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
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2005 :  04:36:43  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Greetings gang!

Matt 17:24
The verse makes sense only in the context of authority. Jesus was teaching Peter that HE (JC)and the lads were SONS of the KING. Does the secular King pay taxes? No. Does the King's his Princes (sons) pay taxes? No, they sponge off the system under King Daddy's house. Jesus was saying we are KINGS AND SONS of the Supreme Suveran King of Kings - therefore why would he pay temple taxes especially since Jesus owns the Temple???

(These robbers are just as bad as money changers in the temple at passover. Jesus would have made a terrible waiter turning tables over.)



*************************
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

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 27 Oct 2005 :  05:02:10  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Peace be unto the house.

God wants us to be separate form the political society. He wants us in His church – SELF-GOVERNMENT UNDER GOD as freemen.

Now the following is an extract which refers to the FREEMEN who want to become part of a local government corporation whilst retaining their status as a 'freeman'. NOTE that the word inhabitant not resident is used for freemen. Note also that it was a right conferred to the FREEMEN by the Statute, ie. A privilege which they could choose to take up or elect not to take up, as it couldn't and cannot be compelled upon a freeman as you notice their rights of property, including charities, and otherwise are preserved to them.


Halsbury's Laws of England 2nd Edition Volume 21
Local Government
pages 147 and 148 paragraphs 264-266.

FREEMEN – former position – claim to admission as freemen – honorary freedom.

Before the year 1835 there existed in the corporate boroughs a certain class of persons known as FREEMEN. They formed a constituent part of the corporation, and as such enjoyed special rights in the corporate property. The right to be admitted as freemen rested upon the custom of the borough, varied by the terms of its charter. Generally, the freedom of the borough might be acquired by birth, servitude to a freeman, purchase, gift, or marriage.

In 1835 the FREEMEN ceased to be a part of the body corporate, but their existing rights to benefit from the property of the borough or body corporate and from the borough charities were preserved.

The term “freemen” now includes every person of the class whose rights and interests were preserved by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c.76), under the name either of FREEMENor of BURGESSES, and all persons who, if that Act had not been passed, might have been admitted freemen of a borough otherwise than by gift or purchase, and all persons who for the time being are INHABITANTS of the borough, wives, widows, sons, or daughters of a FREEMAN, husbands of daughters or widows of a FREEMAN, and apprentices to FREEMEN, have their rights of property, including charities, and otherwise preserved to them.

A person claiming to be admitted a FREEMAN of the borough in respect of birth, servitude (ie. Apprenticeship), or marriage, must make good his claim, which is examined by the mayor; and when the claim is established the claimant is entitled to be placed on the FREEMEN'S roll kept by the town clerk.

The honorary freedom of a borough may be conferred on persons of distinction and persons who have rendered eminent services to the borough, but such freedom does not entitle them to share with other freemen the benefits of property. The privilege cannot be conferred unless authorised by at least two-thirds of the number of the council present and voting at a metting specially called for, and with notice of, the purpose.



*************************
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

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 27 Oct 2005 :  10:06:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Constitutional infrastructure allows for the self-governance. Interestingly the de jure Thirteenth Amendment* attached and fully incorporated into every Libel of Review has an additional page; from October 11, 1861 where the Colorado territorial legislature adopted the Common Law of England**.

This fine article by Eduardo M. Rivera brings forth the point well:


quote:
Why There Is No Justice in America

The Congressional Judicial Hoax
A California Case Study


By Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
posted by WORLD NEWSSTAND October 19, 2005




Introduction


Judge Andrew P. Napolitano recently wrote a book that rips the government up one side and down the other. In the book, Constitutional Chaos, he laments the fact that federal, state and local governments are not bound in absolute obedience to the law. His first sentence in his first book is: “It should be against the law to break the law.” What is his remedy for such lawless government? He concludes his book by saying: “Congress and the state legislatures should enact legislation simply requiring that the police and all law enforcement personnel, and everyone who works for or is an agent of the government, be governed by, subject to, and required to comply with all the laws.”

