| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 10:22:53
|
OneIsraelite said;quote:
Those who have been given eyes to see will eventually see why the death on the cross, the virgin birth, re-birth, the resurrection, the ascension to the True Authority, and etc
My opinion, after investigating the character of Paul, which I have expounded upon elsewhere on this forum, is that God shows me that I need not be strong to be used. Paul was a coward and a thief, stealing from alms he collected and intended for widows in order to buy an expensive 'get out of jail' card. His Roman citizenship.
So God reportedly tells Paul, "I will use you in Rome." and did so.
So I revise your point of view to express mine:quote:
Those who have been given eyes to see will eventually see why the death on the cross, the virgin birth, re-birth, the resurrection, the ascension to the True Authority, and etc were generated symbols to carry the Word of God around the world and bring the Abrahamic Covenant through the Messiah of God to the gentile nations too - Romans 11.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 30 Dec 2004 10:23:56 |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 10:40:22
|
That is correct also, in my humble opinion, for I believe it is written that if there was no religion, man would invent one. In light of that, what better way to get the Remedy into the hands of the masses. Wonder why they murdered people who were trying to translate that Book?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 30 Dec 2004 10:44:06 |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 13:03:21
|
Davids post
"And assure you that nobody but Christians* believe that is a proper enacting clause - to say "We are above the law". Or even, "The laws that apply to you do not apply to me."
As one isrealite pointed out the clause posted on Heritage Canada's website was that the head law being the supreme law of the corporation of Canada says it does not apply to individuals(persons) businesses or organisations leaves us with no one visable in those terms that their law applies to except the government of Canada which is a legal fiction.
Now to focus on the subject matter of this post which others seem to be digressing from, others of experience in this forum, which leaves me to assume it is not in error but intentional, I will again state the men and women of this particular country are not subject to those corporate dead in law legal fiction creations of law for the government itself.
The Queen, albeit disfunctional for most part, is set up for those who believe in Christ to have as a method of not only retaining their rights in law in that holy book but to claim redemption through leviticus 25-27.
It has been repeated by David that there is no proof of this exemption and none that relate to the Christians ability to be exempt from mans law. He has repeatedly told the readers of this thread to ignore me the minister of God's word and has repeatedly ignored the proof I have posted that he is wrong. In appearance, to most readers, who are unbiased in their conclusions by lengthy association with David, the presense of David on this thread from the beginning has been to persuade the reader to ignore the original post which is proof positive and irrefutable that the Canadian government is telling any who reads it's Supreme law inclusive of the Westminster confession of faith that it does not apply to those listed as non government.
I have posted the governments criminal code that says it does not apply to ministers professing divine calling in official function.
That to was ignored by David as it clearly refutes his attempts to get others on this thread to ignore not only the orginal post but me an officiating minister of God as well.
His attacks on me the man anf minister of God's word continue as of the use of the word "narcotic" as applied to marijauna when even the novice researcher can clearly find that marijuana is not a narcotic is not addictive and is more a medicine and mild euphoric sanctioned by God. The attempts by David to ignore the proof, I have gone to length to post for the readers, shows his motivation is not for the revealing of the truth and edifying the ecclesia but to hide it by digressing from the subject matter and convincing the reading to ignore me.
To defend the subject matter of this thread is my ministerial sworn duty and function and I am officially performing that function.
To obstruct me from that function by encouraging others to ignore me seems to be a violation of the rules of this forum and the laws of man. David seems to feel that the laws of man do indeed apply to men and women so then he would be subject to being accountable for any harm he brings unto me.
Defamation is a familiar term that the readers may see is being applied to me by David in his repeated attempts to get the readers to ignore and evade the truth by stating I am a pothead, delusional, addicted, and not to be listened to.
Isaiah 65:7,
Your perversity, depravity, guilt; and, the perversity, depravity, guilt of your rulers together, utters Jahuwah, which make smoke upon the mountains, and evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections; you find fault or criticize me for petty reasons upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
Now my faith in Christ Yeshua gives me the armour to withstand his dark assaults Ephesians 6:10-20 but my fear is for the ecclesia that may be confused by who to listen to as he has been quite a poster boy here on this forum and has seemingly gained some allies.
If the readers are persuaded to ignore what I have posted they may not apply for their exemptions from mans law by abating the governmental assumptions with their registered mail notices of their faith and beliefs to the private men and women in positions of governmental power.
