| Author |
 Topic  |
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 21:39:34
|
This statement is incorrect ... Paul was a full-blown ROMAN CITIZEN who accessed the COURTS with his STATUS ...
No I was wrong before, after further study I find ... A Roman Citizen was not bound to the letter of any contract to Caesar or his appointees. That's the point, they had no injured party and no contract that gave them authority over him. A COntract and Oath is what makes one bound to Caesar and gives them just authority over that person.
Acts 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?
26. When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
27. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
28. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
More subjective circular reasoning ... Paul never claimed citizenship to any except the Kingdom. Paul placed himself into Roman jurisdiction by exercising the appeal to Caesar open to any who sojourned in the Republic of Rome.
That is the definition of a Republic ... free from things public ... so an argument of citizenship falls short as a justification of righteousness through man's edicts and tribunals or Law.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. {covenant: or, testament}
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
TN |
 |
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 05:36:48
|
TN said: More subjective circular reasoning ... Paul never claimed citizenship to any except the Kingdom. Paul placed himself into Roman jurisdiction by exercising the appeal to Caesar open to any who sojourned in the Republic of Rome.
Steve: Wrong. An appeal to Ceasar was not open to just anybody. The only people who had this privlidge were Roman Citizens. Slaves did not have this privilidge. The subjected Jews did not have this privlidge unless they were Roman Citizens.
TN: (an) appeal to Caesar (was) open to any who sojourned in the Republic of Rome
Steve: Any? Please provide historical proof for this statement. You've got more study to do on this topic.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 30 Apr 2004 05:39:57 |
|
|
|
Surveyor
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 08:45:03
|
Paul did not go into the jurisdiction of the Romans but was taken into custody by Roman soldiers and brought before the governor because he was found to be in the middle of a disturbance. He had also been in bonds two years when the appeal to Caesar was made which appeal I believe has been taken out of context. His appeal to Caesar was only a statement to the effect that since he was arrested and taken into Roman jurisdiction then this is where the issue should be settled and any judgments against him should be made.
Acts 25:9: But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
10: Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
No where do I see that Paul petitioned the Romans for any benefits which is the main way that men submit and put themselves under the jurisdiction of man made governments.
Joseph was sold into slavery, Daniel was taken into slavery, but Americans submit and sell themselves into slavery.
Christ preached a kingdom and Paul was a citizen of that kingdom but that kingdom does not operate like the kingdoms built by hands of men.
Lk:22:25: And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26: 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.
27: 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.
28: Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29: And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30: That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
When we let go of the tables of Rome and learn to come together and serve the table of the Lord only then will His kingdom be revealed.
Clarence
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 13:18:20
|
Well said, brother Clarence. Deep bow from oneisraelite to another.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 17:32:50
|
Rome started as a Republic, and degenerated into Caesar worship.
The united States started as a Republic. And we can see the trail of the serpent, throught the last 250 years. The United States is now declared to be a Democracy. Civil law most everywhere. That, or U.C.C. Civil law is Roman law. U.C.C. is the merchants law, Cainanite law.
But, Courts of Competent Jurisdiction, i.e. capable of reasoning scripture and the common law, may still be available today. Open only to those with proper Standing at Law. Which means all wards of the STATE using socialist security numbers, and involved in usury, are dead in law, and are dealt with accordingly.
It would not be a government benefit to become the Demandant, if brought into a COURT in chains, and speak for a Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
Paul was very well learned in Law. His writings have become very obscure, no fault of his own.
We are told by the Master to strive to enter into the Kingdom. I think the word strive means, as if in agony. And it has been just that for many the last two generations.
But hey, it ain't over till we win, for we will give the glory to our King.
David could not bring the ark into Yerusalem, for he put it on a cart, ox cart. Which is against Divine Law. It needs to be on the priest's shoulder.
And the government shall be upon his shoulder.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 18:39:04
|
Clarence said: Paul did not go into the jurisdiction of the Romans but was taken into custody by Roman soldiers and brought before the governor because he was found to be in the middle of a disturbance. He had also been in bonds two years when the appeal to Caesar was made which appeal I believe has been taken out of context. His appeal to Caesar was only a statement to the effect that since he was arrested and taken into Roman jurisdiction then this is where the issue should be settled and any judgments against him should be made...
