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

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 CITIZENSHIP
 Was Paul a Roman Citizen???
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 29 Aug 2005 :  19:03:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Paul a citizen of Rome???

Heaven forbid!

Paul says otherwise here…

our [#G2257] conversation [#G4175] is in heaven*

G2257
hemon
Thayer Definition:
1) our, we, us


We believe that everyone will agree, our generally includes the speaker.

Our, a. 1. Pertaining or belonging to us; as our country; our rights; our troops. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

G4175
politeuma
Thayer Definition:
1) the administration of civil affairs or of a commonwealth
2) the constitution of a commonwealth form of government and the laws by which it is administered
3) a state, commonwealth
3a) the commonwealth of citizens


from 4176

G4176
politeuomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to be a citizen
2) to administer civil affairs, manage the state
3) to make or create a citizen
3a) to be a citizen
3b) to behave as a citizen
3b1) to avail one’s self of or recognise the laws
3b2) to conduct one’s self as pledged to some law of life


On the other hand Paul also answers the chief captain this way…

Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

G4514
Rhomaios
Thayer Definition:
1) a resident of the city of Rome, a Roman citizen

(For brother Gregory's perspective on this Greek word rhomaios, go to http://hisholychurch.net/)

If he was saying that he was "a Roman citizen", as opposed to being merely "a resident of the city of Rome", could he have been lying about being "a Roman citizen" to that captain and his underling? Perhaps.

For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie [#G5582] unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

G5582
pseusma
Thayer Definition:
1) a falsehood, a lie
2) the perfidy by which a man by sinning breaks faith
(fidelity) with God (Yahuwah)

We must pay close attention to what kind of lie definition #2 seems to be. Some of MS Word2000’s synonyms for the word perfidy may give us a clue.

"treachery, disloyalty, duplicity, betrayal"

Perfidy, n. [L. perfidia; per and fides, faith.] The act of violating faith, a promise, vow or allegiance; treachery; the violation of a trust reposed. Perfidy is not applied to violations of contracts in ordinary pecuniary transactions, but to violations of faith or trust in friendship, in agency and office, in allegiance, in connubial engagements, and in the transactions of kings. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

If this was a lie, how could the truth of Yahuwah abound through this lie?

But the Lord [Yahushua] said unto him [Ananias], Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles (nations), and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Ouch!!!

Well, for one thing Paul certainly got to bear his name before "kings", or at least one of them when he "appealed unto [the] caesar".

We hope that no one feels certain that Paul was a Roman citizen because of this next verse.

But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen (townsman) of no mean city [#G4172]: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

Citizen here is the Greek word polites [#G4177], which according to Strong's merely means, townsman, from the Greek word polis [#G4172], which simply means city and is translated precisely such in the above verse. But the fact of the matter is, for any of us to try to insist upon a single meaning for the word citizen would most certainly be deceptive.

Citizen, n.
1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.
2. A townsman; a man of trade; not a gentleman.
3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or place.
4. In general sense, a native or permanent resident in a city or country; as the citizens of London or Philadelphia; the citizens of the United States.
5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language


We see from Noah's definition above that citizen can indeed mean several different things, including a townsman, an inhabitant, or even a native of a particular city or land.

Since Paul himself declared his (our) citizenship (constitution/commonwealth) to be in Heaven*, we could possibly take him at his word, though admittedly we can certainly speculate on other possibilities, or like some here, even accuse Paul, on [presumably] fabricated evidence, of being lower than a common thief, but let us be straightforward with one another; we may never truly know all the details, so for any of us to state categorically that Paul was, or was not, a Roman citizen would not reflect total honesty.

*Heaven, n. hev'n. 5. The Hebrews acknowledged three heavens; the air or aerial heavens; the firmament in which the stars are supposed to be placed; and the heaven of heavens, or third heaven, the residence (household) of Jehovah (Yahuwah). – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Paul declared his (our) citizenship to be of the household of Yahuwah.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellowcitizens with the saints,
and of the household of Yahuwah

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 01 Sep 2005 07:02:39

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 29 Aug 2005 :  22:45:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My research indicates that Paul was no citizen of Rome until he declared it so. He had purchased the papers in Cyprus because he was eligible for Roman citizenship. That was resulting from Cilicia helping Rome quash a recent civil war in that area of Asia Minor.

Thus the Roman soldier (from the same area) inquiring about Paul's lie; that he got his Roman citizenship papers for free. That would have been entitlement, not eligibility.

Either way about it, Paul was not a Roman citizen until the moment he said he was. By declaration.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 31 Aug 2005 :  06:33:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

G5019
Tarsos
Thayer Definition:
Tarsus = “a flat basket”
1) a major city in Cilicia and the birthplace and early home of Paul.


Tarsus
…was the native place of the Apostle Paul. – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary


[Caesar] Augustus made it a free city. – Thayer’s Greek Definitions

"After the assassination of Julius Caesar, that general's former lieutenant, Mark Antony, was awarded the east as his sphere of influence and he took up residence in Tarsus. Marc Antony made it a "free city", a privilege which Augustus continued, and even increased."

"The city was able to enjoy a variety of special privileges, including exemption from imperial taxation."

"In practice, however, there was little distinction between the imperial cities and the free cities; the distinctions lay more between rich cities and poor: …rich cities…were genuinely self-ruling enclaves within the Empire, waging war and making peace, controlling their own trade and permitting little outside interference."
[Note: …an enclave is a piece of land which is totally surrounded by a foreign territory.]

rich cities…were genuinely self-ruling enclaves within the Empire and Tarsus was evidently a wealthy ("rich") city.

Tarsus
The chief city of Cilicia. It was distinguished for its wealth and for its schools of learning, in which it rivaled, nay, excelled even Athens and Alexandria, and hence was spoken of as “no mean city.” – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary


In fact, it almost seems to have been a "city of refuge".

"St Paul took refuge in Tarsus after his conversion, and was later joined by Barnabas. It is possible that this was the beginning of the Christian community of Tarsus, but it is not known for sure."


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 01 Sep 2005 07:10:01
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 01 Sep 2005 :  06:24:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.


This lie from Paul began with a confrontation with James the Just. Paul also said that the ship had steered clear of Cyprus but arrived in Jerusalem with a Cypriot Jew named Mnason. Considering that from Jerusalem it might take a couple weeks to validate the ship's manifest and charter, Paul knew he only had limited time before the Ebionite Jewry of Jerusalem would know the truth. That Paul had spent large amounts of the alms collected for the 'widows' of the missionaries working in Asia Minor on his own personal protection policy.

Remember that Paul taught adherence to the Noachide Laws was enough for conversion of pagans into coverture of the kingdom of heaven. But when confronted by the Ebionite Jews Paul quickly shaved his head and cleansed himself for a week.

In this scenario I propose, Paul took advantage of the confrontation with people to hide under Roman protectorate. Remember that Felix found no fault in Paul? But Paul preferred prison to returning to the general population. A band of 40 Jews were sworn to fasting until Paul was brought to justice. Do you suppose people really cared that much what somebody said? Even (especially) back then? It is far more likely that Paul did something so that he had to flee from pursuers by climbing down ropes and things like that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Sep 2005 06:27:15
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 01 Sep 2005 :  08:36:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
brother Robert says: Paul a citizen of Rome???

Heaven forbid!


Greetings! Paul was not only a citizen of Rome but of Heaven as well. No conflict of interest. I know this files in the face of your theory but there is no getting around it. If you study the info at the "Paul, the ROMAN CITIZEN" thread you will find that, in Roman jurisdiction, one can inherit their citizenship from their parents. Paul very well might have been lying about being 'born' into his citizenship but we do have claims against him from the Ebionites (Nazarene sect)that Paul was not even an Israelite but a Gentile convert to Pharisee Judaism. Either way you slice it, Paul enjoyed the benefits that his citizenship got him. He also enjoyed his political connections which he had no problem taking advantage of when the need arose. When posting definitions one must first ALWAYS look to the context in which the words are being used. One must look to the ACTIONS of the one whom the words are being used. The actions cleary showing Paul to be exersizing the favours that are only extended to Roman Citizen. Why? Because it was expedient for Paul to
use his Citizenship.

quote:
Paul says otherwise here


Paul says BOTH! There is no problem with Paul being both a CITIZEN or Citizen of Rome while at the same time being a Citizen of Heaven.

If Paul was in violation of the first commandment by using his privilidged status, do you think Christ would have visited him in prison telling him, "Good job"? Why don't see see Christ telling Paul, who was an expert in the Torah mind you, that he was violating the big #1. We don't.

Here is another major problem you will face in all of this. The Rome which Paul was a CITIZEN of was not a Republic but an EMPIRE. It had been ever since 31 BCE.








Edited by - BatKol on 01 Sep 2005 08:44:30
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 01 Sep 2005 :  20:38:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dual citizenship.

I am not adverse to that. The codification of this, in agreement with you Batkol, is that the Holy Spirit is always in upper case Spirit. Whereas the spirit of guilt that led Paul into Jerusalem against warnings of the Spirit is spelled "spirit".

I have always been astounded with the way God can use anything to His glory. Even the lying coward Paul.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 02 Sep 2005 :  19:05:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings!

quote:
brother Robert said: If he was saying that he was "a Roman citizen", as opposed to being merely "a resident of the city of Rome", could he have been lying about being "a Roman citizen" to that captain and his underling? Perhaps.

For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie [#G5582] unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?


This is some serious grasping for straws. This claim is easily debunked by looking to the ACTIONS of Paul and the privileged status he enjoyed. Paul did not lie about being a ROMAN CITIZEN. His treatment in the ROMAN SYSTEM is proof of his CITIZENSHIP.

Here is a list of privileges that are only enjoyed by CITIZENS of the ROMAN EMPIRE. Also notes about Paul's enjoyment of such privleges:

Acts 22:3, 22-29 Paul is addressing the Jews. They riot at his claim that he was sent to the Gentiles so the commander arrested Paul and took him into the barracks to be flogged. This was a common practice whether one was innocent or guilty. It was 39 lashes on the back. However a Roman Citizen was protected by Roman law. He could not be beaten. Notice the amazing transformation of the commanders attitude when he learns of Paul's free born citizenship.

Acts 16:22-24; 35-40 In Philippi Paul preaches on the river bank because there was no Jewish Synagogue (Need 10 families) Lydia was converted and when he had ruined the local fortune telling practice then the people rioted again. This time they were arrested and flogged. But Paul protested and exercised his Roman Citizenship.

Acts 25:1-12 - Paul Appeals to Caesar. A privilege only enjoyed by ROMAN CITIZENS, not folks who just happened to live in a ROMAN CITY.

Remember, ROME was no longer a Rebublic during Paul's time, it was an EMPIRE. This is key.


Kinds Of Roman Citizens
Roman citizenship could be obtained in a number of ways.

1. By Decree of the Roman Empire. If you worked for the Government upon discharge you would receive a document making you a Roman Citizen. All the soldiers at 6 B.C. or the Pax Romana were Italians so by Paul's time there were a great number of these type of Roman Citizens. Some could obtain their Citizenship by bestowing a favour on some government official. By giving them money, supplies or products. Paul's father probably sewed tents for them.
2. Another way is to purchase your way to freedom. But it would cost a slave about $200.00 - $600.00 dollars (Canadian) a great amount.
3. You could be born in a family of a Roman Citizen and acquire your Citizenship that way.

Privileges Of Roman Citizens

1. Justice - only Roman Citizens could have the following benefits. He could not be flogged if he was untried. He had the right to appeal to Caesar and the governor had no right to block this. And finally no Roman Citizen could be crucified only beheaded.

2. A Roman Citizen could hold a government office, conduct business unhindered, travel freely throughout the empire.

Responsibilities Of A Roman Citizen

You had to pay pole tax or head tax. You had to speak Latin the language of the government and you must be available for jury duty. Every Roman Citizen had three names and a birth certificate. This was a waxed plate made of metal or wood carried on their person. This was also registered in their place of birth.

Paul was a participant in the Roman Empire. He was raised in Tarsus a commercial and intellectual center, trained in Jerusalem and ministered in many of the great centres of the Empire. His urbanised outlook is seen in his use of language drawn from city life.