Please do not allow the falsehood to overcome the original words that have been shown to scholars professors lawyers with tenure and treasury board officials yes even the Queen and Pope have seen this. I have recieved two replies from Buckingham palace indicating I am correct. I will post the letter I sent upon the occasion of her majesty's jubilee and my letter petitioning redemption from the enslavement that was done in deceit via my birth registration.Leviticus 6:2
Again... the laws of men in addition to the laws of God YHWH do not apply. Only the laws of GodYHWH apply to the proclaimed man of faith in those laws. Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32
You have to prenotice government oficials to become exempt from their assumptions of who you are.
Blessings in the awareness that the laws of YHWH are for your protection, edification,redemption from sin and not a curse.
The laws of man, the Babylonian Talmud are the curse! |
Edited by - source on 30 Dec 2004 13:17:13 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 17:26:01
|
This traversal could have the exact same effect without reference to belonging to God. It is simply the same abatement for misnomer calculated in different form. I am sure the Evidence Act has no exemption for Christians. But if you research that and find differently please let us know. Please understand Rules of Evidence (as opposed to Hebrews 11:1) before arguing ecclesiastical authority.
The effective mechanism is the difference between the true name (or Given Name) and the legal name (when you add the family name to the true name).
And thus it does not surprise me that this is as effective in Ontario as a properly executed abatement for misnomer is here. The point I like about this method is the positive asseveration that the man has been receiving no benefits from the artificial entity name given him by the province at birth - that all the assumptions have been made by the Department of Commerce (or its equivalent) and by the Province of Ontario, Canada. That is a very effective argument in contract law under any flag.
Statutory Declaration
(Under section 41 of the Canada Evidence Act)
I, True Name, solemnly declare that I am of and stand in the Kingdom of God and that it has been approximately forty six years since our Father who art in Heaven first breathed life into His child, whom the body, mind, hands and fingers that put the words and signature on this paper belong and since He and the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, CANADA, did accept the Christian name given the child is True Name, and;
That I AM the holder/bearer of a birth certificate on which is the NAME; FAMILY NOMEN, TRUE NAME (FAMILY NOMEN), and;
That PROVINCE OF ONTARIO/Ontario/Crown in right of Ontario (ONT) does wilfully cause the registration of and does wilfully register birth events in Ontario, and does wilfully issue birth certificates bearing a legal name, and;
That ONT does wilfully cause information, provided to, accepted by, and held in the records of the Deputy Registrar General Ontario, as prescribed by the Vital Statistics Act Ontario, to be extracted from a registration of birth in order that a birth certificate may be issued, and;
That a birth certificate and certified copy of a registration of a birth are admissible in any Court in Ontario as proof, in absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified and the facts so certified prove I was not a party to and have no knowledge of any proceeding connected with the inception, registration, or certification of the name FAMILY NOMEN and that ONT did wilfully cause the legal name FAMILY NOMEN, as appears on a birth certificate, to be borne into existence upon the payment of a fee, and;
That ONT does wilfully neglect to disclose to the recipient of a birth certificate that it is not personal identification and that the name on it is the name for a trust, and;
That the Bank Act prescribes the manner in which an account may be opened in the name of a natural person, and;
That no such account has been opened in My name, and;
That I have not seen or been provided with any evidence that proves I have any property right(s) in the name FAMILY NOMEN or that I have received any value, income or money in the name given Me or that any property, Account, debt, Treasury Board 35056 privacy form, charge, conviction, certificate, pledge, deposit, consumer bill, bond, consumer note, guarantee, warrant, information, judgement, evidence, license, permit, obligation, lien, ticket, fine, consumer report, security, contract, undertaking or other thing is registered or recorded in or bears the name given Me or that I AM not an authorized representative for FAMILY NOMEN, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is the same force and effect as if made under oath, so help me God.
By Solemn deed:
Declared before me <name of notary/commissioner>, a <notary or a commissioner> in and for the Province of Ontario, at the <city/town/municipality> this day of 2004.
P.S. The above commentary first read:quote:
The effective mechanism is the difference between the true name (or Given Name; or Christian Name) and the legal name (when you add the family name to the true name).
Then I discovered that the given or true name is different than Christian name.quote:
The Christian or first name is, in the law, denominated the proper name; and a party can have but one, for middle or added names are not regarded. State v. Martin, (followed by a whole slew of cites).