Now, why wasn’t that thought of before? If the people have to obey the laws, then why shouldn’t the government? If he succeeded at nothing else, Judge Napolitano has put the focus exactly where it should be. How has government been able to commit all the wrongs he so ably detailed in his book? Judge Napolitano acknowledges on page 18 that he has no answers, when he states on page 18 of his book: “It is anyone’s guess why employees of the federal government can lie to private citizens without penalty, but citizen can go to jail for lying to the federal government even when they are innocent.” The answer will confound everyone. Congress has managed by legislative stealth to make the people of the states believe federal law applies to them. The Constitution and all laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for — government. The English common law is the law for the people in 49 of the 50 states (see footnote **; emphasis mine). Judge Napolitano has not noticed that government over the course of more than 200 years has managed to get the people to believe that government law applies to them. If government fails to obey the Constitution, it is the people who must correct government. Judge Napolitano has accurately documented government on a lawless rampage, but he has failed entirely in understanding the basis of our government and the origin of our laws. He may have been a very fair and compassionate judge, but he certainly did not learn much employment law. Government employees like private employees are not responsible for what they do on the job the employer is. Which of the three branches is the employer?

Judge Napolitano, like most people with legal training or experience, has missed that part of our history where Congress substituted itself for His Britannic Majesty. Not to understand what the federal government has done with the law after independence from the United Kingdom is to completely ignore that the English common law is the law in 98% of the states. In only a very short time, the United States Congress was able to take the legislative power granted in the first sentence of the Constitution and create the democracy, which is responsible for all the evil Judge Napolitano has unearthed. Democracies are not based on laws they are based on voting and elections. The candidates who get votes make laws and the people are made to obey them. The ultimate democratic law or code is the rule of the majority. Republics are based on the rule of law. Natural law was called upon to free the fledgling republics known as the United States. The common law jury was no match for a full time Congress determined to enact whatever legislation might be necessary to correct the people in what Congress perceived to be their errant ways.

Judge Napolitano makes reference to Natural law, but he does so in such a way that warns us that he has not found it in our most revered public document — the Declaration of Independence. The first sentence of that great document explains that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God establish the rules by which free people shall live. The Declaration of Independence proclaims that “it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

The unalienable right of the people to dissolve former political bands and to alter or abolish government precludes the solution to constitutional chaos offered by Judge Napolitano. Neither Congress nor the state legislatures have the power to enact a legal duty to obey government laws. The clearly recognized and fundamental right and duty in the people to throw off despotic government prevents the imposition of a legal duty to obey American governments. After July 4, 1776, government cannot enact laws that establish a legal duty to obey government law. The Constitution imposes limitations on government actors and punishments are clearly limited to certain specified violations of law. Once American Patriots who had fought for freedom against the British got a little power they, of course, became American politicians. Now in politics, these newly minted politicians had to overcome the Constitution and lack of authority over the people.

The Congress overcame these problems, almost immediately, by legislating for federal territory where the Constitution has limited application. The United States is an ambiguous term that can mean many things including, in its most restricted sense, just the federal territory subject to the dispositive power of Congress under Article IV. The former American Patriots decided to act territorial and think and talk nationally. However, even their idea of national was obscure. They reasoned that since the Constitution provided for the purchase of places for the erection of needful buildings in all the states, a nation of federal territory located in every state was a real possibility if not a reality. The United States district courts serve as the governing authority for this territory and for the state governments. This idea of the United States is quite different from the one in the heads of the people, but the written law will resolve any dispute, or so it was thought. It was only after painstaking and persistent effort that the truth was teased out of the United States Code and confirmed by the United States Statutes at Large. Congress has not used its power under Article III to create federal trial courts that would have some independence from the legislative and executive branches; instead it created district courts under Article IV of the Constitution for the ostensible purpose of managing federal territory and other federal property. Congress created decoy district courts to create an illusion of a genuine federal government. Since Congress never created any law other than law for federal territory and for the disposition of other property belonging to the federal government, the Article III part of the Supreme Court rarely acts. There are, therefore, two Constitutions — a Federal Constitution for federal territory and State governments and one for show and school children — the real Constitution. The Constitution was never intended to replace the states, state constitutions and laws or the English common law, but the clever men in Congress have always found a way to increase their power by making it appear that federal law applies to all the people in all places. Present federal and state government laws present a plausible alternative to the common law because no one, till now, has been able to unravel the secret to restricting federal law to federal territory.