Steve: Clarence, The very fact that Paul was able to get an audience in the ROMAN COURTS is because he was a Roman Citizen. Check out Paul's treatment when the COPS found out about his STATUS:
Acts 22:25 - As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurian standing there, "is it LEGAL for you to flog a Roman Citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?" 26 When the centurian heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" He asked. This man is a Roman Citizen. 27 The commander went to Paul and asked, "tell me, are you a Roman Citizen?" "Yes, I am," he answered
29 Then the commander said, "I had to PAY A BIG PRICE FOR MY CITIZENSHIP." "But I was born a Citizen," Paul replied. 29 Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman Citizen, in chains.
Clarence, this treatment was avaliable ONLY to those who had the special privilidge of Roman Citizenship. Historical proof for this STATUS is easily availabe and lines up perfectly with scripture. The Centurian purchased his Citizenship, Paul was born into it via Patria Potestas. From William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.
"Patria Potestas then signifies the power which a Roman father had over the persons of his children, grandchildren, and other descendants (filiifamilias, filiaefamilias), and generally all the rights which he had by virtue of his paternity. The foundation of the Patria Potestas was a Roman marriage, and the birth of a child gave it full effect." Special privlidges were enjoyed by Paul that were not available to non-Citizens.
Clarence said: Acts 25:9: But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
10: Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
No where do I see that Paul petitioned the Romans for any benefits which is the main way that men submit and put themselves under the jurisdiction of man made governments.
Steve: If you would have included verse 11 you would clearly see where Paul petitioned: The last sentance in verse 11 has Paul proclaiming
"I appeal to Ceaser". Do a bit of research and you will see that this privlidge is available ONLY to Roman CITIZENS.
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 20:51:29
|
Paul believed that The YHWH raised a man, YaHuSHuaH from the litteral dead. Paul believed that by the offering of that spilt blood, We, Israel, as a whole, have gotten our redemption for our Law breaking. Set free. Redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.
BatKol, believe ye this?
Did The YHWH raise a dead man, literally, from the dead state of being?
Is YaHuSHuaH the Firstborn among the dead?
Or, are you awaiting the Prophet?
Hello? A visitation is in effect.
Amazing Grace...how sweet the sound!
I once was lost, but now, am found.
Twas blind, but now I see.
Oh, Amazing Grace.
We are saved through Grace, a gift, from a Loving Father. Not of works, least we should boast.
Though, works, shall follow the Grace.
This forum is for those who believe that the shed Blood of the sacrificial Lamb, is sufficient...to appease Our Father.
All other's, need not apply here. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2004 : 14:06:15
|
Robert-James,
You suffer from the delusion that you are the owner of this site and can dictate terms of membership. If you have not noticed yet, not everybody believes exactly the same here. You yourself just claimed the other day how you enjoy to read my posts and now today you proclaim that if one does not fit your mold of belief then they need not apply. Which is it or shall I wait until your mood changes?
What makes this forum among the best I have seen is the fact that there are different views and the admins allow for a wide variety of discussion.
As always, thanks for sharing your opinions. You can be assured that I will have mine. Ain't life grand? |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 06:02:11
|
Very coherent. I have been examining this for some time.
Has anyone read The Nazarene Gospel Restored by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro? Also there are two articles by Eli Marcus Ravage (1928) in Century Magazine; 1) Commissary to the Gentiles - The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda 2) A Real Case Against the Jews - One of Them Points Out the Full Depth of Their Guilt.