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 30 Dec 2004 19:32:47 |
|
|
|
Gold
Junior Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 22:15:45
|
Greetings to all who are doers of the word
18:1 YHWH (JAHOWAH) spoke to Moses, saying:
2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan [America], to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes [unrighteous laws].
4 My ordinances (Laws) you shall observe and my statutes (Laws) you shall keep, following them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Mighty one.
5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and my laws (Only) ; by doing so you shall live: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH). [Rom. 10:4, 5; Gal. 3:12; Luke 10:25-28.]
26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you
27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); [America needs to wake up and change her evil/unrighteous ways and repent and tear down all the pagan idols/buildings across the land. Before the Almighty annihilate the people out of the land].
28 otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
29 For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people.
30 So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
19;35 You shall not cheat in measuring length, weight, or quantity.[U.S. dollar is not backed by gold, there for are government is no longer keeping YHWH laws]
36 You shall have honest balances, honest weights, an honest measure for grain, and an honest liquid measure: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37 You shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and observe them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH).
26:1 You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no carved images or obelisk,[obelisk cover are land Washington monument for one, and there is at lest one in every state in this country and thy are an abomination ] and you shall not place figured stones in your land, to worship at them; [statues of worshiped saints] for I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
20;23 You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. [Paganism is what most of the churches of this land fallow to date]
As the Mighty One says, we are not under the law of man, but the law of the Almighty!
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 06:32:14
|
I too can presume I am correct [referring to the comments in brackets above]; and often, nearly always, do.
On the premise of this Topic title, I will assure you that I tried to be a Christian for several years and by Towing the Line to absurdity discovered that when really faced with the 'reality' of the Holy Bible, with the absurdity of the supernatural events therein the New Covenant, when compared to the mathematical symbols of the Old Covenant, known history and physical reality, the pastors would discover the corner they had painted themselves into.
Gold, my point is that catagorizing you by your words with Source, and finally taking a look at Source's post above, I have been in my opinion where Source and you are at. I feel qualified to comment on such subjective commentary as you have made in the brackets.
I understand and have demonstrated herein this Topic I know what the Holy Bible says - and especially the Pentateuch and Laws of Moses. www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif
There is a precept of notice and grace - that you cannot hold a man culpable for his actions until he is notified. This is explicitely stated about a man whose oxen is dangerous and rabbis and scholars agree that the man "killed" (punished) for collecting fuel on the Sabbath was warned first not to. Source agrees:quote:
You have to pre-notice government officials to become exempt from their assumptions of who you are.
So the process overlaps into common law (except where overridden by statute to the contrary).
Earlier in the same Post Source says:quote:
In appearance, to most readers, who are [un]biased in their conclusions by lengthy association with David, the presense of David on this thread from the beginning has been to persuade the reader to ignore the original post which is proof positive and irrefutable that the Canadian government is telling any who reads it's Supreme law inclusive of the Westminster confession of faith^ that it does not apply to those listed as non-government.
Is Source changing his viewpoint to agree with me? This spat seems near an end. That is what it looks like now that he is saying the parties listed exempt are "non-government" instead of the Topic title; "Christians". That is the same thing I have been saying all along. Only I did not use that word, "non-government"*. And I do not agree that pre-noticing is necessary. Notice can be given in an abatement after the presumption is made.
So I assume I have converted Source to my line of thinking and he would apply with Admin to change the title of this Topic to something less misleading to readers.
Also, he has been warned not to specifically slander me or anyone else for that matter so I suspect that Admin is considering expulsion. The 'slurs' about marijuana being addictive and producing delusions are facts that he invited be brought to light. I certainly hope he refrains from actions requiring a clear mind while he is stoned. Especially things like infant/elderly care and driving. Marijuana kills brain cells. Ask Dharma's father, Harry Finkelstein. Or maybe Source figures notice and grace only applies to government?
This is about the third or fourth time on this forum I have had to deal with someone on a mission:quote:
To defend the subject matter of this thread is my ministerial sworn duty and function and I am officially performing that function.
and:quote:
1) To obstruct me from that function by encouraging others to ignore me seems to be a violation of the rules of this forum and the laws of man. 2) David seems to feel that the laws of man do indeed apply to men and women so then he would be subject to being accountable for any harm he brings unto me.