Paul's Multiple Citizenships:

* a Hebrew, an Israelite, Jew/Judean - 2Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5; Acts
21:39--22:3
* a CITIZEN of Tarsus - Acts 9:1; 21:39; 22:3; cf. Acts 15:21; Gal
1:21
* a Roman CITIZEN - Acts 16:16-40 (esp. 37-38); 22:25-29; 23:27
* a Citizen of heaven! - Phil 3:20; Eph 2:19

What about the City of Tarsus?

His Birthplace

The exact year of the birth of Paul is unknown to us, however many biblical historical scholars have given a time frame of as early as 4 B.C.E. to as late as 5 C.E. Biblical historical scholar F.F. Bruce has given the following statement concerning this: "Saul, who is also called Paul, was born in Tarsus, the principal city of Cilicia, probably in one of the first few years of the Christian era."1 Scholar George T. Montague gives us this statement: "In A.D. 5 Paul was born in Tarsus, in Cilica (Acts 21:39, 22:3),2 no insignificant city" (Acts 21:39). The city of Tarsus, where Paul was born, was a very important city in Paul's day, as it was one of the largest trade centers on the Mediterranean coast. It was a seaport city, about twelve miles up the river Cydnus, with a harbor that was well protected by natural rock fortifications.

The general population of Tarsus in Paul's day was over a quarter of a million people. People came to Tarsus from all over the Roman empire to live and work in this prosperous city. Tarsus had become a rich city mainly because of trade. Merchants from Tarsus were well known throughout the Roman empire. Tarsian merchants were noted for their love of their craft, and their almost fanatic zeal in their monetary investments in their city's infrastructure. The merchants of Tarsus invested in good roads, education, public health and city beautification projects. One of the largest sources of income for merchants was the Tarsus mountains, about twenty five miles north of the city. The Tarsus Mountains were rich in minerals and lumber

Roman citizens commonly had two names, one which indicated their background or heritage apart from Rome, and the other, which would be their Roman heritage. Paul's Roman name Saul Paulus was such a name. "He bore two names, the Hebrew Saul meaning "desired" or "asked for," and the Roman Paulus, meaning "small."9 Roman citizenship in Tarsus, even for the wealthy, was not automatic. Rome had made Tarsus a self-governing city, but did not grant Roman citizenship for every citizen of Tarsus. If a citizen of Tarsus was from a family of social standing of four generations or more, they were generally granted citizenship status. Paul's father more than likely inherited citizenship from his father, and Paul inherited citizenship from his father. In the book titled Great People of the Bible And How They Lived, edited by Harvard Old Testament historian G. Earnest Wright, the following excerpt is given:

"Paul was born into a devout Jewish family in the city of Tarsus, capital of the small Roman district of Cilicia in Asia Minor. His father, a member of the ancient tribe of Benjamin, named him Saul, after Israel's first king. (Later in life, Saul became better known by his Roman name Paul.) A man of standing in the community, he held the privileged status of Roman citizen, an honor rarely conferred upon Jews. His son inherited this legal advantage."

Roman citizenship had many advantages. If a Roman citizen was arrested by local authorities, they were automatically entitled to a fair trial. If they felt the outcome was not fair, they could appeal directly to the emperor for judgment. Local Tarsian citizens who did not have Roman citizenship did not have the same privileges. Roman citizens could also serve in government posts, vote in Roman affairs, join the Roman legion, and become members of the senate. Anyone who was a citizen of Rome had a tremendous advantage as a resident of Tarsus.
_________________

Now ask yourself.... if being a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE and enjoying the privileges of such is a breach of the first commandment, as well as serving two masters, how could Paul claim to up hold the Torah and even be "zealous" for the Law of his fathers while still being a CITIZEN? You would expect someone who was such a Torah scholar to know what the proper rendering of the first commandment is.

Best regards,
BK






Edited by - BatKol on 03 Sep 2005 10:40:03
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2005 :  12:43:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
brother Robert said: I fear I have gone off half-cocked as the saying goes. After looking at all references to the words Roman and Romans in the New Covenant/Testament, which I should have done before posting, I perceive that Rhomaios is probably nothing more than a Greek word for Roman or Romans. I apologize for the distraction caused by my error(s).


My original response was to the opening claim in your first post that asks the question, "Was Paul a citizen of Rome"? wherein you answered your own question by responding "Heaven forbid" in bold letters. You then provide a list of defintions to support your assertion concluding that perhaps Paul lied about being a Roman citizen. The point I was making is that Paul's Roman CITIZEN statement can be proven true by looking at his actions (and I say CITIZEN because of the EMPIRE structure of ROME). It's these actions coupled with the GOV'T's response that prove Paul was a Roman CITIZEN. This needs to be understood when choosing from the menue of definitions offered in a dictionary. No corks popping, no jumping for joy, Daniel never worshiped an Elohim other than YHWH, Paul was a Roman CITIZEN. Simple context.

Also, if you assert that your original statement concerning Paul's status on this item is based on a contextual application of the "entire book" then I would find it stimulating to have a friendly debate with you on this. However on this item, the subject matter of this thread, it would be fitting to look at Paul's actions to see if they were one of a Roman CITIZEN. When we do take that look, we see that Paul was not lying when he says that he was a Roman Citizen. A CITIZEN of the EMPIRE of ROME which replaced the former Republic.


Regards,
Steve



Edited by - BatKol on 06 Sep 2005 09:59:54
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2005 :  08:35:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother Steven:

Peace be unto the house.

Greetings! Paul was not only a citizen of Rome but of Heaven as well. No conflict of interest. I know this files [sic] in the face of your theory but there is no getting around it.” – BK [Emphasis added]

Your statement, No conflict of interest., flies in the face of common sense. Can your wife have two husbands with, No conflict of interest.? Well, neither can Yahuwah’s wife have two Husbands.

Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. … her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

The oath of allegiance that one must take to become a naturalized citizen may give some of us a clue as to whether dual citizenship creates, “No conflict of interest”.

Every alien applying for American citizenship must, as the final step, take the following oath of allegiance to the United States:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…so help me God.”
The World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1974, Ci-Cz, page 444

It certainly seems that New Rome believes that dual citizenship is a conflict of interest. And this conflict of interest is obviously exponentially enhanced when two governments are at enmity with one another.

A person with dual citizenship faces another danger in time of war. If he fulfills his obligations of allegiance to one country, he may find that he is committing treason against the other.The World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1974, Ci-Cz, page 445

Ye adulterers (traitors) and adulteresses (traitresses), know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with Yahuwah? whosoever therefore will be a friend (Gr. philos; L filius – an affiliate) of the world is the enemy (adversary) of Yahuwah.

Affiliate. Signifies a condition of being united; being in close connection, allied, associated, or attached as a member or branch. - Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 37

What does the Scripture say about dual citizenship?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

That seems pretty succinct. Another version of this is: No citizen can serve two governments. In fact isn’t that what the worldly master vigorously implies in their above Oath of Allegiance?

‘Elohiym means, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: gods in the ordinary sense, God, magistrates. And theos also means, figuratively magistrates.

Gods in the ordinary sense”: 4. Any person or thing…honored as the chief good.Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Consecrate, v.t. [L., to consecrate, sacred. See Sacred.] 2. ...to enroll among the gods, as a Roman emperor.Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Magistrate, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States. (Ibid.)

Do we perceive a conflict of interest? We thought that Yahuwah was the Highest or First Magistrate. Maybe the Scriptural answer is that we can only serve one supreme magistrate.

Then saith Yahushua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahuwah thy God (Magistrate, i.e. Master), and him only shalt thou serve.

G2316
theos
Thayer Definition:
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a1) of magistrates and judges


One more contextual question; what would be the point of Yahuwah saying…

they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them

…when the people said, “make us a king to rule us like all the nations”; why would He say this if dual citizenship is okay with Him?

Let us decide from context who the “Jews, which believed not”, thought Paul was subject to.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Yahushua.


Well now, if Paul is a “Roman citizen”, or a “dual citizen”, why is he doing "contrary to the decrees of [the] Caesar" by refusing to pay his census taxes? Perhaps this has something to do with it?

I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym (Ruler)…neither shall ye walk in their ordinances [H2708].

H2708
chuqqah
BDB Definition:
1) statute, ordinance, limit, enactment, something prescribed
1a) statute


We are definitely getting the impression, from context, that Yahuwah does not allow “dual citizenship” any more than the corporation UNITED STATES allows dual citizenship.

For thou art a set apart people unto Yahuwah thy ‘Elohiym, and Yahuwah hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, out of all the nations that are upon the earth.

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people


Peculiar, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.]
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only.
4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others.

Peculiar, n. Exclusive property; that which belongs to a person in exclusion of others.


And, for obvious reasons, peculiar people…are exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction.

(HNV) Kefa said to him, "From strangers." Yeshua [sic] said to him, "Therefore the children are exempt.

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute ( “census” tax) to Caesar, saying that he himself is anointed a king.

Census, n. 1. In ancient Rome, an authentic declaration made before the censors, by the citizens, of their names and places of abode. This declaration was registered, and contained an enumeration of all their lands and estates, their quantity and quality, with the wives, children, domestics, tenants, and slaves of each citizen. Hence the word signifies this enumeration or register, a mans whole substance, and the tax imposed according to each mans property. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

How did they know he was forbidding to give the Caesar tribute (”census” tax )? When we look at the render unto Caesar verses with an eye of discernment, we should plainly see the answer.

And finally, what would be the point of continuing in the perfect Law of liberty (James 1:25) if one was simultaneously subject to over sixty million ordinances of the UNITED STATES corporation?

Synonyms for the word ordinance: decree, order, rule, regulation, law, edictMS Word 2000’s Thesaurus

Wherefore if ye be dead with the Anointed One from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances[ #G1379 from #G1378], after the commandments [#G1378] and doctrines of men? (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;)

G1378
dogma
Thayer Definition:
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses


I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym…neither shall ye walk in their ordinances [H2708].

H2708
chuqqah
BDB Definition:
1) statute, ordinance, limit, enactment, something prescribed
1a) statute


You are right, when we take all these writings in context the answer to the question of whether Yahuwah finds dual citizenship to be a conflict of interest should be obvious to most readers.

(LITV) No one is able to serve two lords; for either he will hate the one, and he will love the other; or he will cleave to the one, and he will despise the other.

Deuteronomy 10:20 Thou shalt fear Yahuwah thy ’Elohiym; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 13:4 Ye shall walk after Yahuwah your ’Elohiym, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Then saith Yahushua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahuwah thy God (Magistrate, i.e. Master), and him only shalt thou serve.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Sep 2005 09:55:14
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2005 :  12:08:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The following research certainly reads interesting considering all this talk of CITIZEN-SHIP and being of allegiance. I for one take notice of the meaning of "many masters - many minds."
So for edification of truth between Fathers Kingdom vs mans many kingdoms, this is a reminder:

THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: issued by the lawful votes of the Eleventh Congress, on May 1st, 1810 --


"If any Citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a Citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

NOTES ON THE INCLUSION OF THE WORD "PENSION" IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT OF 1810:

Whatever might be the cause, great care seems to have been taken to secure the safe delivery of the pension for 1796. Some time previous to the 20th of January of that year, the Baron de Carondelet shipped the sum of nine thousand six hundred and forty dollars, on board a royal galley, and though ostensibly addressed to Vincent Folch, directed it to be delivered to Don Thomas Portell, the commandant at New-Madrid, with the following letter:

“In the galley Victoria Bernardo Molino Patron, there has been sent to Don Vincent Folch, 9640 dollars, which sum, without making the least use of it, you will hold at my disposal, to deliver it the moment that and order may be presented to you by the American general Don James Wilkinson. God preserve you many years.

THE BARON DE CARONDELET ~ New-Orleans, Jan. 20, 1796.”


-- EXCERPTED FROM: PROOFS of the CORRUPTION OF GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. Written by Daniel Clark. Published in 1809 by Hall & Pierie, Philadelphia.

According to Clark's account -- and he knew James Wilkinson very well -- this was either the fifth or sixth payment made to the senior military leader in the years leading up to 1796, by the royal government of Spain. At that time, Spain was in full control of the port city of New-Orleans, and had previously acted to block the shipment of agricultural commodities from frontier settlements along the Tennessee and Ohio rivers. Subsequently, James Wilkinson was able to "negotiate" a free trade agreement which opened the port of New-Orleans to the western farmers and planters, and for which he obtained a monopoly. He sold himself to the Spanish and continued to operate as their paid agent while employed as an American officer. Nor was Wilkinson just any Army officer, as Clark explains in the beginning of his book --


Let be remembered that the man I accuse is commander in chief of the Armies of the United States—that he is supported by the strongest marks of presidential favor—that after he was openly accused, and after my testimony and that of others was heard, he was continued in command, and that more forcibly to express contempt for the accusation and confidence in the accused, he is sent to the very scene of his alleged corruption—is placed with the fullest powers in that very country which it is alleged he wished to sever from the union, and where the freest intercourse is afforded with his former corrupters; a private individual carries on a very unequal warfare against a man thus supported, thus invested with the power to screen himself and assail his accusers.