Anyway, I understood (at least in my own mind) Christianity and history much better after shifting my perspective about Paul's motivation [He lied to James about stopping in Cyprus. That is where he purchased his citizenship with alms meant for the Ebionite missionaries' widows. Ref. Mnason was a Cypriot Jew]. He was building, while in captivity writing epistles, the only possible effective weapon against Rome. Article 1) above cites The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire quite heavily. The passive resistance of Romans 13 was completely befuddling to the Roman Caesar mental frame. Constantine had a dream and nailed Rome's coffin shut by converting.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 08:16:48
|
Greetings David,
Thanks for the info. Are you familiar with Hyamm Macobby's book "Mythmaker, Paul and the invention of Christianity"? It mentions some of the points you bring up as well as some interesting speculation that Paul, aside from being
a frustrated convert, was actually related through Drusilla to the Herodians. This man Macobby, who is Professor Emeritus of Hebrew Studies at Oxford, is a Talmudic scholar and brings up some very interesting items such as a highlight on the conflicts between the James led Jerusalem Temple and Paul, as well as an examination of Paul's claim to be a top student of Gamaliel.. Also the tome by Robert Eisenmann, entitled "James, brother of Jesus" has some interesting points about Paul's political connections as well. He has an interesting essay entitled "Paul as Herodian" which can be found on the web.
Thanks again for your info. I will check it out and plug it into the equation.
Steve |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 10:45:49
|
You are quite welcome. After The Nazarene Gospel Restored, I think Shaul was likely a Herodian "wannabee". Shaul wanted to marry into the Herodians and with intelligence the still living Yehoshuah was in the Damascene settlement, seven or so years after the Crucifixion, Shaul as a bounty hunter struck up a deal. Paul's pagan folk up in Cilicia, prone to rebirth fantasies, were speculating that the survival was supernatural. So the Herodians were probably ready to pay a price to recapture Yehoshuah and get the job done right. However Peter, still around Jerusalem, caught wind in time to go to Damascus and Peter and Yehoshuah met up with Shaul "On the Road to Damascus". So the marriage deal would have fallen through.
But this unpopular and unflattering portrait of Paul would support a lot of boasting. If allowed to attend a few lectures Paul may have later written from Rome that he was a favorite pupil of Gamaliel, but that is the current portrait I have of Paul. It is awesome to me that God would use frailties of the human nature so powerfully; to create Christianity and its role in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant.
I will read Paul as Herodian*. Thanks. The mosaic becomes clearer with good historical accounts.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I found quite a few papers - "Paul as Herodian" among them -
http://www.textweek.com/pauline/paul.htm. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 May 2004 11:44:09 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 13:13:41
|
Reading many esoteric writings in the past has made it clear that etymology of words and the consequent ideologies that form from the same writings requires primary sources to keep clear perspective.
Although the following may be considered a secondary source collection, (Deutsche being the language majority for the primary sources), 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament' by Kittel and Friedrich is a primary source for biblical exegesis. While hindered by ignorance of koine' Greek (to the extent that ignorance is not fully cured) the Hebrew is accessable to me and the content of the following is precise on the ideology behind the Greek word polites (citizen), politeia (citizenship) and politeuoma (freedom) as concerns a polites of the Kingdom.
" In the NT as in the OT ... there is no trace at all of the aura which attended polites and the whole group for the Greeks ... This is connected with the fact that polites never neabs 'state.' In no passage in the NT can this translation even be considered ... The use of polites in the NT is completely non-political. Polites simply means an 'enclosed place of human habitation' as distinct from uninhabited areas, pastures, villages and single houses. Sometimes it can also mean the 'population' of the city ... "
"... The original meaning of the word, polites, is close to that of town, the oldest term for a fortified settlement or a larger settlement in general ..."
The verb politeuomai (lived) occurs only in Acts 23:1 and Phil.1:27 ... Neither ... (place) ... does the word contain any reference to life in society as such. In both cases it is used with no political implications of the 'walk,' of a walk which is shaped by religion."