To understand how the former Patriots managed to replace His Britannic Majesty with an oligarchy of Founding Fathers, we have to look at some old documents. The Articles of Confederation created a perpetual confederacy of the 13 states called the United States of America. The purpose of the Articles was to guide the states in achieving a united defense and to answer the problems of 13 English-speaking states without fenced borders. Operating under the Articles convinced the patriot politicians that the states needed a military minded leader for their mutual defense and a Supreme Court for a system of American justice. The Constitution created a federal government with a chief executive who was also to its military commander in chief and a court system that was separate from the states, but which would be created by Congress as needed. In Article IV the Constitution conferred upon Congress the power over lands that had not been incorporated into any of the states. Constitution of the United States created a government of three separate branches and set down principles that were to be followed in creating more law for those three branches though the Constitution specifically says that Congress shall have power to make rules for government.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress created a court system of district courts for the lands it was to dispose of and manage under Article IV. District court judges were required to be residents of the district for which they were appointed. There was no provision for a judicial appointment for life during good behaviour, so it was just assumed that that courts and judges were of the third branch of government. To support the false belief that district court were judicial officers appointed for life, Congress impeached District Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire in 1804. The impeachment was pure show as Congress would not enact lifetime appointments for district courts judges until 1948 and the first quasi Article III district court in a state would not be established until 1959 when Hawaii was admitted into the Union. Because of a dearth of early cases and other skillful legislative moves, Congress has managed to keep their origins and limitations secret till now. What Judge Napolitano and others perceive to be Constitutional chaos is congressional conniving sustained by a judicial conspiracy to hide the true nature of the federal courts and federal laws.

Constitutional chaos has always existed because the federal trial courts have always operated under territorial law. The Constitution appears to have functioned without too many incursions into personal freedoms because federal territorial law did not extend into private lives. Federal judges were scarce while there was federal territory to make ready for statehood, but as soon the last great territories became states Congress was ready to maintain and use the secret of the federal courts to create a national democracy that would rival the emerging European fascist states.

The Declaration of Independence has always been a first line of defense against fascism, but the growth of the federal government and its federal Constitution have relegated it to an excuse for fireworks and barbeques. The Constitution like the Articles of Confederation was always meant as a guide for government and not as a source of authority for punishment for those in opposition to government even if the opposition came from within the government. Federal politicians have proven themselves adept at enlarging their power by manipulation of the documents that are revered by Americans. There should be a special hell for what they have done, but it is for God to conceive and populate it.

It should be apparent to all that the Constitution recognizes that it is only a guide for government and not the imposition of another layer of law for the people. That great document expressly identifies four instances where the Congress may prescribe punishment for violations of law. Rampant law breaking by government or the people was never a problem the Constitution was meant to correct.

My research has proven that all the horror stories of a government out of control are a result of the application of federal territorial law outside of federal territory. It is there where the answer to any constitutional chaos may be found. This misapplication of the law has gone on for so long that hardly anyone knows there is a separate law for government and a law for the people. Judge Napolitano himself fails to recognize that the English common law is always available in 49 states to handle the most serious violations of government lawbreakers. Like so many legal scholars, who are victims of legal specialization, Judge Napolitano has forgotten that the common law is inapplicable on the federal territory subject to the power of Congress under Article IV of the Constitution. Congress can never forget and now employs its own attorneys to carefully review all legislation so new laws will fit into the federal territorial scheme. It has become so dependent on these legal specialists that members of Congress don’t read or can’t read the laws they enact.