This is my object in the present publication; to attain it I shall show,

1st. That general Wilkinson, from the year 1794 to 1803, certainly was, and probably is yet a pensioner of the Spanish government.

2nd. That his object was a treasonable attempt to sever the union of these states.

3rd. That he knew, favored and advised the enterprises of colonel [Aaron] Burr, and never resolved to be treacherous to his accomplice, until he could no longer with safety be so to his country.

LOUISIANA AND THE TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON

Most of the Citizens and the people of these States united know something about Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of The Declaration Of Independence, Governor of Virginia and our emissary to the Kingdom of France in the times leading up to the French Revolution. Jefferson is revered, and rightly so, for his many august qualities and achievements as one of the founding fathers of this country. Less well-known are Jefferson's skills as a political in-fighter and leader of the first of the two political parties formed in these States, called originally the Democratic-Republicans, who stood in opposition to the faction of The Federalists, led by John Adams.

Some of our Citizens and people understand the incredible bitterness generated by the disputed election of 1800, where Aaron Burr literally tried to steal the presidency from Jefferson, and the way that successive ballots in the House of Representatives finally turned in favor of Jefferson, when Maryland's delegation -- with one vote as a State -- dropped its neutral stance and sided with the man from Monticello.

Fewer still are those Citizens who have any knowledge of the rancor generated by the trial of Aaron Burr for treason, wherein he was accused of attempting to raise an army in what is now western Louisiana for the purpose of setting up an Empire of the West, with himself as Emperor. It was a plot which would have severed U.S. control of what came to be called the Territory of Orleans and it would have changed the destiny of the entire Louisiana Purchase of 1803. James Wilkinson was said to be an intimate part of that conspiracy but he escaped from the accusations with his reputation intact. Burr was acquitted in that trial, partly because Jefferson's political nemesis -- Chief Justice John Marshall -- skillfully directed the events of the trial to go in Burr's favor.

All of this amounts to 'the ancient history' of this young union of sovereign States, and it might seem to be irrelevant to the present situation in this new century. After all, it is now two hundred years removed from the time of the purchase and the creation of the Territory of Orleans, later to become the State of Louisiana. But these 'ancient' events are not simply footnotes to the achievements of the presidency of the man from Monticello, and the outline of these events goes to demonstrate how the corruption endemic to New Orleans in modern times, has its roots in old New-Orleans.


The original instructions to Monroe and Livingston in 1803 had been to obtain New Orleans and the Floridas. The acquisition of the whole of the Louisiana Territory for a risible price did not satisfy the President's appetite. It was conveniently "discovered" that West Florida was also part of the transaction, "that France had actually bought West Florida without knowing it, and had sold it to the United States without being paid for it."

While Spain was allied with France, Jefferson's desire for the Floridas even led him to suppose that Britain might, in return for American cooperation, agree not to make peace until he had achieved his objectives. It was not a supposition shared by Madison or by Britain.

From May, 1808, when the Spanish rebellion overthrew the alliance with France, Britain had a vested interest in preserving the integrity of its new ally's possessions.

British warnings were ignored [however], and after a brief American-inspired revolution in September, 1810, West Florida was occupied by the United States.

-- from "Territorial Ambition" in The British At The Gates, written by Robin Reilly and published in 1974 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. The subtitle for Reilly's extraordinary work is The New Orleans Campaign in The War of 1812.

The year of 1809 was an extremely fateful year for the United States, and the people of the country were still seething over the Chesepeake incident. On June 22nd of 1807, this U.S. frigate had been accosted and fired-upon by the British ship Leopard with twenty-one casualties, and four sailors accused of being British deserters were removed. As a ship of the line flying an American flag, this frigate was supposedly immune to the search-and-seizure orders given to all British ships, especially those on the prowl for French vessels. No matter. This incident served only to enflame American prejudice against the British and to exacerbate the many difficulties caused by the British impressment of sailors from U.S. ships on the high seas on in neutral ports. These events were a considerable part of the causes for the War of 1812. A war which had a lawful Declaration passed by the Congress and signed by James Madison.

What really had the residents of the western States and the new territories there most alarmed in 1809, however, was their growing concern over British meddling with the formidable Indian tribes on the frontier. Among the most fierce and feared elements in this were The Shawnee and the rise of its two charismatic leaders -- Tecumseh and his brother Lalawethika the Prophet -- who were half-Creek and who sought to rally The Creek Nation, The Chickasaw, The Miami, and others into a confederacy.

Combine this apprehension over a possible frontier-wide league of Indian nations allied to Great Britain, with the fact that Britain was now dedicated to supporting Spain's claims over The Floridas, and the facts of Clark's accusations against James Wilkinson as published in 1809, and the necessity for the constitutional amendment known as The Titles Of Nobility Amendment ( or TONA, the original Thirteenth ), becomes very clear.

The senior leaders of the Senate went to work on the TONA in January of 1810, and James Madison's ally in the Senate -- Philip Reed -- worked diligently with both Federalists and other Democratic-Republicans to draft and revise the language. When the text of the original Thirteenth came to a vote in the Senate in late April, the tally was 26 to 1 in its favor. Curiously, the very next order of business for the Senate was the drafting of legislation to establish The Territory of Orleans and to make way for the subsequent creation of Louisiana as a State.

Over the next few days, the House of Representatives cleared certain other measures and then took a vote on the TONA on May 1st. It had the overwhelming support of the members and passed 83 to 3, with Federalists in New England, New York and Virginia joining their Democratic-Republican opponents from North Carolina, New Jersey and New Hampshire. Two of the three votes opposing this amendment came from Tennessee representatives who are now thought to have been covert supporters of General James Wilkinson. The hardheaded Puritan from Connecticut, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Yale College 1785, voted for it, as did Revolutionary War veteran Elisha R. Potter, and Richard Jackson, both of Rhode Island. Pitkin and Potter were both elected Speaker of their State assemblies before going to Congress.

DEFIANCE AND BETRAYAL: HENRY CLAY AND THE ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH


Though the country was divided into two opposite factions [ Federalists who had maritime and shipping interests at heart, and Democratic-Republicans including the western Nabobs ], the solution to the continuing disputes appealed to an increasing number of Americans.

The new defiance found an impassioned spokesman in Henry Clay, then in the Senate. In a speech on December 28, 1810, advocating the annexation of West Florida in spite of British warnings, he had castigated the submissiveness and lethargy of his countrymen.

"Is the time never to arrive," he demanded, "when we may manage our affairs without the fear of insulting his Britannic majesty ? Is the rod of British power to be forever suspended over our heads ?" His voice was to be heard in Congress a year later, more powerful, more urgent, and commanding greater respect. -- from The British At The Gates.

Henry Clay of Kentucky was a champion of the western War Hawks and one of the most storied political leaders of the United States in the whole of the Jacksonian era. Clay, as a Senator, voted for the original Thirteenth Amendment in 1810. He then went back to Kentucky and was elected to the House of Representatives, serving as the Speaker of the federal House from 1811 through 1821 and again in 1823-25. He was a candidate for president in 1824 and again in 1844.

The fiery speech he gave in December of 1810 came just three days after the Legislature of Maryland provided the first approval for the original Thirteenth Amendment, which was done on Christmas Day. Curiously, Clay would, in his last years, come to support the treachery of James Buchanan by endorsing the edition of the Constitution compiled by William Hickey -- and published in successive editions through the early 1850s -- an edition which made NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the actions of the Eleventh Congress and the issuance of the original Thirteenth Amendment.

Annexing the lands then known as West Florida was a direct insult to the British in their alliance with Spain, and some of that land comprises modern-day Pensacola and Mobile, Alabama.

The harbor at Mobile provided direct access to much of the Creek Nation in that time, and so it was both militarily and politically important to the control of the port city of New Orleans. Founded as a Spanish city, obtained by the French while the Bonapartes ruled both France and Spain, and muchly desired by the British during the War of 1812, New Orleans has often been at the center of many political controversies.

And its status as a State is a part of the controversy over the proper ratification of the original Thirteenth Amendment.

The Territory of Orleans was converted to state status in the spring of 1812. Louisiana became a full-fledged State on April 30th of that year. Barely six weeks later, the House and Senate passed a draft Declaration of War against Great Britain and James Madison signed it as President on June 18th, 1812.

So great was the anxiety about General James Wilkinson's tawdry character and his "subsequent betrayal of Burr in order to save himself", that former Secretary of War Henry Dearborn was promoted to Major General in order that he might outrank the senior U.S. commander then serving -- Wilkinson. In the summer of 1812, with Napoleon Bonaparte triumphant in most of Europe and the British fighting a desperate campaign in Portugal and Spain, while also failing to address American grievances over the impressment of sailors and the Chesapeake incident, the War Hawks got and held the upperhand. War was commenced.

By the 16th of August the war effort was faltering badly. The Governor of the Michigan Territory -- William Hull -- was early on commissioned as a general and supplies and regular troops were ordered up to support his 1600 militia. Hull then conducted one of the worst campaigns in American military history and on that date surrendered his army at Detroit to an attacking force of British Canadian troops and Potawatomi Indians led by Tecumseh. Not a single British or Indian was killed when Detroit was surrounded. Another American army was soundly whipped in a fierce battle at Queenstown, in Canada, later in the autumn of 1812.

Two years later, in August of 1814, a strong British force landed in Virginia and in Maryland, seizing Alexandria and many ships and commodities. A combination of smart manuevers and crippling stupidity by some of James Madison's closest military advisors led to the rout of the American militia at Bladensburg and the British occupation of Washington City. Those who know American history know that the British then torched all the federal builidings that they could get to burn and wrecked the office of the anti-British newspaper "National Intelligencer".

The successful defense of Baltimore and Fort McHenry was a complete turn-around of American military fortunes, and two of the men who organized and led that fight were Philip Reed and Samuel Smith, two Senators of Maryland who had voted for the original Thirteenth Amendment in 1810.

By the end of the autumn of 1814, it was an open secret in both Britain and the United States that a large expeditionary force was being organized to sail against New Orleans and to forcibly reclaim West Florida. Major General Sir Edward Pakenham was detailed to lead the British army being shipped to Jamaica and then to be prepared for the capture of New Orleans. Admiral Alexander Cochrane, who had planned and supervised the sack of Washington City was in charge of the British flotilla. At the end of November, Cochrane tried to raise a fighting force of Creek Indian Nation, meeting with their leaders at Appalachicola and at Pensacola. The admiral hoped to get some four thousand Creek warriors to join their effort to capture New Orleans and to subdue West Florida. The worst fears of the western War Hawks were now being realized. Unfortunately for the British, this gambit failed completely and the Choctaw chose to fight for New Orleans with Andrew Jackson.

THE BAYOU AND MARSH LANDS AROUND NEW ORLEANS WERE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST BRITISH INVASION

As Robin Reilly details it, so thoroughly, in his excellent book from 1974, the extensive marshlands which surrounded New Orleans in 1814-1815 and the narrow waterways or coulees of that area proved to be a severe impediment to the British invasion. The Battle of New Orleans was, in fact, an extensive campaign staged by the British with many small actions culminating in the final assault and bloody firefight of the 8th of January. 1815

There is no doubt whatsoever that Pakenham's army and the supporting British flotilla were tasked with the capture of New Orleans and that the plan was to hold the City and its environs. New Orleans would be sacked, its ships and commodities condemned as prizes of war, and then either ransomed back to the United States or held -- with West Florida -- as a permanent British enclave on the Gulf Coast. Whether the British had an idea of operating this enclave for the benefit of their ally, Spain, or not, their ambition was clear.

Two of the finest British regiments, veterans of the Peninsular campaign under Wellington, were the main fighting force used in the assault on New Orleans. Many of the soldiers had their wives and children transported with them on this expedition. For example, the 93rd Highlanders brought 104 children with them from England. They were not expecting to take New Orleans and then leave. Perhaps as many as 600 children overall were aboard the British ships off the coast, according to Robin Reilly.