"Politeia, (citizenship) too, occurs only twice in the NT. Characteristically it is not used in an abstract sense of the state or constitution, for the NT has no interest in theories, but only in the concrete sense of "civil rights," whether meant literally or figuratively. It is used for Roman citizenship in Acts 22:28.Paul appeals to the fact that he is ... (a Roman citizen) ... in order to avoid the threatened examination by scourging. His statement is the more impressive because he did not buy citizenship like the tribune of the Antonia guard but inherited it from his father. Politeia is also used in Eph.2:12, which says of the readers that during their pagan period they had been ... alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers of the covenants of promise not having hope and godless in the world ... Here the expression ... commonwealth of Israel ... does not refer to the state of Israel, which had not existed for a long rime and membership of which the Greeks of Asia can hardly have thought worth seeking. Nor can it refer to citizenship in the literal sense, since Christian status would be no true counterpart to this. It is rather used in the figurative sense of the privileged religious position of Israel as the recipient of the promise. Once excluded from the promise, the readers also now have access to the Father through Christ. They are now no longer strangers and foreigners but ... (partakers of the assembly)... They share the spiritual citizenship which belongs to the ... believers of Israel. They have access to God. They have become members of God's household and partake of salvation 2:19." 'Theological Dictionary of the New Testament' Vol IV, 1968 pgs 516-535
A member of a Republic is not bound to the letter of any contract to Caesar or his appointees. There is no injured party and no contract that gives Caesar authority over that member. A co-ntract and oath is what makes one bound to Caesar and gives Caesar just authority over that person.
David Merrill, concerning the Christian interpretation of Romans 13 (and other scriptures 1 Peter 2:13, Hebrews 13:17, Titus 3:1) to obey all authority as opposed to ecclesiastical authority is ignorance of the Kingdom. To interpret it such, would preclude worship of the beast by the saints of Revelation 13:1-7. This would be anathema to verse 8. Gnostic interpretation of Paul " ... As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction ..." Paul must be read from the perspective of teaching ignorant, god worshipping, (as in pater patriens) Goy, the things which Israel had been learning of for 4000 years. To say; "... That is where he purchased his citizenship with alms meant for the Ebionite missionaries' widows. Ref. Mnason was a Cypriot Jew ..." is to contradict the words in Acts 22:28. This sort of contradiction is not supported by the rest of Paul's writings as we have them. I find, rather, that the problem people have with Paul's writings are from ignorance of the culture of Paul's day, his mission to the Goy and ignorance of the ways of His Kingdom. (I am not a believer in the inerrant, infallible words of any book by the way)
"The NT manifests no ideal of a politeia such as that projected by the Greek philosophy and Stoicism ... It is more interested in the state as a concrete phenomenon; one need only refer to Rev. 13:1-7 and similar passages in proof of this. Since polites is not used for state, however, this aspect need not be discussed here." (ibid.)
Stephen, I will "... avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain..." If you will not accept the HaMashiach Y'srael that has come, then your only hope for salvation from the beast is through Law. But you will not enter the Kingdom by keeping the Law "... For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven ..." The scribes and Pharisees were good at keeping the Law, all 613 mitzvot, good luck you are going to need it.
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 18:20:44
|
Closer examination shows that Paul was only eligible for Roman citizenship; not entitled. Also he claims more the municipal doctrine - Tarsus, not Cilicia. This would explain the inquiry by the Roman guard.
But since Paul was the only accountant, James could not make the accusation form properly that he left for Israel with more money than he arrived with. However Paul says he steered left of Cyprus but arrived with Mnason, a Cypriot Jew. Then we see the well-formed accusation about teaching grace has replaced law. Paul obviously lies his way out of a conviction; even shaving his head! So the embezzelement charge probably remained a suspicion.
The dynamics of Paul's citizenship and predicament are probably simplified by saying that Paul obviously disobeyed the utterances of the Holy Spirit. Acts 20:22. The KJV is early masonic encryption, utilizing upper and lower case "Spirit" and "spirit" to make it clear which is Paul and which is God. This is easy to acquire in context of a plain reading.
Paul certainly was familiar with the ways of the pagans, being raised in southern Turkey/Asia Minor. So the syncrotism makes perfect sense.
Your reply is well articulated. I like that. And your understanding of the truth is that you admonish Stephen for not accepting Yehoshuah H'Natzrith for the Messiah in Isaiah 53 (and throughout the Bible) but neglect to chastise me for not accepting that the Messiah must be deified and that there must be supernatural occurances that plainly align to pagan mythologies moreso than to Israeli or Old Covenant paradigms.