The United States Congress decided very quickly that if it didn’t fudge in the creation of the federal trial courts it would never be able to gain the kind of control it thought it should have. Now that it has this control it is very unlikely that Congress will be willing to admit what past Congresses have done to create the belief that the jurisdiction of United States district courts extended beyond the federal territory located in the counties that comprise the districts and divisions of those courts. This world would be an entirely different place had the Congress created legitimate trial courts pursuant to authority of Article III rather than Article IV of the Constitution.

As a constitutional scholar Judge Napolitano, should know that the federal territories are places where the Constitution is not in full force. This revelation would help him account for all the evil that he has found and reported in his book. The scale of the problem Judge Napolitano has carefully documented can only be possible where the participants can act under color of law or can knowingly consent to a loss of rights and freedom. No matter how limited it might be federal territorial law is still law. I am sure, however, that when Judge Napolitano becomes aware of its severe territorial limitations he will not want it enforced outside of federal territory. I am also sure that everyone who reads this will make an effort to inform him of the truth about Congress and the federal courts. We anxiously await his report to the nation on the Fox News. By fooling the people, Congress has made fools of intelligent men. Knowing that the 50 state governments are republics, he makes the inane statement that: “Ultimately, the fate of American liberty is in the hands of American voters.” Fortunately, unalienable rights will never be put to a vote where the American voters can get a hold of them.

Voters in any democracy can vote themselves out of their rights. This is why the Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. That American liberty is in the hands of American voters is an astonishing statement coming from a man that has dedicated his book to Sir Thomas More. Judge Napolitano is dead wrong. More was for found guilty of treason against Henry VIII by a jury upon perjured testimony and condemned to death. The English common law could keep him alive only so long. Perversion of the law killed Sir Thomas More just as perversion of the law is killing American freedom.

Judge Napolitano’s prescription for a cure is far worse than the problem. In fact, the very idea that Congress and the state legislatures should make laws that are to be unquestioningly obeyed by the people displays a naiveté that is alarming in a person of his education, training and experience. Government legislatures only have power to make administrative laws for government personnel. To be guilty of a crime there must be a violation of a legal duty. The wholesale creation of such duties were never intended to be left to governments in America. This was the function of the common law juries. The vast government bureaucracy consists of employees whose job duties can never be confused with legal duties. Judge Napolitano has confused work with a legal duty. Since the United States district court judges obtain whatever authority they have pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution, they are accurately employees rather than officers of the United States. A close examination of the United States Code will reveal them to be the federal government employees around which most federal laws revolve.

Judge Napolitano’s training and experience have done nothing to prepare him to offer solutions to the problem, but we should thank him for his accurate depiction of the problem. Present legal education is the problem. Like every government-trained lawyer he believes that government legislatures can make laws for people. This is an ancient but corrupt understanding of the law responsible for the statement in Shakespeare’s play Henry II, Act IV, Scene II: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Well, lawyers become judges.

Judge Napolitano proposes that the solution to the tragic criminal justice system is to make the government obey it own laws. That is definitely not the solution to the problem. The problem with American criminal justice is that the government is successfully imposing government law on the people. If Judge Napolitano thinks the solution to the lack of criminal justice lies in making those in government subject to government law, he’s not alone, but that does nothing to correct a corrupt criminal justice system. The real problem is the pernicious thought that government can make laws for people outside government and can establish punishment for violations of those laws.

Judge Napolitano is correct about governments breaking the rules, but unfortunately, he misses the importance of his own discovery. The judge has missed entirely the point of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land—for government. The Constitution and all the law enacted pursuant to the Constitution are law for government and are not for the people. The people have their own set of laws called the common law. He has forgotten that all the “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” and “Oppressions” set forth in the Declaration of Independence resulted in no criminal punishment for the British. History records that many signers of that great document suffered grievously for their stand against the King. The Declaration of Independence provides all the reasons needed to alter or abolish government and the Constitution provides the means to carry it out, if government hands can be taken from the necks of the people. The lack of justice in America is the fault of the governments but the problem will not be remedied by suing the bastards, as the Judge suggests or even by defending the Constitution.