It is not disputed that the British had noted the potential importance of New Orleans at least half a century before they attempted to capture it, and numerous proposals were made to acquire it by purchase, by diplomacy, or by force. Nor is it any secret that the British disputed -- and, in law, correctly -- the legality of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

The future of New Orleans would have depended upon negotiations between Britain, Spain, and the United States, but possession of the City would have given the British an incomparable advantage in the conduct of these discussions.

-- from "An End and a Beginning", The British At The Gates.

The British aristocrats who were in command of their imperial fighting forces and ships were clearly hungering for the capture of New Orleans for the purposes of profit and plunder. They had been fighting Napoleon Bonaparte for most of the eleven previous years and the costs had become astronomical. New Orleans was the single most important port in the western hemisphere in 1815 and would have added immeasurably to British control of the Carribean: doubly so with a supine and agreeable Spanish ally.

Had their plans for an uprising of the Creek Nation worked out, any success at New Orleans would have led to the loss of the Mississippi Territory to the United States, and a stalemate in the northwestern frontier as well. The new union of sovereign States would have been blocked at the border of the Floridas and contained by a resurgent league of Indian nations on the western border of the Indiana territory. All of the subsequent history of the southern States -- including the rapid development of the cotton crops that Great Britain has always treasured so highly -- would have been British-American history.

THE WAR OF 1812 DELAYED THE FINAL RATIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Extensive research conducted by various scholars and activists has been assembled and prepared for easy reading at:

http://www.amendment-13.org/

A careful search of the archives of libraries, law libraries, State legislative archives and the purchase of privately published books and newspapers from the Jacksonian era has established -- beyond any reasonable doubts -- that the work of the Eleventh Congress in drafting the TONA was validated by correct and proper ratifications of thirteen of the seventeen States in the union in 1810. Numerous State publications of their Statue law, with the Constitution for the United States affixed as an index or supplement, shows that this amendment was finalized on or before March 12, 1819.

Critics of this research -- who are almost all pro-British attorneys or members of the legal BAR -- dispute the ratification and insist that the fact that Louisiana never voted on the TONA is proof positive that it was not properly ratified.

This argument is both disingenous and fatuous: as noted, the Territory of Orleans was not even created by law until after the precise wording of the original Thirteenth Amendment was completed by the Senate and approved. The State of Louisiana did not enter the union until April of 1812 and was not, therefore, entitled to have a vote on the ratification because it was not a part of the Article V drafting process. Further, any such ratification vote on their part would have been nothing more than a pro forma endorsement, for it would have required passing an Ex Post Facto law -- which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution for the union.

All ratifications done for constitutional amendments are acts of law, whether done by legislative actions or by ratifying convention actions in the sovereign States.

The men who were the leaders of Louisiana in the decades after Andrew Jackson and his multi-ethnic army crushed the British assault, and killed Edward Pakenham, understood the power and the limits of State sovereignty very well. Their state law books published it as being ratified and proper in 1825 and again in 1855, which means that the political supporters of James Buchanan were consciously aware of his betrayal of his oath to support and defend this Constitution, whether as Secretary of State in the late 1840s or as President after the 1856 elections.

None of the first six States admitted to the union while the ratification was in progress, or shortly thereafter, ever challenged the sovereign decisions of the thirteen legislatures which did approve it. Two States provided unanimous votes of their legislatures, these being Ohio and Georgia. Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana, Illlinois, Missouri and Maine all have books of statue law with the U.S. Constitution included and with thirteen lawful amendments included. Federal handbooks for teaching military officers about the Constitution, published at federal expense in 1825, contain the original Thirteenth.

Both Rhode Island and Connecticut, where the amendment was defeated for ratification, published it as being lawful and proper in later years. Timothy Pitkin, who left the Congress and served in the Connecticut legislature during his long and illustrious legal career, never voiced a complaint about it. He died in 1847, still an arch-Federalist, and his two volume history of the Revolution and formation of the Articles of Confderation still resides on the shelves of Yale University.

Elisha Potter also left Congress and returned to Rhode Island, where he served in their legislature, as he had done before. He was a veteran of the Revolution and everything about the Constitution -- especially an amendment of such fundamental importance -- would have been a matter of essential concern to him.

The treacherous James Wilknson, who tried to hide the sell-out of his own country and his own government, eventually faded from public notice. He was always a spendthrift and wastrel, which is one reason he coveted the Spanish pension paid to him in silver for so many years. The original Thirteenth Amendment was, in part, drafted to block that kind of treasonous ambition.

Now that the whole country is focused on New Orleans and Louisiana, perhaps more Citizens and more curious people will come to consider how close this country came to losing all of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast to the likes of Wilkinson and to British troops and gunboats. Perhaps now the hard questions which should be asked about the treachery of James Buchanan will be asked. His career should be studied in detail, instead of being forgotten. His criminal attempt to strip a lawfully approved amendment out of the Constitution should be examined for its reasoning, and its final method of achieving success.

Buchanan -- Representative, Senator, Secretary of State, Ambassador and President -- ought not to be a minor footnote in American history, the man who was the man before Abraham Lincoln.

Perhaps then the Citizens and the people will ask themselves the hardest of the hard questions -- which is -- who among our current crop of military and political leaders exhibits the same signs and the same behaviors as the two arch-traitors of our distant past, General James Wilkinson and President James Buchanan ?? The answers may not be very pleasing. They will however be very useful in understanding why this rich country with its many talented millions seems to be operated from the shadows by men who are not loyal to representative democracy or republican ideals, men who wear bowler hats and salute a Queen.




TITLES OF HONOR AND SECRET ARMIES PROHIBITED SINCE 1819

Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2005 :  12:24:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother Steven:

Peace be unto the house.


Greetings and Peace to you and yours as well.

quote:
quote:
“Greetings! Paul was not only a citizen of Rome but of Heaven as well. No conflict of interest. I know this files [sic] in the face of your theory but there is no getting around it.” – BK [Emphasis added]


brother Robert said: Your statement, No conflict of interest., flies in the face of common sense. Can your wife have two husbands with, No conflict of interest.? Well, neither can Yahuwah’s wife have two Husbands.


Respectfully, you are refusing to believe what the Bible itself says about Paul and others. By your theory Paul and a host of other important Bible figures "had two husbands" and were "affiliates of the world". Either the Bible is wrong about many key figures and you, on the other hand are right... or.. you are wrong about the application of certain words which need be defined in such a way to support your theory. Context will be the key in deciding. Look at the actions of the people in question and the proper definition from the menue will follow. I will address each point you list below.

quote:
Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. … her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

The oath of allegiance that one must take to become a naturalized citizen may give some of us a clue as to whether dual citizenship creates, “No conflict of interest”.


This is the root problem. You do not add the first sentence in Jeremiah 3:6 which would have given the full understanding of what was going on. Let's put the first sentence BACK in the verse you quoted and see if it gives us an idea of the political climate that you want to address.

The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. (KJV)

This was taking place when Israel already had a kingdom. This is not an issue of dual citizenship. This verse speaks about citizens of the pre-exilic Kingdom of Israel who were engaging in forbidden rituals with strange deities of those people they did not kill off in the holy land. Not about going and joining another political entity. I am sure you are aware of the historical reality of 'religions' in the Levant that worshiped on high mountains and green trees. We are not talking about government entities here, we are talking about the Israelites going and participating in the worship of the peoples who they had already conquered so the issue of dual citizenship is moot. The fact that there were even any forbidden strangers in the land after the conquest is a breach of the contract itself! They were supposed to be "utterly destroyed" with no mercy. That's another topic.


quote:
Every alien applying for American citizenship must, as the final step, take the following oath of allegiance to the United States:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…so help me God.” – The World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1974, Ci-Cz, page 444


Paul was born into his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. It can be argued that he purchased his STATUS and being born into it is a lie. Either way, born into it or by purchase, Paul enjoyed benefits that only an CITIZEN of the EMPIRE could attain. The well documented history of ROME's LEGAL SYSTEM confirms the fact that Paul's CITIZENSHIP afforded him benefits that were only available to that STATUS.
There is no getting around this.

quote:
It certainly seems that New Rome believes that dual citizenship is a conflict of interest. And this conflict of interest is obviously exponentially enhanced when two governments are at enmity with one another.

A person with dual citizenship faces another danger in time of war. If he fulfills his obligations of allegiance to one country, he may find that he is committing treason against the other. – The World Book Encyclopedia, copyright 1974, Ci-Cz, page 445


The fact remains that dual citizenship does exist even if it presents a problem in time of war if the two countries are at odds.

A key to understanding all of this in context to Biblical times is recognizing the difference between the pre-exilic kingdom of Israel, which existed thousands of years before the encyclopedia example you site above, and Israel in exile outside of the contract land or inside a portion of the land but as vassals. Example: Ezra returing to Jerusalem as vassals of a foreign GOVT is still exile even though they returned. Pre-Exilic and Exilic two distinct histories and situations and this must be taken into account when trying to apply scripture from one era to another.

The bigger question is why did Israel's kingdom get destroyed? The Bible is clear that Israel will be punished for whoring with the religions of those they defeated. It is essential to understand that Israel was the political power in the holy land when all of this religious whoring was going on so the problem is not one of the Israelites becoming CITIZENS of other countries during pre-exile times. Israel did not smash the alters of those they defeated upon taking the promised land. Israel did not utterly destroy or "show no mercy" to those they defeated upon taking the promised land. They kept them around as slaves and some they put under tribute. Those crimes lead to the ultimate punishment of having their kingdom destroyed. This lead Israel to be taken into bondage by enemy nations. This punishment was not because Israelites were becoming CITIZENS of foreign nations, it was because Israelites were getting mixed up in the worship and religions of those non-Israelites who were suffered to be in the holy land... which is also a breach of contract in and of itself.

quote:
Ye adulterers (traitors) and adulteresses (traitresses), know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with Yahuwah? whosoever therefore will be a friend (Gr. philos; L filius – an affiliate) of the world is the enemy (adversary) of Yahuwah.

Affiliate. Signifies a condition of being united; being in close connection, allied, associated, or attached as a member or branch. - Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 37




You are trying to assert here "world" equals any non-YHWH GOVT. Yet we see that Cornelius the centurion is declared "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." In fact, an Angel came and declared that Cornelius' prayers were a memorial to God!! By your rendering of "world" Cornelius was serving two masters and could not have been a just man or a "God fearing man". When we apply your theory to the charecters in the Bible we see a serious conflict between what is plainly written about these people when compared against your rendering of the first commandment. Daniel, Paul, Cornelius, Joseph, Mary were all guilty of breaking your version of the first commandment. They would also have been "affiliates
of the world" and serving two masters. That does not make sense when you apply your theory to what the Bible says about these people.

quote:
What does the Scripture say about dual citizenship?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

That seems pretty succinct. Another version of this is: No citizen can serve two governments. In fact isn’t that what the worldly master vigorously implies in their above Oath of Allegiance?


This is not talking about dual citizenship. Respectfully, it only seems succinct when you throw out the stories of Cornelius, Paul, Joseph, Mary and even Daniel. These people had attachments to the GOVT of their day, yet the Bible recognizes them amongst the righteous. Surely, if your rendering of the first commandment was correct they would have known it. Paul especially.

Also, I can prove to you that one can have dual citizenship today. This is a fact!

quote:
‘Elohiym means, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: gods in the ordinary sense, God, magistrates. And theos also means, figuratively magistrates.

“Gods in the ordinary sense”: 4. Any person or thing…honored as the chief good. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Consecrate, v.t. [L., to consecrate, sacred. See Sacred.] 2. ...to enroll among the gods, as a Roman emperor. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Magistrate, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States. (Ibid.)


If what you assert is correct then some major figures in Bible history who were considered righteous have been breaking the first commandment. I have shown you in the past where Samuel declared that Israel, by choosing a king like the genitles, had to serve both YHWH and the King. You claim this is impossible, yet we see Samuel declaring this is what Israel had to do. I will provide that example later.

quote:
Do we perceive a conflict of interest? We thought that Yahuwah was the Highest or First Magistrate. Maybe the Scriptural answer is that we can only serve one supreme magistrate.


What if that supreme magistrate demands that Israel be sent into bondage and exile wherein part of the punishment is to be subject
to foreign GOVT?