Prior knowledge psychometrics has designed a macroeconomic timeline that fits to the day Biblical predictions. So therefore, the beauty and purpose of Paul's "mission" (as I do not think Paul himself intended what happened to his epistles) has in my estimation fulfilled its purpose. I see several very faithful suitors having faith in the Resurrection foil revelation of the key with which to unlock the mystery of the kingdom of heaven (Mark 4:10-12). Yehoshuah, sometimes called a Nazarene (NATZAR being more likely a king-title BRANCH as in King David) was an Ebionite. These are the working class pharisees but that does not lock him into or out of the popular (Saducee) belief that the kingdom was to be strictly corporeal; of this world. When I read the gospels, I believe that is more what Yehoshuah himself spoke in favor of, "..on earth as it is in heaven.."
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 20:03:36
|
True North said: Stephen, I will "... avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain..." If you will not accept the HaMashiach Y'srael that has come, then your only hope for salvation from the beast is through Law.
Steve: I disagree here. What will bring on Salvation from the Beast/4th Kingdom is the fulfillment of prophecies concerning it's destruction, the ingathering of the exiles (reunited house of Yahudah and Yisrael) and the reinstitution of the Throne of David. Once YHWH establishes the Israelite World Order there will be no debating and "what if's" concerning Kingdom behaviour via Torah. Everybody from the least to the greatest will know YHWH. So my "righteousness" concerning the Torah is not my salvation. YHWH is my Salvation, not Torah. Only by His Grace will it be decided if I live long enough to see the fulfillment of these long awaited prophecies. And since I do not believe that Yahushua is YHWH in the flesh, I seek to understand the man on different terms then perhaps many on this list. Jesus depaganised is Yahushua.
As for Paul, well with all of the details brought forth in these recent posts, it might be worthwhile to look into the claims of against him made by the Ebionites as well as the possibility that he purchased his STATUS against the claim that he received it by birth.
One thing I think we might agree upon at this point is that this STATUS afforded Paul not only the appeal to Ceaser but also escape from the 40 Jews who took an oath not to eat until his death (not to mention bypassing an on the spot beating from the COPS).
I am enjoying this discussion on Paul as well as Moshiach. Thanks for having it.
Peace,
Steve
P.S. - When I consider the Messianic implications of Isaiah 53 I see more of a Yoseph archetype than a Davidic one. If I understood your point in a recent post correctly David, Yahushua surviving and not dying on the Cross (i.e., minus the pagan additives)calls up images of Yoseph surviving the pit. As you already know, the Talmud, Targums and even the Zohar show that idea of a Moshiach ben Yoseph
was believed by the Pharisees. As you also know there were more than just one ideological sect of Pharisees and all Pharisees should not be painted with the same brush as is often the case. Much to the frustration of modern day Pharisees, the Lubavitchers even believe
the Talmud speaks of a 'second coming' of Moshiach and now await the return of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 02 May 2004 20:22:53 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 20:25:44
|
Ya think; a man who has suffered a CIVIL death, can resurrect to a brand new life? Ya think? Civil law is Roman law.
Ya think that scripture is layered, to keep the cowan's out?
Ya ever wonder why in the king's chamber of the pyramid of Giza, the coffin is empty. And always was.
Ever wonder why Yoseph demanded his bones be not buried in Egypt? {In their haste to leave Egypt, someone was carrying a pile of dry bones}
As to messiah Yahushuah being deified, every son of ha Adam is a son of Elohim. Albeit, the resurrected Adam, the second Adam, is the Plan.
Think Enoch can come and go as needed? Eliyah, for that matter.
Could an angel be a man with a message? Or, a message itself?
Think Yoseph of Arimathea, [one of the 72 sanhedrin], firmly planted the resurrection story in West-Minister?
Think Rome was more concerned with fighting Scottish men/women, who would not bend the knee to Roman authority in 50 a.d. rather than peaceful nazarine's in Yerusalem?
Ya wonder why Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin, backed off their version of the Great Seal, and submitted to Charles Thompson's design?
Ever wonder why an obelisk is placed on a fallen Israelite's resting place? {Washington's monument is a obelisk}.