The American criminal justice system that is the subject of the Judge’s book is supposed to be built on a foundation whose bulwark should be Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Instead, we have the awful territorial substitute for justice that Judge Napolitano documents in his book. With all this good work to his credit, the good judge has missed the single most important fact of constitutional law—the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for—government. The Constitution and all law enacted pursuant to the Constitution follows government personnel wherever they can be found while they occupy a public office. We have the technology to track the evildoers and blacklist them so they will never hold another position of public trust or government employment again. Nixon one of the biggest crooks, despite vehement denials, never spent a day in custody for the evil that he did. Let’s get the politicians off a government payroll and in the workforce. Vengeance is not ours.

To his credit Judge Napolitano does prove the need to change forever the present criminal justice system. The good judge easily proves his case: the common man can’t get justice in America. The incidents of government injustice Judge Andrew P. Napolitano recounts are horrible and chilling. They are accurate depictions of recent incidents of prosecutorial and judicial abuse that can happen in federal territory. That they happened outside federal territory is our fault. The abuse began with the ratification of the Constitution and taking our eyes off Congress. Current societal problems stem from misapplication of government law to the people. What the good judge perceives to be judicial malfeasance is actually good old-fashioned graft and political corruption that will plague mankind as long as we have public revenues and the desire to spend for an alleged public good. The easiest way to improve government is to register as electors and not voters and to refuse to be unqualified jurors in federal districts where we don’t reside. Judge Napolitano has courageously exposed the evil empire that is the American criminal justice system. I think that he is sincere and he is not part of the congressional and judicial conspiracy that will commit all the acts he describes in his book I do think that he belongs in that great group of intellectuals who have forgotten to heed the one duty of all free people —Question all authority. Now that he has opened the Pandora’s box of government evils is he prepared to accept the awful truth about the government? I, for one, will do everything in my power to see that he is made aware of the great loophole in the Constitution through which Congress has stolen American justice.

See Duty of a Citizen by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera [this is your self defense course]

See Rules for Changing a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy



Regards,

David Merrill.

* For a certified copy call my clerk at (719) 620-6200 and request the six-page document from Book 6744; Page 969 - Reception #095110459.

** One fellow on another forum was in a nasty fight with the IMF over alleged taxes for fourteen years. He listened to my advice of appointing Donald Burnham ENSENAT, the Chief of Protocol for Condaleezza Rice (Department of State) to be responsible fiduciary. Donald Burnham (registered in the State of Louisiana #05358) has (had) a law firm in New Orleans and the Louisiana common law is French, not English. All actions against the man immediately ceased.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/3328.htm

P.S. I believe that Leroy Michael explains application of the scripture well in relation to international banking. (Start around the 1:45 minute mark.)

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv

Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Oct 2005 10:29:09
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 09 Nov 2005 :  06:45:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"The Constitution and all laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for — government." - Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

This is incomplete, thus it is not the truth of the matter, Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera.

Supreme law of the land. See Supremacy clause. - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1005

Supremacy clause. The clause of Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution which declares that all laws made in pursuance of he Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law. (Ibid. page 1004) [Emphasis added]

Notice that Article VI simply said and all treaties made; it did not say all treaties made in pursuance of the Constitution; big difference!

This is precisely why the gubbermint runs around making gazillion page treaties (GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, et al)...they are the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding!

"The English common law is the law for the people in 49 of the 50 states" - Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera [New York declared itself to not be under English Common Law]

"Notice I said under the present law, this is the key to the king's power, retaining possession to his Corporation, the Crown. What did we do at the beginning of this nation? Declare our law to be English common law, confirming the king's Corporation and the law that created it and protects it even today." - A Country Defeated in Victory - Part I by James Montgomery

"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God establish the rules by which free people shall live." - Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Precisely!