Like it or not, you and I are subject to foreign GOVT. They have the power to kick our doors down and ask questions later. They have the power to take us to jail if we break laws. They have the power to declare to us, "if we catch you doing this again, you will have deeper repercussions". If these people did not have any authority, we would not be trying our best to avoid them.

quote:

Then saith Yahushua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahuwah thy God (Magistrate, i.e. Master), and him only shalt thou serve.

G2316
theos
Thayer Definition:
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a1) of magistrates and judges


Notice there are two choices. You pick definition 4a1 because it suits your theory. But by doing so and applying the word to gentile rulers you make first commandment breakers out of many important figures. The Bible does not say that about these people. It actually says the opposite.

quote:
One more contextual question; what would be the point of Yahuwah saying…

…they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them

…when the people said, “make us a king to rule us like all the nations”; why would He say this if dual citizenship is okay with Him?


You are not seeing the whole of the situation. Firstly, this is not an issue of dual citizenship. This is an issue of government structure in the pre-exile times of Israel. In fact, when you look later on past the verse you post you will find, once again, it actually argues against your theory! We spoke about this once already. Here's what I posted then:

Samuel declared that because of their choice the Israelites had to serve both their KING as well as YHWH. Samuel gives them a
detailed list of burdens this KING will heap on them. Never the less, the Israelites agree and once YHWH ruins their crops in anger they realize their error. After they see this they cry to Samuel for advice on how to get out of this mess. This brings us to 1 Samuel 12:19

19. All the people then said to Shmuel, "Pray on behalf of your servants to YHWH, your Elohim, that we not die; for have added evil upon all of our sins, to request a king for ourselves."

20. Shmuel said to the people FEAR NOT. You have done all this evil - BUT do not turn away from following YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart.

21 Do not turn away for pursuing futilities that cannot avail and cannot rescue, for they are futile.

22 For YHWH shall not forsake His people for the sake of His great Name; for YHWH has sworn to make you for a people unto Him.

23 And I, also- far be it from me to sin against YHWH and refrain from praying on your behalf; rather I shall instruct you in the good and proper path.

24. Only fear YHWH and serve Him faithfully, with all your hearts, for look at how much he has done for you.

25 But if you act wickedly, both you and your king will perish..


Now a few obvious questions come to mind when reading the passages above.

a) If being subject to a 1 Sam 8 style KING 'like the nations' is serving two masters how can Samuel tell them (after they selected the King) NOT to turn away from YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart, and only to fear YHWH and serve him faithfully??.... If your view of the first commandment if correct, this is impossible and a huge contradiction on Samuel's part.

b) If serving two masters is as you say it is, then why did Samuel, who is a respected Judge of the Law and one who 'shall instruct the Israelites on the good and proper path', NOT know your version of the first commandment? Samuel would have been in grave error to tell them to continue to both serve YHWH as well as the 1 Sam 8 style king 'like the nations'.

quote:
Let us decide from context who the “Jews, which believed not”, thought Paul was subject to.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.


Firstly, this scripture has nothing to do with Paul. Secondly, in fact, the story from which you plucked this one verse proves your theory does not hold water in context. This story argues against your theory. Let’s read the whole section and see what it says:

Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Luk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Luk 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

Here we see Mary and Joseph going and paying TAX. What is said of Mary and Joseph in the Bible?

Luke 1:28- And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Here we see a TAXPAYER named Mary being called “highly favored” and “blessed among women” by an angel. This is impossible if we apply your theory!

Matthew 1:29 - Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Here we see a TAXPAYER named Joseph being called a “just man“.

These descriptions would be impossible according to your theory. Now let’s move on later in history to the next verse you post:

quote:
Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Yahushua.

Well now, if Paul is a “Roman citizen”, or a “dual citizen”, why is he doing "contrary to the decrees of [the] Caesar" by refusing to pay his census taxes?


Firstly, the story from which you plucked this verse has you taking for truth the enemies' claims made against Paul, Jason and his group. Secondly, this presents a major problem for what you are arguing. You are not providing the whole story, only lifting one verse out. When you find out who is making this claim that you posted above the whole story changes:

But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

Brother robert, to make the case you are arguing using the very claims made against Paul by “Jews which believed not, moved with envy” and “lewd fellows of the baser sort”. Please, think this through. You are arguing your case based on the claims made by Paul’s enemies who wanted to frame him and his people! Respectfully, this is a crisis in logic. Also, Paul makes use of his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP to escape beatings and frame-ups later in the book.. One of the Jew’s weapons against Christ and the apostles was claiming that they were breaking Roman Law. However, even Pilate could not find any law breaking with Christ. He knew they were setting Christ up and using ROME to do their dirty work. Why believe the envious Jews if it is clear they were always trying to set Christ and the apostles up???? Trying to argue their position creates more holes than it fills.

quote:
Perhaps this has something to do with it?

I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym (Ruler)…neither shall ye walk in their ordinances [H2708].

H2708
chuqqah
BDB Definition:
1) statute, ordinance, limit, enactment, something prescribed
1a) statute

We are definitely getting the impression, from context, that Yahuwah does not allow “dual citizenship” any more than the corporation UNITED STATES allows dual citizenship.


I know a man right now who holds two passports. One from Canada and one from the USA. I can prove to you that dual citizenship exists if you want to start a thread just for that topic.

Concerning the scripture verse you quoted, here is the root problem aside from listing only fragments of the verses you are quoting.. You are mixing contexts around to suit your theory. The Sinai covenant is a contract with Israel. Those instructions were attached to a piece of land that was provided for them by YHWH. This is a very important feature. The contract outlined the exact boarders of the land and the exact laws which were to be followed in that land. Also included in the contract were punishments if the laws attached to the land were not followed. One of the punishments was that Israel would loose the land and be subject to foreign rule. That contract was broken. Israel was sent off into bondage. Daniel, AKA BELTESHAZZAR, wrote about this long exile in detail. The exile is not over for Israel. Still in the 4th kingdom. If you disagree, please tell us when Daniel 12:1 has been fulfilled. If you still see the “king apportioning land at a price” in Daniel 11 then Daniel 12:1 has not yet come.

quote:
For thou art a set apart people unto Yahuwah thy ‘Elohiym, and Yahuwah hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, out of all the nations that are upon the earth.

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people

Peculiar, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.]
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only.
4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others.

Peculiar, n. Exclusive property; that which belongs to a person in exclusion of others.

And, for obvious reasons, peculiar people…are exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction.


You are not taking into account that the scritpures you are quoting from were pre-exilic Israel when they still had a kingdom. Not post exile. The contract between YHWH and the Israelites has blessings and cursings and one need to see what stage of the contract the people were in. Exile is cursings. Regathering is exit of cursings and back to blessings. What’s more is while in exile some key Israelites were faithful to YHWH, while being subject to foreign GOVT. Daniel, a BABYLONIAN OFFICAL followed all BABYLONS laws until he was asked to pray to a strange diety. According to your theory Daniel was already "praying to a strange dieity". Joseph and Mary were TAXPAYERS, yet called “just” and “righteous”. Samuel, before the exile, even declared that the Israelites were to continue following YHWH while they served under a “king like the gentiles”. None of this would be correct if your theory is accurate.

quote:
(HNV) Kefa said to him, "From strangers." Yeshua [sic] said to him, "Therefore the children are exempt.


Read on. Christ did pay the tax after all not to confound them.

quote:
And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute ( “census” tax) to Caesar, saying that he himself is anointed a king.

Census, n. 1. In ancient Rome, an authentic declaration made before the censors, by the citizens, of their names and places of abode. This declaration was registered, and contained an enumeration of all their lands and estates, their quantity and quality, with the wives, children, domestics, tenants, and slaves of each citizen. Hence the word signifies this enumeration or register, a mans whole substance, and the tax imposed according to each mans property. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

How did they know he was forbidding to give the Caesar tribute (”census” tax )? When we look at the render unto Caesar verses with an eye of discernment, we should plainly see the answer.


Eye of discernment? Once again you are arguing from the very claims made by those who framed Christ and the apostles. The same who were called “envious, non-believing Jews” along with a group of "base men". This point is clear when you read the whole story and see who is saying what. Please understand that even Pilate could not find fault with Christ. He knew that the claims against Christ were trumped up. If Christ was preaching not paying tax then he would have easily been found guilty by Pilate.

quote:
And finally, what would be the point of continuing in the perfect Law of liberty (James 1:25) if one was simultaneously subject to over sixty million ordinances of the UNITED STATES corporation?

Synonyms for the word ordinance: decree, order, rule, regulation, law, edict – MS Word 2000’s Thesaurus

Wherefore if ye be dead with the Anointed One from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances[ #G1379 from #G1378], after the commandments [#G1378] and doctrines of men? (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;)


Why is this not talking about the Levitical and Deuteronical law? Your menue of defintions below does list the law of Moses. Paul has some words on this topic as well.

quote:
G1378
dogma
Thayer Definition:
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses…

I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym…neither shall ye walk in their ordinances [H2708].

[brown]H2708
chuqqah
BDB Definition:
1) statute, ordinance, limit, enactment, something prescribed
1a) statute

You are right, when we take all these writings in context the answer to the question of whether Yahuwah finds dual citizenship to be a conflict of interest should be obvious to most readers.


The problem is you are not presenting any of the verses you list truly in context for the detailed reasons I have presented in this rebuttal. In fact, when you read the context they argue against your theory.

Again, look to Paul's actions to decide if he was a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE of ROME. No amount of selective definitions can cover up the actions which prove Paul was certainly a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE.
Actions speak louder than words. Paul acted like a ROMAN CITIZEN who as also a Citizen of Heaven. Joseph and Mary were TAXPAYERS. According to your rendering of definitions all of the above were "affiliates of the world" and guilty of serving two masters.

Regards,
Steve



Edited by - BatKol on 01 Aug 2006 10:36:27
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 09 Sep 2005 :  06:38:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King,

Peace be unto the house.

The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of Yahuwah is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Good Tidings [gospel].

The exile/penalty for treason against the Rightful Supreme Magistrate is over and has been for about two thousand years! "...the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" and the Kingdom was re-opened.

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated (transferred) us into the Kingdom of his dear Son

People from one Kingdom (Jurisdiction) do not owe enrollment taxes in other kingdoms (jurisdictions). "Jurisdiction is secular or ecclesiastical."

Not only do you evidently respond to the render unto the caesar verses with and an entirely different situation, but then you proceed to misspeak saying Yahushua [or somebody named "Christ"] paid the temple tax; that is not truth, he did not!! But Peter certainly had to! Why? For a very simple reason, he answered the question; "Doth not your master pay tribute?" with; "He saith, Yes."

"...let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

Perhaps we both should read things in context!

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Yahushua prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

If Yahushua paid tribute, as you say, what was the purpose of anticipating (prophthano) what Peter was about to do and preventing him from taking the double drachma (didrachman) from the purse? What was the purpose of the hard line of questioning Peter received? And why did Yahushua culminate this harsh interogation with, "Then the children [citizens] are exempt"?

G1658
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability)


Furthermore, those who believe that they belong to the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, i.e. claim that they are its citizens (subjects), as you apparently are doing here in this open forum, Lawfully owe their "caesar" obedience and tribute (enrollment tax, i.e. INCOME/PROPERTY TAX); Render unto [the] Caesar what is caesar's (tricky possessive proper pronoun). So, let your yea be yea.

If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

P.S. At the times of Dani'el and Yahu'caph/Miryam [Joseph & Mary] the Kingdom was not an option; the time had not yet been fulfilled and the penalty for high treason against the Supreme Suveran had most certainly not yet been paid.
"Regards, Steve" ? Oh, my!


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 09 Sep 2005 08:02:38
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 09 Sep 2005 :  17:30:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings to you and your's brother Robert,

There is so much from my last post you did not even touch. I'll address your post after we cover the important points you did not respond to when putting your theory in practice.

If your theory is correct concerning the first commandment then:

1. Samuel, before the exile, was completely wrong in advising the Israelites (after they selected the King) "NOT to turn away from YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart, and only to fear YHWH and serve him faithfully" ... If your view of the first commandment if correct, this is impossible for the Israelites after they choose a 1 Sam 8 style king. You have said many times that basically one cannot be subject to a 1 Sam 8 king while serving YHWH. That would be your definition of serving two masters. Samuel, however, clearly tells the Israelites to serve YHWH during their new political arrangement. Please address this.