Source is clearly incorrect on both points. Admin has agreed with me this forum is a journal. Source's inflexible attacks seem a little silly now he has changed his testimony to agree with mine. But this is not a forum set into any, even a Christian agenda. On point 2) anyone reading my words with a clear mind knows I do not think myself subject to the 'laws' that are not law (without enacting clauses, contract presentments and Notices that are strictly administrative process etc).
I suggest that all I have written be verified by facts and the best testimony available in recognized history books and other sources by accredited historians. But mostly I admonish that all you read here is Internet yarn. You are reading my opinions as well as Source's and Gold's. You are presumed to be grownups who can handle this material responsibly.
Regards,
David Merrill.
^ Logically this does not mean Christians can take the Confession and get out of prosecutions for marijuana possession. Maybe the Confession is "included" in the Charter's doctrine but that does not mean it provides coverture and exemption from the law. It does not form an asylum state for Christians to hide within the Province (unless of course a bishop or whatever grants the asylum inside a church building). It has been brought to light that benefit of clergy is limited and also applies to process servers, who are considered clergy independent of religious belief.
* Consider all citizens of the United States by definition vessels of the United States; little enclaves for the District but not located territorially within the District. Or better yet that the infrastructure of the Constitution, Article 4, §3 defines the primary citizenship was for men and women to be state citizens until elected or appointed citizens of the United States; government employees. This extends to a jural compact with society in general by constructive trust [Article VI, "public trusts" - METRO as a positive law jural society "home rule"] through the use of legal name (nakar/nokriy - stranger and foreigner disqualified for debt forgiveness; Deuteronomy 15:1-3; 23:20). |
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2004 07:35:23 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 07:36:05
|
Greetings David,
Peace be unto the house.
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
In the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing transformed itself into gases, and eventually these gases that were formed from nothing became entire solar systems, our sun, our planet and ultimately a sentient man. Is this not what we have, thinking that there is no power greater than ourselves? Or am I misreading you? If so, I humbly apologize for the inferrence.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 07:50:21
|
To answer your first question. I read a while ago that the States through Governors' Convention (March 6, 1933) could not declare bankruptcy in a mandatory fashion for men and women. I agreed. It is also written in Roosevelt's words that "If we can persuade (people to put their funds [after the Banker's Holiday] in trust, in the 'new forms'] we will have made progress.
The syntax seems faulty in the subsequent questions.quote:
In the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing transformed itself into gases, and eventually these gases that were formed from nothing became entire solar systems, our sun, our planet and ultimately a sentient man.
Are you trying to rephrase my point of view?
I will presume that you are (as opposed to this being your premise - your point of view). If you state the premise as opposing God created the universe, by whatever process, then that is not my belief. I think God is the Creator of both the Universe and of course Man in it. That inherently gives God the Creator sovereignty.
This same sovereignty extends to men and women through the image of God in us. It is the authority that grants the right to avoid policies and internal memorandums (secret [War Powers] law and 'black letter law'] that are merely color of law. And it is also the cause of people with faulty identity and sloppy relationship with God to fall under the jurisdiction of lesser courts.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2004 08:06:04 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 08:30:04
|
Greetings David,
Peace be unto the house.
I thank you for those responses and say that your answers suggest that we are probably on the same page.
Again, thank you for your time.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 15:17:55
|
Dear Readers;
I beg the readers' pardon. I thought Source saw his mistake after I pointed it out from his own testimony.quote:
Praise to YHWH for the strength to resist the wiles of the Devil and blessings to all who see my intent is true as is the reason for the attacks.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2004 16:20:13 |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 15:17:58
|
No mistake David just evidense of my faith being opposed. If you imply my faith is a mistake then you let others see your intent is not ecclesia based and is not framed in Love.
Prayers for your deliverence from a vehement place of reasoning. Psalms,82:2
"How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?"
If we can find room to respect our rights to have faith then the dispute will end as of now I see you still wish to encourage others to ignore the inspiration of the Canadian governments own words that the law they formed in addition to God's law does not apply to men and women that are not a part of it's governmental structure with the Queen defending the Christian Bible as the prime defender of faith.