3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

8. Moral law, a law which prescribes to men their religious and social duties, in other words, their duties to God and to each other. The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue or ten commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on mount Sinai. (Ibid.)

And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. - Exodus 34:28b

And He declared unto you His Covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. - Deuteronomy 4:13

If one chooses to be under this Covenant [Constitution] and obeys the Ten Commandments of YaHuWaH, in spirit and in truth (the spirit of truth), then it can be said of that one, "I find no fault in this man".

The Informer and James Montgomery have this to say about the Con-
stitution:

"James and I have a theory that is solid on how we can take possession for the real Sovereign who owns the land and possession of ourselves so we are not "subject" to any other sovereign but the Almighty. Remember that the King, the Pope, the President nor any man is your sovereign UNLESS you want them to be. It is evident that most people don't even recognize the Covenant with the True Sovereign and have forsaken Him for another. If you can't recognize that you are a stranger to the King's Covenant, an alien, and are not a party to the constitution (contract/compact) Lord help you all, you will never win."

Let us repeat the last sentence of that quote for emphasis: If you can't recognize that you are a stranger to the [earthly] King's Covenant, an alien, and are not a party to the constitution, Lord help you all, you will never win.


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 Nov 2005 07:23:33
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 09 Nov 2005 :  10:24:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
If one chooses to be under this Covenant [Constitution] and obeys the Ten Commandments of YaHuWaH, in spirit and in truth (the spirit of truth), then it can be said of that one, "I find no fault in this man".


That is a misquote.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 31 Jul 2006 :  16:30:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Surveyor

Assuming that the money being collected here was not tribute does not fit the context of the story. Jesus was clearly referring to what was being collected as tribute money and treated it as such.Although I have not read much on this lately, I believe at the time of Christ the collection of the temple tax was a special privilege allowed to the Jews and
collected with the permission of the Roman government. Herod may also have been exercising some authority over this. There were also questions raised at the time about whether the temple tax was voluntary or compulsory.

The idea that this was even the temple tax is at least, questionable.

The words of Jesus reveals the context of this account and I see the context of the words of Jesus is clearly about tribute money that was being collected in the name of a king, not the temple tax or certainly the tax being collected was not the temple tax according to the original guidelinges and purpose given to the nation of Israel.

Clarence




The money being collected was indeed the Temple tax. In fact, the Jewish zealots of the day used to proclaim, "no tax but the temple tax". We can find this Temple tax collection in practice back in the Old Testament sections of Neh. 10:37-38; 12:44; 13:5,12 as well as 2 Chron 31:5,6,12 allegedly sanctioned (depending on interpretation) in Deut 12, Lev. 27:30-31 and other places.

Concerning the story in question, the context of "the King" was the Most High to whom the Temple was built to honor. The children were 'the Israelites' who visited the Temple with all manner of tithes and sacrifices. Basically Christ was saying "Why should YHWH's children be taxed at the Temple if the heathen king does not tax his own children in his temple".

I do agree with you, however, that the Temple tax practice was questionable. Those passages used for justification of such actions are certainly subject to interpretation.



Edited by - BatKol on 01 Aug 2006 10:34:55
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 02 Aug 2006 :  12:50:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Back to the subject matter of this thread......

When considering this topic one might recognize that over half of the New Testament was written by Paul, a self professed CITIZEN of the ROMAN EMPIRE (not Republic which was over thrown around 44-31 BC).

Paul's ROMAN CITIZENSHIP flies in the face of many claims made those who assert that exercising the benefits of such a CITIZENSHIP would be against the first commandment. Considering this claim one must ask the obvious question of how could Paul - who was an expert on Israelite law and one who "upholds the Law" - be both a CITIZEN of ROME as well as a Citizen of Heaven if such an understanding of the first commandment was correct?