Ever wonder why Vanderbuilt purchased and placed two ancient monuments from the City of On, in two places, America and England. {Ephraham and Manessah, as boy's, the original son's, played under the shadow of these obelisks}.
Ever wonder why symbol's can always be seen to represent two different meanings?
Ever wonder why a sign/symbol is more powerful, sub-consciously, than written word's?
Ever wonder who has qualified ownership of the temple mount area? {David, the king of Israel, purchased it, as recorded in scripture}
Ever wonder why the savants of Britian, allowed the U.N. to GIVE Palestine to the Khazar's/Edomite's?
Ever think a big test is coming?
Ya think, we, as a people, need the latter rain, to make ready the harvest?
Ya think the Knight's Templar's have not forgotten king Phillip's and the Pope's play/slaughter on J.D.M?
Do ya think, you'd ever like to get off the circular reasoning?
I do.
Ya think we are to pray/work for the Kingdom to advance on earth, just as it is in the heaven's?
Ya think Revelation's is so coded, that almost no-one has seen; sea-earth-heaven, as three level's of being-Understaiding?
Ya think the ALL CAPFISH, live in the sea, with Leviathon?
Ya think, when ya Stand on dry land, your home free? {your really building your kingdom on sand}
Ya think a storm is coming, to try your works?
I know, I am like y'all, it hurts to think.
But the test is coming, otherwise called, The Visitation.
p.s. to David, ya think the Arab's lied to the Knight's about the resurrection? Good Muslim's still trip over the stumblingstone. They just can't "conceive" to the fact that Allah...Elyon, could have Children, for that would make Him to have a consort. Yes He did, and does, Wisdom. 'She' was with Him, before the foundations of the world.
The Life is in the Blood, as is the DNA.
|
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2004 : 21:19:05
|
David Merrill, your comment "... that there must be supernatural occurances that plainly align to pagan mythologies moreso than to Israeli or Old Covenant paradigms ..." is not new to me. One only has to read the 1916 edition of Alxander Hislop's "The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife" to find parellels of myths of resurection, Revelation depictions of a woman with a golden cup, the holy mother, the father of gods, Olenos the sin bearer, Ouranos and stones, the virgin mother, Venus and Astarte, Rhea the gazer, the woman bringing sin into the world, etc. etcetera. One must be ignorant of the writings of the late Joseph Campbell to think that any of these myths are peculiar to the "new" testament, Christianity or Judaism.
But I would ask of you, "Can you trace these myths?" You say that the myths align to paganism more than Hebrew paradigms and to that I would answer, "Subjective, merely subjective and not conclusive when contemplating the nature of man as revealed in Hebrew writings."
As for the deity of any "new" testament figure, I quote," ... I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes ..." and " ... Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ..." but I would ask you to " ... Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together ..."
None of my writings are intended to be a challenge or a throwing of a gauntlet, to you, or anyone else. I am only interested in emunah (nun, mem, alef) and as you say, paraphrazed, As above, so below.
Your encouragement gladdens me (and I use spell check Eh?) but your writings are almost out of my reach. Were it not for my exploration into barahim or berit (if you will excuse my abuse of Hebrew) I would understand little of what you write.
Your use of Mark 4:10-12 intrigues me, care to expound? In light of your other writings I can see no reason why "... having faith in the Resurrection (would) foil revelation of the key with which to unlock the mystery of the kingdom of heaven ..." unless it be from waiting for some imagined utopia as a want for self responsibility. Please flesh this out further and relieve the ignorance of one who only seeks truth not position.
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2004 : 09:58:00
|
Batkol;
I have recently been making the same point (group emails to suitors) above. That as much as the dual Messiah concept is given through divine grace, John was essentially reciting the common Jewish belief in Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. A good treatise on this is The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai. Recently I quoted his chapter Messiah ben Joseph. Christianity, in its mainstream agrees almost absolutely with mainstream Judaism! Isn't that a laugh?