Blessings upon the peaceful resonance the words "I love you" may have upon those willing to recieve. |
Edited by - source on 31 Dec 2004 15:49:39 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 17:05:11
|
I just don't want the Readers buying into the pernicious doctrine that abating nuisances and avoiding unwanted contracts depends on faith. Believing so gives you the illusion of an elite position among others and the arrogance to judge us for having a faith that deviates from your own.
I am not holding my breath for the day when Canadian magistrates say, "If you want to declare the Westminster Confession of Faith on the record of this court, we will release you because we have no jurisdiction over Christians and other people of faith."
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2004 17:08:47 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 18:51:34
|
Just some comments about all that has been going on in this subject forum:
Firstly, this is a PRIVATE forum and we adhere to rules of civility and morality. When people who have posted are personally attacked - REGARDLESS OF THEIR OPINION - it won't be tolerated. We let this occur 4 times with Source (and we deleted the offending posts), but he apparently didn't catch on that berating fellow posters, as well as the site owners, is something that we won't allow to continue. We were tolerant of Source's antagonistic personal attacks for far longer than we should have allowed, but there comes a time when enough is enough. Source has been banned from this site because of this, NOT because of any views or opinions he has expressed.
Secondly, and more in fitting with this topic, is that there is a vast difference between "Religious Christianity" and "Spiritual Christians". Man-made "religion" is a commercial activity for controlling others, but pure and truthful "Christianity" is not. In North America, few can discern the differences between the two and "Christians" have become followers of "Religious Christianity". The problem is that the two are opposites and true Christianity should have no part of the commercial religion calling itself by the same name. Dubya Bush, our appointed President the past 4 years, claims to be a "Christian", but he is far from following true "Christianity".
David, we understand why you will not call yourself a "Christian". If true Christianity is now supposed to be as the example of the war mongering group in Washington City, then we cannot call ourselves "Christians" either. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 19:09:10
|
OneIsraelite;
quote:
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
That question deserves a much more thoughtful answer than I gave you this morning.
Let's presume the principles of law in the Holy Bible are sound to the point of metaphysical effect. Then an Israelite (even in spirit) would be exempt from the bankruptcy by 1940, seven years after 1933. Like that. There might be something to it but that is really hard to prove.
I think it is easier to say that the form of contract is more the voluntary nature in Roosevelt's New Deal. If you want to avoid culpability for the use of FRNs then evade the presumed bond inherent in the Birth Certificate entry and registration into commerce.
However I once notified the Sheriff who was holding my friend in jail about Chapter 65, §2 of the Kitzur Shulhan Arukh; the Code of Jewish Law - Interest on Loans. My friend was immediately released from the jail. He was even honored by a visit from the State Director of Prisons in his cell. Sat with him and asked personal questions in polite conversation. But my friend was given no clue what or why or even that he was being released until we were there to pick him up.
Also I felt led to spend three days in the homeless shelter where an elderly Jew had been living for six months. He was afraid that he would be extradicted back to France on a theft charge if he tried to get a SSN so therefore he could not get the bennies to get out of the shelter. While I was there, on my last day when I began to wonder why I had done that to myself (in many ways a homeless shelter is worse than jail) he got a letter (in a place nobody gets letters). It was a bill for a heart exam that the shelter's health service had arranged he take. I explained what the old Jew already knew. That the national debt had usury and so therefore he was exempt. Holding the bill, I got in line for the phone. I phoned the hospital and the moment I explained that this Jew was exempt from the national debt, in those same words to the lady in billing, she said, "Oh, I don't think Dr. Goldstein is aware of the usury laws." - like the bill was a terrible mistake and she immediately zeroed out the balance. The hospital even called the shelter's health branch to make sure everyone understood the bill was a big mistake.
The way these people capitulated to Biblical monetary principles suggests to me that understanding the principles is the best way to apply them effectually.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Dec 2004 19:29:47 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 06:08:44
|
Greetings David:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
OneIsraelite;
quote:
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
That question deserves a much more thoughtful answer than I gave you this morning.
Let's presume the principles of law in the Holy Bible are sound to the point of metaphysical effect. Then an Israelite (even in spirit) would be exempt from the bankruptcy by 1940, seven years after 1933. Like that. There might be something to it but that is really hard to prove.
We thank you for the more thoughtful answer.
We're not so sure that it's "just" the principles of law found in the Set-Apart Scripture, though all True Law is based on it, or that there is anything "metaphysical" about it, considering Black's Law Dictionary definition of Stranger(s), which we have posted elsewhere on this forum.