2. Corneilius, being a CENTURION, was not really a "God fearing man" who "worshiped God with all his household". Please address this as Corneilius lived after Christ's death.

3. Paul, the ROMAN CITIZEN, who certainly enjoyed the benefits that were only available to CITIZENS of the EMPIRE, was actually breaking the first commandment.

When we apply your theory to the lives of these key figures who were considered righteous, we find that the Bible is flat wrong on what it says about these people. They could not have been righteous, "God fearing", etc. They were all "affiliates of the world" by your definition.

Here's my response to your post:

quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite

Greetings and salutations in the name of our King,


The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of Yahuwah is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Good Tidings [gospel].

The exile/penalty for treason against the Rightful Supreme Magistrate is over and has been for about two thousand years! "...the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" and the Kingdom was re-opened.


If the exile is over when did Jeremiah 16:15, 23:3 get fulfilled?

"But, YHWH liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers."

"And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase."

I have a long list of other unfulfilled "ingathering of the exiles" scriptures but let's see how you deal with the ones above. Also, the Israelites were still "scattered abroad" when James wrote his letters.
Surely, the ingathering of the exiles had not been achieved yet.

quote:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated (transferred) us into the Kingdom of his dear Son

People from one Kingdom (Jurisdiction) do not owe enrollment taxes in other kingdoms (jurisdictions). "Jurisdiction is secular or ecclesiastical."


You are inserting your own definition for “Kingdom of his dear Son”. This scripture you are using was written by a self professed CITIZEN of the EMPIRE who argued in front of CAESAR and enjoyed benefits only available to CITIZENS! How can you use the letters of a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE to argue your position that it is a breach of the first commandment to be a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE??? Paul knew nothing of your rendering of the first commandment.

quote:
Not only do you evidently respond to the render unto the caesar verses with and an entirely different situation, but then you proceed to misspeak saying Yahushua [or somebody named "Christ"] paid the temple tax; that is not truth, he did not!! But Peter certainly had to! Why? For a very simple reason, he answered the question; "Doth not your master pay tribute?" with; "He saith, Yes."

"...let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

Perhaps we both should read things in context!

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Yahushua prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

If Yahushua paid tribute, as you say, what was the purpose of anticipating (prophthano) what Peter was about to do and preventing him from taking the double drachma (didrachman) from the purse? What was the purpose of the hard line of questioning Peter received? And why did Yahushua culminate this harsh interogation with, "Then the children [citizens] are exempt"?

G1658
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability)





Firstly, this is a word game. Why would Christ have been obligated to pay just ‘because Peter said so‘? That was not from Christ’s mouth but Peter’s. Would you be obligated to a TAX just because I said you were? Of course not. This would have been a perfect situation for Christ to have proclaimed, “I never agreed to this tax. Peter said that, not me. Therefore I am not obligated”. He does not say that. He tells him to go get a coin out of the mouth of a fish and pay for “me and thee”. When Peter goes and pays for “me and thee” he is acting as Christ’s agent in paying the tax FOR him after Christ told him to do so. Perhaps TAXES such as the one Peter and Christ paid were to be taken from labour instead of Church funds on hand. That would be a good explaination why he told Peter to go catch the fish and get the coins rather than use donations. We can squabble about the meaning of the words said to Peter but the fact remains two taxes were paid for both Peter and Christ.

Conjecture aside look at the actions. Christ told Peter to go pay for "me and thee". Two TAXPAYERS (; as defined after the tricky punctuation).

quote:
Furthermore, those who believe that they belong to the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, i.e. claim that they are its citizens (subjects), as you apparently are doing here in this open forum, Lawfully owe their "caesar" obedience and tribute (enrollment tax, i.e. INCOME/PROPERTY TAX); Render unto [the] Caesar what is caesar's (tricky possessive proper pronoun). So, let your yea be yea.


If the IRS wanted to make a case that either you or I owe INCOME TAX to the USA they can do this by proving we sell our labor. That’s COMMERCE. You don’t think, if they wanted to, could find out who we “do business with” when we sell our labor and get them to testify?

quote:
If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?


Respectfully, this line could be used against you as well in context to SELLING your labor.

quote:
P.S. At the times of Dani'el and Yahu'caph/Miryam [Joseph & Mary] the Kingdom was not an option; the time had not yet been fulfilled and the penalty for high treason against the Supreme Suveran had most certainly not yet been paid.
"Regards, Steve" ? Oh, my!



Paul, who says himself he is a ROMAN CITIZEN enjoyed benefits that only a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE could attain, yet you quote his letters frequently to assert that being a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE is a breach of the first commandment. You know Paul’s letters were written well after Christ’s death. Respectfully, it makes no sense. Cornelius, who lived after Christ's death was a CENTURION for the EMPIRE. The book of Acts proclaims him to be a “God fearing man” who “worshipped God with all his house”. This is impossible according to your theory when we apply it to key figures in the Bible!

quote:
"Regards, Steve" ? Oh, my!


Yes. Regards to you all,
Steve






Edited by - BatKol on 09 Sep 2005 19:09:44
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 10 Sep 2005 :  14:00:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings to you and yours brother Steven,

Happy Sevening Day Remembrance to all our brothers and sisters of the Kingdom!

If your theory is correct, that we can properly serve both the Supreme Sovereign and his mortal enemies simultaneously; we would have to say that this is one of the (if not the) greatest feats of all time.

<quote>If your theory is correct concerning the first commandment then
1. Samuel, before the exile, was completely wrong in advising the Israelites (after they selected the King) "NOT to turn away from YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart, and only to fear YHWH and serve him faithfully" ... If your view of the first commandment if correct, this is impossible for the Israelites after they choose a 1 Sam 8 style king. You have said many times that basically one cannot be subject to a 1 Sam 8 king while serving YHWH. That would be your definition of serving two masters. Samuel, however, clearly tells the Israelites to serve YHWH during their new political arrangement. Please address this. <end quote>


Certainly, we would be only too happy to accommodate you on this matter.

King
Is in Scripture very generally used to denote one invested with authority, whether extensive or limited. … Jehovah
[Yahuwah] was the sole King of the Jewish [Israelite] nation. But there came a time in the history of that people when a king was demanded, that they might be like other nations. The prophet Samuel remonstrated with them, but the people cried out, “Nay, but we will have a king over us.” … The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel. – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary

Those bolded and underlined sentences tells you who Our Supreme Magistrate is (no man can serve two masters); and if the Yisraelite’s individually (one of a city, and two of a family), or collectively, continued to serve Yahuwah with all their heart, and only to fear Yahuwah and serve him faithfully, as Shama'el had instructed them, they would do all in their power to keep their king (or man-made government) in line or give their king (or man-made government) “the Boot” if he/it did not adhere to this last line from the above definition: “The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel” In fact we perceive, that some of our forefathers may have understood this principal.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


We would certainly add to this that because we are instructed; “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil”, that as independent semi-sovereigns we must sever ourselves individually, if necessary, from any government which thinks to usurp Yahuwah’s rightful position as Supreme Magistrate, which of course, is what we have done.

<quote>2. Corneilius, being a CENTURION, was not really a "God fearing man" who "worshiped God with all his household". Please address this as Corneilius lived after Christ's death.<end quote>

Again, we would be delighted!

Yahushua of Nazareth went about curing all that were oppressed by the calumniator (devil); for Yahuwah was with him. (Act 10:38)

Calumniator, n. One who slanders; one who falsely and knowingly accuses another of a crime or offense, or maliciously propagates false accusations or reports. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Note: This caluminator would be the government, or rather the CORPORATION, that you are apparently openly claiming to be a member of.

And he commanded us to give official notice unto the people, and to attest that he is appointed by Yahuwah to be the leader or ruler of the Israelites. (Act 10:42)

While explaining all this to Cornelius, Cornelius evidently received the set-apart spirit (Act 10:44-45).

Cornelius, who lived after Christ's death was a CENTURION for the EMPIRE ...but was in the end, baptized into the Kingdom of Yahuwah.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Supreme in Authority). (Act 10:48)

A much belated, "Welcome to the Kingdom, brother Cornelius"!!

We thank you, brother Steven, for reminding us of this man! He is living proof that not only can those who currently wear the mask of AGENT choose to enter into Kingdom of the Living, i.e. the Kingdom of Yahuwah, but that Yahuwah also to the nations [non-Hebrew] granted compunction unto life.

Compunction, n. [L. To prick or sting.]
…He acknowledged his disloyalty to the king, with expressions of great compunction. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language


<quote>3. Paul, the ROMAN CITIZEN, who certainly enjoyed the benefits that were only available to CITIZENS of the EMPIRE, was actually breaking the first commandment.<end quote>

If Paul was in truth stating that he was a Roman citizen for all “the benefits that were only available to CITIZENS of the EMPIRE”, then he was indeed breaking the first commandment, for this government was not of Yahuwah; they served a host of other gods!!

When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.

On the other hand, if this was a lie, told to further Yahuwah’s plan, then your theory that he was breaking the first commandment doesn’t hold water, in my humble opinion.

For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Perhaps you would be willing to share with us what lie Paul might have told that caused the Truth of Yahuwah to excel?

When we apply your theory that one can faithfully serve two adversarial Supreme Magistrates we find it contrary to rational thinking.

<quote>Here's my response to your post:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King,
The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of Yahuwah is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Good Tidings [gospel].
The exile/penalty for treason against the Rightful Supreme Magistrate is over and has been for about two thousand years! "...the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" and the Kingdom was re-opened.
If the exile is over when did Jeremiah 16:15, 23:3 get fulfilled?
"But, YHWH liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers."
"And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase."<end quote>


First note well that that in 16:15 there are “children of Israel”, i.e. fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el and in 23:3 there is a “remnant of my flock”, again fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el in “all the lands” and in “all countries”. As we have said to you before, we have yet to see the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Yahuwah, however, this does not mean that there is no Kingdom at all or that He has no citizens!

<quote>I have a long list of other unfulfilled "ingathering of the exiles" scriptures but let's see how you deal with the ones above. Also, the Israelites were still "scattered abroad" when James wrote his letters.<end quote>

Though the Yisra’elites are still scattered abroad, Steven, they are nonetheless Yisra’elites, i.e. fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el, as we are; and Yahuwah is still their ‘Elohiym, that is to say, the Judge, Lawgiver and King, of all those whom He brings out of the house of bondage.

<quote>Surely, the ingathering of the exiles had not been achieved yet.<end quote>

That is correct, the ingathering of Yahuwah’s citizens has not been achieved yet. I believe we have said this before, but again, that does not mean that they do not exist.

<quote>quote:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated (transferred) us into the Kingdom of his dear Son
People from one Kingdom (Jurisdiction) do not owe enrollment taxes in other kingdoms (jurisdictions). "Jurisdiction is secular or ecclesiastical."
You are inserting your own definition for “Kingdom of his dear Son”.<end quote>


Excuse me?

I appoint unto you a kingdom [G932], as my Father hath appointed unto me

G932
basileia
bas-il-i'-ah
From G935; properly royalty, that is, (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively)


Concretely, adv. In a concrete manner; in a manner to include the subject with the predicate; not abstractly. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Realm, n. relm. [L. rex, king, whence regalis, royal.] 1. A royal jurisdiction or extent of government; a kingdom; a king's dominions; as the realm of England. (Ibid.)

Kingdom, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction] 5. In Scripture, the government…of God [Yahuwah]. (Ibid.)

Serve Yahuwah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son [Heir (apparent to the throne)] lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Psalm 2:11-12)

<quote>This scripture you are using was written by a self professed CITIZEN of the EMPIRE who argued in front of CAESAR and enjoyed benefits only available to CITIZENS! How can you use the letters of a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE to argue your position that it is a breach of the first commandment to be a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE???<end quote>

Thank you Steven: “who argued in front of CAESAR” Therein may lay the key to why Paul may have lied about being a Roman citizen! “he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name beforekings…”

<quote>Paul knew nothing of your rendering of the first commandment.<end quote>

So say you!

For though there be that are called gods [magistrate/masters], whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods [magistrate/masters] many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God [Magistrate/Master], the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Yahushua, the Anointed One, by whom are all things, and we by him.