Robert James;
You bombard with wonderful points. The civil law is not Roman law to me, a court of competent jurisdiction. I wrote Exodus 20 - 24:7 in paleo Hebrew (Sumarian Ostraca 1000-800 BC) then translated it word by word back into English. Using different colored pens and highlighters it turned out rather pretty so I wish I could just attach a .JPG image to show you. But when I hear an issue in the context of the Roman law around me, I know immediately if it is the law I know or not. 'Saving to suitors' clause cases are civil suits in admiralty. That is the only way to get above the high tide mark - to the law of the land. That is just the way it has been structured.
Recently, a Denver district court clerk said he would not file the "Counterclaim" so I instructed to strikethrough the word and write "Libel of Review" above. The clerk also said they would not handle admiralty cases - too far inland. But by clearly marking the case in admiralty, it got filed without any more squalking.
You list so many questions in your response. I tried to get the gist but only one seems to stand in common thread, "Ever wonder why symbol's can always be seen to represent two different meanings?" And so I propose that 'words of art' may be dispelled by ceasing to externalize. You seem to know your own true name. But the hyphen; your parents did not throw that in. Lose the hyphen and you will acquire a wonderful calibration standard.
Those issues that dampen truth are falsity. If they resonate, they are more truth.
True North;
Mostly by observation. That is where I get the impression that faithful men and women have tossed Rules of Evidence (Hebrews 11:1). That Jesus survived the cross is obvious (at least to me) from Jesus' own testimony.
Lu 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Lu 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Lu 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
But I would ask of you, "Can you trace these myths?"
Unless you are saying the paganism of Asia Minor was invented to accomodate the Resurrection, I see no logic in tracing the myths. The myths of virgin birth and rebirth were in place for quite some time prior to the life of Yehoshuah. That is my presumption.
The law of the flag is an admiralty concept. But in these counterclaims the law of the flag is Genesis 1:26,27 and Exodus 13:16.
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ex 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.
I have conversations with these suitors. There is a transformation after sealing default judgment, a true judgment in law. Maybe since I write in both places you should check for other recent postings like 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 too. That will give a better picture of where I am at. It is a functional place where one retains the ability to worship God as the conscience dictates.
But I have conversations with suitors who are my friends. Medical doctors and psychiatrists see the utility of nipping fresh suits in the bud. I do research into advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics - like my advice to drop the hyphen from the true name above. Let's say a doctor does not wish to be bound by a license. Just the same, he must find a replacement for the pharmaceutical benefits. So harmonic and disruptive pulsers do the same thing much more effectively. The Dutch have come up with a spermicide that the woman dials up after sex. It is information on the 2.4 GHz carrier that disrupts membranes specific to the spermatazoa. Doctors and engineers come visit to see my lab and we brainstorm about healing disease.
The mystery of the kingdom of heaven is encrypted. Jesus obviously survived the cross and also, Mary Magdelene, Jesus' wife mothered at least one surviving son in Gaul. A man of faith holds to illusion. This has kept us (Templars, Priory of Sion etc.) safe. [The Royals or Templars etc. have an event in history where the Treasure was carried over a cliff by four Templars on ropes. This excludes gold. The Bloodline is far more likely the Treasures of Jerusalem retrieved by the Templars and subsequently hidden in France.] The bill of exchange for all the money (cured September 11, 2001) was already on the computer screen the other day at about 8:20 AM. I suppose that somebody on the Eastern Seaboard was waiting for Mountain Time to open for business. But who called it up is irrelevant. You should call it up. Cecilia will mail a certified copy to you for a few bucks. (719) 520-6200; ask for Reception Numbers 201099293 7/16/2001 (the bill demands release of claim on August 13, 2001 - exactly thirty days to cure) and 201101604 7/19/2001 (Affidavit of Mailing by a professional process server). Please be informed before you make any acute responses or judgments.
Men of faith, men who have tossed out Rules of Judgment, miss the key. A key is required to decrypt and the mystery of the kingdom is obviously encrypted in parabola (1st Derivative of truth; parable). Faith is fine. I would never underestimate God's grace. Paul was right on as far as I am concerned but no, I do not buy that Paul was entitled to Roman citizenship by birth. He would have used that wild card long before he did. He got beaten up a lot prior to calling on his (brand new) citizenship. Since he lied about law (shaving his head) to appease his accusers in Jerusalem I would not put it past him to lie about spending a big sum on a citizenship card, being eligible.