We are also convinced that an Yisra'elite is, like an American for example, not a race issue any longer, and if you mean by "spirit" that it is a mental disposition, we agree. As Shaul/Paul puts it: "Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." It is all a mind game, for the fiction can exist nowhere else but in the mind.
quote:
I think it is easier to say that the form of contract is more the voluntary nature in Roosevelt's New Deal. If you want to avoid culpability for the use of FRNs then evade the presumed bond inherent in the Birth Certificate entry and registration into commerce.
Agreed. As we have pointed out on other threads, the mere use of FRN's by a stranger to the contract, does not, in and of itself, represent high treason against our King. Only if one has stood surety for that "Birth Certificate entry and registration into commerce", and continues to carry it [they must needs be borne, because they cannot go], does it have ill effects on the user. It will of course, have ill effects on the citizens of their kingdom, but we being such a small number, the effects are negligible, I believe.
quote:
The way these people capitulated to Biblical monetary principles suggests to me that understanding the principles is the best way to apply them effectually.[Emphasis added]
Agreed, particularly the bolded and underlined part of your quote.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 01 Jan 2005 06:45:35 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 08:14:02
|
How better to defeat a confidence game than to exude confidence?
Like the man in jail charged with counterfeiting. When I explained money and told him he should tell his attorney to ask, "How do you counterfeit counterfeit money?", the man stood up with a confident smile on his face and went directly to the attorney phone. Within two days he was told the district attorney had lost track of his computer equipment and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. I don't think the Treasury charges anyone for 'counterfeiting' since. The charge I hear is Forgery - duplicating the authority of the Federal Reserve seal.
Werner Maximilian loaned me a collection of four articles:
Honest Money - Part VIII: Final Summary & Conclusions by Douglas V. Gnazzo http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2004/part8.html
Financial Sense Online - Market Wrap Up with Tony Allison http://www.financialsense.com/Market/allison/2004/1217.html
Peak Oil Economics & Money - What Underwrites our Dollar? by David Ford http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ford/ford122004.html
Economic Heroin
http://www.a1-guide-to-gold-investments.com/economic-heroin.html
Thanks again Vern.
Vern warned me that we both would see faults in perspective of the authors. And he was right. But by reading all four papers I feel I have a better grip on the pulse of the economy. Also the Tsunami will be putting a strain on life-sustaining resources very soon.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 08:37:01 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 08:26:45
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters of this forum:
Peace be unto the house.
I would like to go on the record as being sorry to see Source (Edward) excommunicated from this forum. Though at times, I feel that he may have been a bit misguided in his notions (but then who am I?), I have the utmost respect for anyone trying their best to come out of Babylon/Egypt, in whatever fashion the spirit has led them.
We being men and women, as opposed to children, I hated to see the name calling, the accusations and the bickering going on when there are more important issues to contend with and adversaries enough to go around without "creating" more.
And for the record, we do not use drugs or narcotics, but have known some brilliant and valiant brothers who do [herb only], and at least one of them claimed, rightfully or wrongfully, that marijuana was food for his "spirit" [mind]. It in no way, discernible to me, debilitated his thinking, in fact, he had studied law at Harvard University and was the first one to point out to me that the Set-Apart Scripture was a Book about Law and not about religion.
I too, was at one time, excommunicated from this forum for disagreeing with the elders, and I can honestly say that I never tried to be offensive to anyone; no name calling or inuendos (Robert-James is my witness to this truth). I survived it nicely, as I pray Edward will do also.
If I were an elder here, I would try to communicate with Source (Edward) once more and see if this all could be cleared up and him brought back into the fold, but clearly, I am not.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
- brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 01 Jan 2005 09:02:43 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 09:00:14
|
You can read by my Posts that I saw it coming. I believe that narcotics could have kept Source from stating things objectively. He vehemently protected a subjective, faith-based argument and like I mentioned aside, I felt if he could focus on arguing fact, history and a reasonable application of the same in interpreting Scripture that our debate could have been productive reading.
I am pleased to see notice and grace applied in this manner. We read explicit and general warnings by Bondservant. These were later cleaned up as Bondservant maneuvered to salvage the thread from the bickering. But Source was on a mission and I do not think that will change soon. My hopes were lifted yesterday when I was convinced he changed his "Christian" agenda to "non-government". But that turned out to be Admin making the adjustment. I suspect it was a private conversation that sealed Source's excommunication from the forum.