The most discussed rebuttal we have seen so far to protect this 'unique' rendering of the first commandment is to say that Paul was actually lying about his CITIZENSHIP. This argument is made by taking one sentence out of context from a statement made by Paul as he engages in a question and answer type of teaching addressing certain scenarios. Paul does not say he is a liar. In fact, Paul says he does not lie later in Rom 9:1 as well in
2Cr 11:31 and Gal 1:20.

Earlier on in this thread we have debunked that claim also by outlining the benefits Paul enjoyed that were only available to CITIZENS. So not only did Paul's confession confirm the truth of his CITIZENSHIP but his actions certainly confirm it. We also added historical information on the methods of identification that ROME employed to prove CITIZENSHIP and thus gain access to those exclusive benefits. The ability in a LEGAL preceeding to "appeal to Caesar" is such a privilege that Paul used.

Here is a link to a detailed work entitled "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen" which gives context to Paul's CITIZENSHIP and how he put it to use:

http://webminister.com/ramsay/rsp00c.shtml


Edited by - BatKol on 03 Aug 2006 12:10:51
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 03 Aug 2006 :  19:38:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Having established Paul’s CITIZENSHIP in the EMPIRE of ROME via his confession and actions let’s now look at his Citizenship in Heaven also from his confession and actions. Notice that Paul possessed both Citizenships of ROME and Heaven with no conflict of serving two masters.

Before the Bible starts detailing the way he used his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP it first gives details on Paul’s status as a Citizen of Heaven. There are no secrets on how this is obtained as it is clearly spelled out in the Bible so that even a child can understand it.

So how exactly did Paul obtain this Heavenly Citizenship? Here it is step by step.

Firstly by being “born from above” via 'water and Spirit' which is Baptism and the Holy Spirit

Act 9:17 And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him (Paul) said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized;

Some Biblical precedents for the above

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The act of baptism

At this point it might be fitting to insert the scriptures here which show the baptism demanded by Christ in Mat 28:19 is a literal immersion in water. Here are some examples which prove a literal baptism in water:

Act 8:36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 [And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.]
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

also:

Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;

Jhn 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

.......next we will see what Paul himself teaches on both the Holy Spirit, Baptism and “putting on the New Man” and how it relates to his Citizenship of Heaven.

Edited by - BatKol on 03 Aug 2006 22:45:10
Go to Top of Page

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 04 Aug 2006 :  03:26:07  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Greetings brother Batkol,
peace be unto the house.
Thankyou for sharing about baptism.
The meaning and mode of Baptism by Jay E. Adams is a little book that I quote directly from page 42.

Objection 1 - the misleading use of some prepositions.
References to Mark 1:9-10 and Acts 8:38-39

none of the greek prepositions used in these passages ever carry the meanings of 'down into' or 'up out of' or 'from under'. This is certainly reading far too much into EK, APO, EIS, and EN. [The writers would have been forced to employy ANO and KATA as well to express these concepts]. But through this is acknowledged by the better immersionist writers, they still think that since Christ (Yahushua) and the eunuch and Philip all went into the water and came out of the water, that this somehow implies immersion.
Answer: This does not necessarily imply immersion. It would be most natural (even for sprinkling) for them to stand in the water (wearing sandals as they did).
However we are not at all sure they did go "into" and come "out of" the water. The words EIS and EK do mean "into" and "out of". BUT they also have the meanings of "to", "toward", or "unto", AND "from, away from" respectively. And there is little doubt from teh evidence that they should be translated "to" and "from". In the case of Christ's [Yahushua the Messiah] baptism EUS is NOT used. In Mark's account EK is used, but in Matthew, APO. While EK can mean "away from" as well as "out of," APO can NOT mean "out of", but only "away from". Thus from the parallel accounts, it is certain that Mark used EK in the sense of APO in this instance. Thus matthew and Mark meant to say he 'WENT AWAY FROM" the water.