We find it very enlightening that the word Lord, as in Lord Yahushua, according the Thayer’s, is attached basically to one of three entities:
(#a) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
(#b) this title is given to: God [Yahuwah, the Supreme Magistrate]
(#c) [this title is given to:] the Messiah [Yahuwah’s anointed Principal Officer]

<quote>quote:
Not only do you evidently respond to the render unto the caesar verses with and an entirely different situation, but then you proceed to misspeak saying Yahushua [or somebody named "Christ"] paid the temple tax; that is not truth, he did not!! But Peter certainly had to! Why? For a very simple reason, he answered the question; "Doth not your master pay tribute?" with; "He saith, Yes."

"...let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."
Perhaps we both should read things in context!
He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Yahushua prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
If Yahushua paid tribute, as you say, what was the purpose of anticipating (prophthano) what Peter was about to do and preventing him from taking the double drachma (didrachman) from the purse? What was the purpose of the hard line of questioning Peter received? And why did Yahushua culminate this harsh interrogation with, "Then the children [citizens] are exempt"?

G1658
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability)


Why would Christ have been obligated to pay just ‘because Peter said so‘? That was not from Christ’s mouth but Peter’s. Would you be obligated to a TAX just because I said you were? Of course not.<end quote>


We heartily thank you for that brutally honest admission!

You are correct simply because you and/or Peter said we/he was obligated in no way obligates us/him.

<quote>If the IRS wanted to make a case that either you or I owe INCOME TAX to the USA they can do this by proving we sell our labor. That’s COMMERCE. You don’t think, if they wanted to, could find out who we “do business with” when we sell our labor and get them to testify?<end quote>

You, by your own admission, are one of theirs, I am not, and as you so rightly put it you cannot speak for me!!
"Would you be obligated to a TAX just because I said you were? Of course not."
For by thine (own) words thou shalt be rendered innocent, and by thine (own) words thou shalt be pronounced guilty.

So go ahead, Steven, get someone to testify (calumniate) that I am one of theirs; by their words, it does not make it so.

But, can your publicly avowed "government", a known plunderer, or its agents, put a gun to my head and physically steal my substance? Why of course they can, if Yahuwah be willing.

<quote>This would have been a perfect situation for Christ to have proclaimed, “I never agreed to this tax. Peter said that, not me. Therefore I am not obligated”. He does not say that. He tells him to go get a coin out of the mouth of a fish and pay for “me and thee”. When Peter goes and pays for “me and thee” he is acting as Christ’s agent in paying the tax FOR him after Christ told him to do so. Perhaps TAXES such as the one Peter and Christ paid were to be taken from labour instead of Church funds on hand. That would be a good explaination [sic] why he told Peter to go catch the fish and get the coins rather than use donations. We can squabble about the meaning of the words said to Peter but the fact remains two taxes were paid for both Peter and Christ.<end quote>

Sure he could have spoken just for himself, he could have spoken selfishly. He could have hung poor, ignorant Peter out to dry and made Peter's yea, into a nay; some would, but he didn’t. Let us now “squabble” over the words; let us not eliminate the most important part just to make our case, brother Steven.

What thinkest thou, Peter? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Yahushua saith unto him, Then the children [citizens] are exempt.

He establishes, via his question, that the kings of the earth do not take tribute from their own children, those of their own household. For what purpose, Steven?

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners (alien residents), but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of Yahuwah.

To demonstrate for poor Peter that those of Yahuwah's household are exempt.

<quote>Conjecture aside look at the actions. Christ told Peter to go pay for "me and thee". Two TAXPAYERS (; as defined after the tricky punctuation).<end quote>

Just because you capitalize taxpayers, hardly makes this worth responding to, dear brother. That is akin to you seeing me fishing for my supper and by this simple observation libeling me a COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN. Ridiculous on the face of it!

[T]he children are exempt, but that we may not entrap themlet your yea be yea. Simple as that! This didn't make him a TAXPAYER any more that I am a COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN.

<quote>Perhaps TAXES such as the one Peter and Christ paid were to be taken from labour instead of Church funds on hand.<end quote>

Church funds??? And you accuse me of grasping at straws!! LOL

<quote>quote:
Furthermore, those who believe that they belong to the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, i.e. claim that they are its citizens (subjects), as you apparently are doing here in this open forum, Lawfully owe their "caesar" obedience and tribute (enrollment tax, i.e. INCOME/PROPERTY TAX); Render unto [the] Caesar what is caesar's (tricky possessive proper pronoun). So, let your yea be yea.<end quote>


Steven, my friend, my words do not obligate you, it is by your own words that you are obligated. You are voluntarily claiming to be one of Caesars; so let you yea be yea, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. And, if your government "finds" someone who'll bear witness against me…see where it gets them. For by thine (own) words thou shalt be rendered innocent, and by thine (own) words thou shalt be pronounced guilty.

<quote>quote:
If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
Respectfully, this line could be used against you as well in context to SELLING your labor.<end quote>


Respectfully we answer, regardless of what words you may choose to inappropriately put in all caps, “that is Pure, Unadulterated Poppycock!” Since I am a semi-sovereign citizen of Kingdom of Yahuwah I may sell my labour, and whatever else He has allowed me to possess, to whomever I wish, and all that I owe Caesar for this is the image and superscription without the silver, thin air, absolutely nothing, for I am not of Caesar’s world (arrangement). If someone wishing to do business with me requires me to become kosmokrator’s citizen before trading with me, then I simply refuse to do business with that man or woman.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Sep 2005 15:04:07
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 10 Sep 2005 :  14:28:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings Steven,
Peace be unto the house.
It took up about half our Remembrance Day to answer your tome. Then during the editing process before posting an inadverdant click of a key lost all our editing; hours wasted!! So we have posted it - as is - please forgive any errors.
Dealing with your aquiescence to the Beast System is far too time consuming, dear Steven.
An interesting thing about the Scriptures...the strong delusion, we perceive, is this: that as a man believes in his heart, so shall he see in the Scriptures.
We must each work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
Our love to you and yours.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Sep 2005 14:34:18
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 10 Sep 2005 :  15:44:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings! Yes, I can understand the frustration of lost information when trying to edit posts. I want to respond to each of your points one step at a time starting with this one.

Steve states: If your theory is correct concerning the first commandment then
1. Samuel, before the exile, was completely wrong in advising the Israelites (after they selected the King) "NOT to turn away from YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart, and only to fear YHWH and serve him faithfully" ... If your view of the first commandment if correct, this is impossible for the Israelites after they choose a 1 Sam 8 style king. You have said many times that basically one cannot be subject to a 1 Sam 8 king while serving YHWH. That would be your definition of serving two masters. Samuel, however, clearly tells the Israelites to serve YHWH during their new political arrangement. Please address this. <end quote>


brother Robert: Certainly, we would be only too happy to accommodate you on this matter.

King
Is in Scripture very generally used to denote one invested with authority, whether extensive or limited. … Jehovah [Yahuwah] was the sole King of the Jewish [Israelite] nation. But there came a time in the history of that people when a king was demanded, that they might be like other nations. The prophet Samuel remonstrated with them, but the people cried out, “Nay, but we will have a king over us.” … The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel. – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary

Those bolded and underlined sentences tells you who Our Supreme Magistrate is (no man can serve two masters); and if the Yisraelite’s individually (one of a city, and two of a family), or collectively, continued to serve Yahuwah with all their heart, and only to fear Yahuwah and serve him faithfully, as Shama'el had instructed them, they would do all in their power to keep their king (or man-made government) in line or give their king (or man-made government) “the Boot” if he/it did not adhere to this last line . “The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel” In fact we perceive, that some of our forefathers may have understood this principal.



Steve responds: Your position has always been that a 1 SAM 8 king is in and of itself against the law because "the people would be taxed in every facet of their being, their children would be conscripted to fight wars and make weapons for their earthly ruler(s), their burden would be so heavy that their women would have to work, the earthly ruler(s) would take their land, and in the end they would become his servants [volunteer slaves].”

Respectfully, according to your many past assertions, would not any 1 SAM 8 type king already be "out of line" from the start? Now you post this which says:

"if the Yisraelite’s individually (one of a city, and two of a family), or collectively, continued to serve Yahuwah with all their heart, and only to fear Yahuwah and serve him faithfully, as Shama'el had instructed them, they would do all in their power to keep their king (or man-made government) in line or give their king (or man-made government) “the Boot” if he/it did not adhere to this last line . “The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel”.

Again, your past position has always been that a 1 SAM 8 king is a breach of the first commandment to begin with. Is this no longer your position due to the last bit about Hebrew kings?

Please clarify.

I wanted to get this one item in it's own post. I don't want this one item to get lost in the volume of subject matter.

Best,
Steve



Edited by - BatKol on 10 Sep 2005 16:49:45
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 10 Sep 2005 :  16:41:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
brother Robert:Greetings to you and yours brother Steven,

Happy Sevening Day Remembrance to all our brothers and sisters of the Kingdom!



Steve: Happy Sabbath to you. Best to your and yours!


brother Robert: If your theory is correct, that we can properly serve both the Supreme Sovereign and his mortal enemies simultaneously; we would have to say that this is one of the (if not the) greatest feats of all time.

Steve: Again, you are not factoring in how far along Israel is in the exile. There has not been a regathering of Israel back in the land so the exile is still in effect. There is no active, political government called the “throne of David” ruling the planet. Right now the 4th Kingdom is going strong. Daniel 11 still has the king apportioning land at a price. Daniel 12:1 has not been fulfilled. Freedom for the Israelites comes after the 4th Kingdom is destroyed. The Bible is very clear on this.


Steve: 2. Corneilius, being a CENTURION, was not really a "God fearing man" who "worshiped God with all his household". Please address this as Corneilius lived after Christ's death.

brother Robert: Again, we would be delighted!

Yahushua of Nazareth went about curing all that were oppressed by the calumniator (devil); for Yahuwah was with him. (Act 10:38)

Calumniator, n. One who slanders; one who falsely and knowingly accuses another of a crime or offense, or maliciously propagates false accusations or reports. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Note: This caluminator would be the government, or rather the CORPORATION, that you are apparently openly claiming to be a member of.

Steve note: You say the caluminator is the goverment in this scripture. I suppose it was 'the government' that Christ sent into the group of pigs after they were "exorcized" out of the man.

brother Robert: And he commanded us to give official notice unto the people, and to attest that he is appointed by Yahuwah to be the leader or ruler of the Israelites. (Act 10:42)

While explaining all this to Cornelius, Cornelius evidently received the set-apart spirit (Act 10:44-45).

Cornelius, who lived after Christ's death was a CENTURION for the EMPIRE ...but was in the end, baptized into the Kingdom of Yahuwah.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Supreme in Authority). (Act 10:48)

A much belated, "Welcome to the Kingdom, brother Cornelius"!!



Steve: You have completely skipped over the fact that this CENTURION was considered righteous and a God fearing man before his baptism! According to your theory being a CENTURION is in and of itself a breach of the first commandment. How could it be said of Cornelius that he “worshiped God with all his house hold”? Also I can find nowhere in Acts where Cornelius resigns from being a CENTURION after baptism. If you try to rebut with “well it does not say he did not” you fall into the flawed “argument from silence”. BTW, Paul was baptized and continued being a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE after the fact.

brother Robert: We thank you, brother Steven, for reminding us of this man! He is living proof that not only can those who currently wear the mask of AGENT choose to enter into Kingdom of the Living, i.e. the Kingdom of Yahuwah, but that Yahuwah also to the nations [non-Hebrew] granted compunction unto life.

Steve: Study what is said about the man. He was considered both a “God fearing man” and one that worshiped God with his whole house” while also being a CENTURION. There’s no getting around this fact.


Steve: 3. Paul, the ROMAN CITIZEN, who certainly enjoyed the benefits that were only available to CITIZENS of the EMPIRE, was actually breaking the first commandment.

brother Robert: If Paul was in truth stating that he was a Roman citizen for all “the benefits that were only available to CITIZENS of the EMPIRE”, then he was indeed breaking the first commandment, for this government was not of Yahuwah; they served a host of other gods!!

Steve: It is true because of Paul’s treatment. If a Mexican claims to be an US CITIZEN in an attempt to enjoy the benefits of US CITIZENS there must be proof to his claim or no benefits. Study the history of the EMPIRE. Study Paul’s political treatment in Acts 23. This was no fake CITIZENSHIP which could command such treatment. Paul’s EMPIRE CITIZENSHIP is no lie.

brother Robert: On the other hand, if this was a lie, told to further Yahuwah’s plan, then your theory that he was breaking the first commandment doesn’t hold water, in my humble opinion.