There are Topics here I avoid (even reading) because I know I become 'know-it-all' and would detract from the enjoyment of freedom to express opinions freely. I am aware that my sensibilities about refraining from any attacks without a foundation are the only reason I have not been expelled myself and am sure I have had Admin considering it at least twice. I am the other side of the argument that got Source expelled and am aware of that. In the future readers may be careful that there is freedom to argue an issue with passion on this forum. Be careful that it is the issue you argue passionately. The issue got foggy around the marijuana because it is difficult to discern whether I was attacking substance abuse or Source.
I am also aware that marijuana is considered by many non-addictive. It was called a "mild euphoric". The use of a euphoric is an addiction. Protection of its use is proof to me that it is an addictive drug. And like I have said many times in the last week, I believe that marijuana's narcotic effect was swaying Source to see he had a mission to protect "Christian Authority" by whatever means necessary.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. My thanks to the Administration of ecclesia.org. If this were not such a high quality forum these incidents would be moot. People would just move on looking for what many find here.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 09:26:06 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 09:40:34
|
Greetings David:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
I am also aware that marijuana is considered by many non-addictive. It was called a "mild euphoric". The use of a euphoric is an addiction. Protection of its use is proof to me that it is an addictive drug. And like I have said many times in the last week, I believe that marijuana's narcotic effect was swaying Source to see he had a mission to protect "Christian Authority" by whatever means necessary. Even presenting contradictory and nonsensical arguments.
Without intending to defend marijuana use, it is my humble opinion, that it is not physically addictive as narcotics are, and it is not any more mentally addictive that one's favourite food. It is, as I understand it also, "mildly euphoric" but this, again, does not make it addictive, in my humble opinion. And "protection of its use" by the GOVERNMENT in no way proves that it is addictive; no offense intended. It is our humble opinon that SOMEONE stands to make millions, or perhaps more, by keeping these things "illegal".
Does marijuana effect one's thinking? I believe it does cause disjointed thought patterns, but then so does FREE(?) PUBLIC EDUCATION, and to a much more detrimental extent; so why does't their GOVERNMENT "protect its people from its use"?
The GOVERNMENT also said that LSD caused "chromosome damage" but in several subsequent private tests not one could validate what the GOVERNMENT sponsored studies had stated. Most of the testing of this substance, as we currently understand it, was done by the GOVERNMENT, on unknowing individuals (not to be construed as "persons"), in connection with its use as a possible mind control drug.
And, once more, for the record, we use nothing mentioned above...except, of course, our favourite food. 
quote:
I believe that marijuana's narcotic effect was swaying Source to see he had a mission to protect "Christian Authority" by whatever means necessary.
First, "I believe", means it is but your opinion, and secondly, there are millions who have never used a drug or narcotic, that feel this exact way, including yourself as it seems you have stated here, so to opine that it from "marijuana's narcotic effect" may be a stretch, don't you think?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 01 Jan 2005 09:57:02 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 09:57:42
|
And you are addicted to your favorite food.
My approach to law, and as you wisely point out "set-aside" Scriptural principles, is lofty idealism and assuming absolutes like the opening line of this Post. That is why I rub so many the wrong way. In telephone and face-to-face conversations I assure you, I behave quite normally and in acceptance of an imperfect world.
I attribute this approach to the successes and they are many, of the suitors I know - courts of competent jurisdiction in lieu of 'government' being bereft and bankrupt. I see no other way to deal with process than a presumption of mathematical precision.
That is why I argued the subjective presumptions in the original title and premise of this Topic with such passion. Subjective presumptions lead to those same kind of disjointed arguments that narcotics produce. People will argue midrash scriptural interpretation till they are blue-in-the-face. I have. And unless they are enjoying it, it is just a waste of time and health. [I remind you of my comment that Source probably became defiant with Admin in private. I do not think he was more than an annoyance on the face of the Posts. He had a right to make subjective faith-based arguments. But when his remarks became contentious and directed at me, Admin should not have to carefully delete Posts and try to clean up the mess so things are constructive reading instead of worthless bickering.]
The definitions of narcotics are subjective. So I will leave it being I have already said a lot more than I needed to.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 10:13:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
