZEN.

Bottom line in all of this is that ROME did posses the power to kill those who they deamed worthy of death and even those they did not find worthy of death such as the matter pertains to Yahushua. Paul seems to have gotten past the death sentance. Either way, ROME had the power and the 4th Kingdom ROME of today posses the same power.
As Manuel noted earlier, "Nothing new under the sun".
I really see this 4th Kingdom prophecy and the detail of it's destruction as a key to why this 'ungodly' power is able to flex even today. Paul was able to navigate through the murky LEX ROMANA for his salvation. In my Bible the letter to the Romans comes right after Acts and I get the impression from Romans 13 that Paul very well could be saying those 'nice' things about ROME seeing as he (or rather YHWH) sucessfully saved his life via the LEX ROMANA. A man in that position might say that ROME is not a terror to good works seeing as all he went through..That, of course, is speculation. Just because the letter to the Romans appears after Acts does not mean that it was written after the trial. I find it interesting though that it appears after Acts and that it has the section of Romans 13 to effect the reader after the story of Paul's hardships (even hard-ship-wreck). Again, I see all of this connected to the 4th Kingdom which I see alive and functioning even today.

Also a key item I wanted to comment on concerning your post days ago on Romans 13 was that 'the sword' was sanctioned exclusively through ROME. From my understanding the second temple Jews had no power to kill. That is why they had to petition ROME on these matters (even Saul/Paul must have had a green light via Rome to do his temple cop work in rounding up those troublesome Christians). With that in mind I find it hard to fit "church or ecclesia" bodies into the subject matter of Romans 13. Heck, after all Paul went through
with the Jerusalem Jews and his proclaimation about not wanting to be judged by those Jews, I can't see how he could be speaking about any body other than ROME concerning Romans 13. Just my observation I wanted to get to you concerning your post many days ago.

Peace to you,
Steve


Edited by - BatKol on 11 Apr 2004 12:43:16
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.2 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000