For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Perhaps you would be willing to share with us what lie Paul might have told that caused the Truth of Yahuwah to excel?


Steve: Who said that he even lied? You are pulling one verse out of his conjecture. Did you not read “if”? This is not saying Paul has lied about anything. I will say one thing he did not lie about for sure. That’s his CITIZENSHIP. The proof is in the fact that he enjoyed benefits only available to CITIZENS of the EMPIRE. Again, Paul's red carpet treatment in Acts 23 and other places shows Paul's CITIZENSHIP to be real.

brother Robert: When we apply your theory that one can faithfully serve two adversarial Supreme Magistrates we find it contrary to rational thinking.

Steve: The problem is you put your theory first, then choose from the list of definitions from various dictionaries to “back up your claim”. Then, when shown that certain key righteous peoples would have been serving two masters according to your theory, you claim that “perhaps they were lying” or other such wild speculations which have no base. Goodness man, Paul wrote over half of the New Testament. He exercised his CITIZENSHIP well after being baptized. This was no lie. Only CITIZENS had his benefits. Joseph and Mary were TAXPAYERS yet we find they were considered righteous and blessed. The list goes on!

I assert that all of this is because of the exile prophecies. There is no physical throne of David ruling the planet from Jerusalem yet. The Exile is not over. The two houses have not been united again in the land of Israel. The 4th King is still apportioning land at a price. Daniel 12:1 has not happened yet.

I’ll post the rest of my response later. I'll be off line working for a few days. Looking forward to your replies.

Best,
Steve

Edited by - BatKol on 10 Sep 2005 19:44:05
Go to Top of Page

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 12 Sep 2005 :  22:44:13  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Greetings bro Robert et al....

It is written:
That seems pretty succinct. Another version of this is: No citizen can serve two governments. In fact isn’t that what the worldly master vigorously implies in their above Oath of Allegiance?

I am a citizen of the State of New South Wales, and I am a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia (State and Federal).
Same would apply in the USA - a citizen of Texas (State) and citizen of the US of A (Federal).
Different jurisdictions - yet I chose to apply for benefits and privileges from both. Then there is local government (Councils) another tier of jurisdiction into which I have consented.

I am not sure if you meant it was a commandment not to serve two governments or if it is an impossibility? If it is a commandment of God not to serve two (or more) governments (jurisdictions) then I agree.
Rick


*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2005 :  17:16:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty ‘El (See Footnotes #1) , The everlasting Chief (See Footnotes #2) , The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from this day forward as far as eternity. The zeal (See Footnotes #3) of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this. Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 9:6-7

Was “the zeal” of Yahuwah able to perform this? In our humble opinions it was! Or perhaps, they were! lo, I am with you for all time, even unto the end of perpetuity. Amein.

Footnotes

#1
H352 ‘ayilspecifically a chief (politically) – Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible

#2 H1 ab…ruler or chief (specifically) – Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon

#3 V – The Zealots
The Zealots absorbed the Galileans
(See Endnote #1) , a sect [(specifically) a party (See Endnote #2)] which was charged by Josephus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. [For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect (party) of the Nazarenes] (See Endnote #3) The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge [these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Yahushua.] nor pray for foreign princes. Their successors the Zealots, emphasized and broadened these principles. Josephus styled them the “fourth sect (party) of Jewish philosophy,” and they were famed for their undying love of liberty [Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Anointed One hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.] , their contempt of danger and their splendid courage.They resisted the Roman power to the utmost, and opposed the census [And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed (registered for the “census” tax)…[and] these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar]. Holding to the principal religious tenets of the Pharisees, they added an implacable hatred of the Gentile power [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.] , refused to pay tribute [And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is anointed a King.] and defied the Roman governors [Then he (Herod, the tetrarch, see Endnote #4) questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.] They looked for an earthly Messiah, who would restore the glory of Israel, and their adherents endeavored to persuade Jesus [Yahushua] , early in his ministry to ally himself with them… [The Zealots absorbed the Galileans] Jewish Sects and Their Beliefs, by George H. Sandison, PH. D. [Emphasis & Scripture verses via brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the house of Yisra’el]

Endnotes

#1 Zealots

A sect of Jews
[Hebrews] which originated with Judas the Gaulonite (Act_5:37). They refused to pay tribute to the Romans, on the ground that this was a violation of the principle that God [Yahuwah] was the only king of Israel. – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary

The Galilean-Zealots refuse to pay tribute to the Romans (governments of men) on the ground that this was a violation of the principle that Yahuwah is the only king of Yisra’el…so why, brother Steven, are you continually saying, “your theory”? It is obviously not my theory; this goes back thousands of years!!

And having left Nazareth, having come He lived at Capernaum, beside the sea in the districts of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that might be fulfilled that spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee (circle or circuit) of the nations: the people sitting in darkness saw a great Light; and to those sitting in the region and shadow of death, Light sprang up to them." Isa. 9:1, 2 From that time Yahushua began to preach and to say, Repent! For the kingdom of Heaven has drawn near.

How near? Oh, about four and five verses later, and, in our humble opinions, its worth repeating once more.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty ‘El [chief (politically)], The everlasting Chief [ruler or chief (specifically)], The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from this day forward as far as eternity. The zeal (the Zealots?) of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this. Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 9:6-7

#2 Party, n. [L. pars. See Part.] 1. A number of persons united in opinion or design, in opposition to others in the community. It differs from faction, in implying a less dishonorable association, or more justifiable designs. Parties exist in all governments… - Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Herodians, n. A sect among the Jews, which took this name from Herod; but authors are not agreed as to their peculiar notions. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language


A sect among the Jews”; now watch closely what Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary calls them, for it will tie together the words sect and political party.

Herodians
A Jewish political party who sympathized the Herodian rulers in their general policy of government, and in the social customs which they introduced from Rome. They were at one with the Sadducees in holding the duty of submission to Rome, and of supporting the Herods on the throne.
[Now we have a clue as to where the Sadducees stood in political matters.]

And he [Yahushua] charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. [And Yahushua indicates here that the Pharisees were not much better.]

Galilean - All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act_1:11[ Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven?] ), were Galileans.This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians. Julian the Apostate, as he is called, not only used the epithet himself when referring to Christ and his apostles, but he made it a law that no one should ever call the Christians by any other name. – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary

Now that we know that the early Christians were also referred to as Galileans, a sect which was charged by Josephus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. We know that the Zealots absorbed the Galileans and that the Zealotsadherents endeavored to persuade Jesus [Yahushua] , early in his ministry to ally himself with them, we know that all the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act 1:11), were Galileans who were absorbed [by] the Zealots, thus the Zeal, or perhaps the Zealots, of Yahuwah of hosts evidently did perform this, as it is written in the original Scriptural verse posted at the very beginning of this study.

G2208 Zelotes, dzay-lo-tace' – a Zealot, that is, (specifically) partisan for Jewish [Yisra’elite] political independence - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible

#3 Dr Sandison does not show a “sect of the Nazarenes”; he shows as number six, “THE NAZARITES”.

G3480 Nazoraios - Thayer Definition: Nazarite = “one separated” [And of course Nazoraios, being plural, means Nazarites, i.e. “ones separated”]

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahuwah, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith Yahuwah Almighty.

#4 1) a tetrarch; 1a) a governor of the fourth part of a region.




fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2005 :  17:50:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings brother Rick,

Great to hear from you, brother. Pray all is well with you and yours.

quote:
I am a citizen of the State of New South Wales, and I am a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia (State and Federal).
Same would apply in the USA - a citizen of Texas (State) and citizen of the US of A (Federal).



Actually, we think you may find that citizens of the STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES and the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA are both under the same god [supreme magistrate], just as citizens of the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF TEXAS are under the same supreme magistrate [god]. In fact with the advent of one world government they may all be under the same god [supreme magistrate].

And leading Him up into a high mountain, the False Accuser showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the False Accuser said to Him, I will give all this authority and their glory to You, because it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.

quote:
Different jurisdictions - yet I chose to apply for benefits and privileges from both. Then there is local government (Councils) another tier of jurisdiction into which I have consented.


Consented is the key word, is it not, dear brother?

I am not sure if you meant it was a commandment not to serve two governments or if it is an impossibility? If it is a commandment of God not to serve two (or more) governments (jurisdictions) then I agree. – Rick

I believe we may be on the same page, particularly if you were to change that to read: it is a commandment of God [whether it is the 'elohiym called STATE or 'Elohiym called Yahuwah (or whatever you choose to call Him)] not to serve any other supreme magistrate (master/god).

Although, if the two governments are contradistinct (have opposite qualities) it would be a physical impossibility to serve them both properly.

The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

We believe, as did the Galilean-Zealots, that we are to serve no government that does not acknowledge Yahuwah as its Supreme Magistrate and Yahushua as his anointed Principal Officer.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Sep 2005 18:35:55
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2005 :  20:37:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings all,

Firstly, the Zealots failed in over-throwing Rome and were crushed. Secondly, Christ was certainly not a Zealot. If he were than Pilate would have easily found him guilty. Pilate himself knew that the Jews were trumping up charges against Christ, yet Pilate could find no ROMAN law that he was guilty of breaking. Think about this for a second. If Christ was teaching Zealot doctrines (as the Jews claimed he was) then ROME would have had a clear cause to declare him guity. Yet Pilate could find Christ guilty of nothing. A key to understanding the importance of the above is knowing that the Jews were making up lies to frame both Paul and Christ. To take the claim of the Pharisees concerning Christ's teaching as Truth, and argue from their position, does not make much sense.

Again, an item which keeps getting avoided is the fact that the CENTURION Cornelius is called "God fearing" and "one who worships God with all his household" before his Baptism. Even before his Holy Spirit experience. I can, and have, sited many examples of other key figures who, according to brother Robert's theory, all would have to be considered "first commanment breakers" yet the Bible plainly identifies these people as righteous. No amount of dictionary twistings can change the simple story line and contexts that show many righteous people, both pre and post Christ, served YHWH and were also CITIZENS of various GOVTS. Both Paul and Silas were ROMAN CITIZENS, yet brother Robert makes frequent use of the Pauline letters in arguing his case that being a CITIZEN is a breach of the first commandment! It is a gross crisis in logic to take the letters of a self-confessed ROMAN EMPIRE CITIZEN and try to argue that being a ROMAN CITIZEN is a sin!

James, under the guidence of the Holy Spirit in his letter to the Gentile "uncircumcision" concerning what laws they should follow, does not mention brother Robert's theory AT ALL.

Acts 15:12 - 20.. Then all the assembly kept silence whilst they listened to Barnabas and Paul, relating how God had produced through then evidences and deep impressions among the nations. But after they had finished speaking, James arose, and said: “Men, brothers, listen to me. Symeon has been relating how God first turned to choose from among the heathen a people for His own name: and accords with the statements of the prophets, as it has been written:

“After this I will return, and re-elect the fallen tent of David; and I will relay it’s foundations, and rebuild it; so that the rest of mankind may seek out the Lord and all the heathen may take My Name upon them, Says the Lord who effects these events, known from Eternity”

I am therefore of the opinion that we should not harass the heathen; but that we send urging them to keep free from pollution by idols, from fornication, from that which is strangled, and blood…..
24. “Since we have heard that some from among us have disturbed you with statements, unsettling your minds- to whom we gave no instructions - it seemed right for us, being assembled together, to select men and send them to you, together with our friends, Barnabus and Paul, men who have delivered up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judah and Silas, who themselves will report to you the same facts by word of mouth. For it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and our own, to lay upon you no greater burden than is necessary; that is, to turn away from idol sacrifices, from blood, and from that which is strangled, and from fornication. Keeping yourself free from these you will do well. Farewell.”.. Acts 21:23 - 25:


brother Robert, why is James and the Holy Spirit not instructing the new followers in your version of the first commandment? Keep in mind James wrote this letter for Paul to deliver AFTER Christ's death and resurrection. It seems, according to your theory, that James and the Holy Spirit, missed the kernal of Christ's work.

The above is a valid question that should not be dodged if this topic is to be taken seriously.

Best,
Steve

p.s. - brother Robert, have you considered checking the same commentator's work you have been quoting to see if they even agree with your basic theory concerning Christ's message? I think if you did, you would find they don't agree with your theory either. For instance, read Dr. Strong's biography and see what style theology he promoted.

Edited by - BatKol on 15 Sep 2005 19:50:19
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 © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000