But I obviously prescribe that the time of using the Faithful's naivite and chosen ignorance (no Rules of Evidence) is over. Even the true Rosicrucian movement recognizes that September 11, 2001 was a demarkation point where the esoteric became exoteric. The mysteries are to be revealed openly now.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2004 : 13:34:07
|
Greetings David,
Thanks for your insights!
David:
A good treatise on this is The Messiah Texts by Raphael Patai. Recently I quoted his chapter Messiah ben Joseph. Christianity, in its mainstream agrees almost absolutely with mainstream Judaism! Isn't that a laugh?
Steve: This is the second time I have been referred to "The Messiah Texts" so it looks like I am going to get it. Yes, this is a laugh. I just recently came to the same conclusion concerning the agreement between Judaism and Christianity. One of Yoseph's blessings was to be the Melo HaGoyim and I have been trying to factor Moshiach ben Yoseph with this in mind. Much of Paul's 'gospel of the uncircumcision' brings up the point that Torah does not apply to the uncircumsized
simply because they are not obligated to Torah. This is so very Jewish and even the Noachide-lite laws given in Acts by Yacob for Paul to pass on to the new Christians reflects this Jewish mindset. The more I talked to Hassidic Jews, the more I realized that perhaps there is no conflict between Judaism and Christianity once the pagan additives are removed. I am in agreement with you concerning the pre-existing pagan concepts concerning the resurrection, virgin birth, etc. To me, when I read certain pagan features in the NT I look back to the original understanding that these were models or Midrash not necessarily literal happenings. Perhaps the literalism came about to attract a more pagan audience?
Concerning Paul, you bring up a very good point that Hyam Macobby notes as well. Why did not Paul exercise his Roman Citizenship privileges earlier to escape beatings? He was left for dead outside the city gates after a stoning before his run-in with the 40 Jews who took an oath not to eat before his death. It seems odd that Paul would not have flashed this status before the stoning.
Peace,
Steve |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2004 : 16:38:12
|
Yes, you see it Steve.
Now consider the injury, not just the Christian Pogroms but the effect. The Jews, in the almost involuntary revulsion that Yehoshuah could be Messiah ben Yoseph have a skewed paradigm about the proper timeline. The same misperception on the charasmatic Christian side (Futurism) is equally skewed. The "laugh" is that the doctrines are the same. Dual Messiah and the return thereof.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Anyone calling up that bill of exchange. Keep in mind that I am direct descendant from the original Patroon of Manhattan Island [Teunis Jansen Laenen - true name. I leave the family name off because there are so many listed in the phone book.]. Teunis brought seventy settlers over on the good ship Redtree (Rosenbaum - see the reference to Edom?). Our stone manor stood until the 1950s and was surrounded by a large stone wall - namesake of Wall Street. The original on the Affidavit of Mailing you will see was to Chairman Richard Grasso; 11 Wall Street, the NYSE. Certified copies went out to Kofi Annan etc.
P.P.S. It almost seems the observations I make have stultified "Circular Reasoning and Presumption"??
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 08 May 2004 12:27:01 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 13:05:32
|
Greetings David,
What I see that you have brought to the table is more detail concerning Paul's making full and effective use his legal status, be it purchased on the road with donations collected for the Ebionites or acquired from birth via his Citizen parents. Yahushua did not get the special treatment Paul got when dealing with Rome (even when Pilate declared Yahushua innocent and recognized the Jew's charges as false). Either way YHWH's will was done and, in my opinion, it's never a sin to use your brain. Such is my view of Paul's exercising his privileged status within the Roman LEGAL system. That Paul used this status to his advantage is certainly not circular reasoning or assumption.
As for Yahushua surviving the stake, I find it key that his wealthy, politically connected Uncle Yoseph was able to have him taken to his own tomb. That's a topic worthy of it's own thread.
Peace,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
Edited by - BatKol on 08 May 2004 13:12:53 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Circular Reasoning and Presumption