In the case of Philip and the eunuch the same answer applies. However, this observation should be added: EIS, used in Acts 8:38 may mean "unto", "to", "toward"; "both went down to the water". EIS occurs eleven times in Acts 8, and only once is it translated (probably mistranslated) "INTO" (vs. 38).

In G.R. Beasley-Murray's book "BAPTISM in the New Testament" over 400 pages I cannot find the above two scriptures.

My best test is show me any of the original disciples who were baptised in water???

brother Rick

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

Edited by - Uncle Buck on 04 Aug 2006 03:28:09
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 04 Aug 2006 :  11:05:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Buck

Greetings brother Batkol,
peace be unto the house.
Thankyou for sharing about baptism.
The meaning and mode of Baptism by Jay E. Adams is a little book that I quote directly from page 42.

Objection 1 - the misleading use of some prepositions.
References to Mark 1:9-10 and Acts 8:38-39

none of the greek prepositions used in these passages ever carry the meanings of 'down into' or 'up out of' or 'from under'. This is certainly reading far too much into EK, APO, EIS, and EN. [The writers would have been forced to employy ANO and KATA as well to express these concepts]. But through this is acknowledged by the better immersionist writers, they still think that since Christ (Yahushua) and the eunuch and Philip all went into the water and came out of the water, that this somehow implies immersion.
Answer: This does not necessarily imply immersion. It would be most natural (even for sprinkling) for them to stand in the water (wearing sandals as they did).
However we are not at all sure they did go "into" and come "out of" the water. The words EIS and EK do mean "into" and "out of". BUT they also have the meanings of "to", "toward", or "unto", AND "from, away from" respectively. And there is little doubt from teh evidence that they should be translated "to" and "from". In the case of Christ's [Yahushua the Messiah] baptism EUS is NOT used. In Mark's account EK is used, but in Matthew, APO. While EK can mean "away from" as well as "out of," APO can NOT mean "out of", but only "away from". Thus from the parallel accounts, it is certain that Mark used EK in the sense of APO in this instance. Thus matthew and Mark meant to say he 'WENT AWAY FROM" the water.

In the case of Philip and the eunuch the same answer applies. However, this observation should be added: EIS, used in Acts 8:38 may mean "unto", "to", "toward"; "both went down to the water". EIS occurs eleven times in Acts 8, and only once is it translated (probably mistranslated) "INTO" (vs. 38).

In G.R. Beasley-Murray's book "BAPTISM in the New Testament" over 400 pages I cannot find the above two scriptures.

My best test is show me any of the original disciples who were baptised in water???

brother Rick

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



Greetings brother Rick,
Here is what I am seeing as the definitions concerning Baptize:

baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm


From my limited studies of the history of the act of proper Baptism as commanded by Christ in Matthew 28 I find the first two definitions given above fit well. To dip repeatedly, to immerse. Three times repeatedly in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

quote:
My best test is show me any of the original disciples who were baptised in water???


Start with this:

Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

So we know that there is one Baptism. Why should the original apostles only have participated in first two but not the last one? Now - methods of water sprinkling or immersion aside for the moment - we see that Christ (the pattern Son to be emulated) was Baptised involving water. We see that John went to baptize in Aenon near to Salim "because it had much water" (Jhn 3:23). We see that Philip and the eunuch were involving water with baptism. We have the very definition of "baptizo" which details the use of water in the act. If there is one Baptism - and we have examples of water being used in the act with John, Christ and after Christ - why doubt the "one baptism" would involve water? Especially since Christ Himself received a water Baptism, why doubt the apostles also received water as well seeing as they were told to perform such an act? Concerning Paul, the subject of this thread, why doubt his Baptism did not include water given all of the above precedents? I will say that there is a very good argument that the act of Baptism was completed to its final evolution upon Christ's arrival and personal participation. The Holy Spirit was present in Christ's Baptism. So the "one Baptism" Paul speaks about would be Christ's commanded Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the prepositions you mention I will search out some linguists studied in Koine Greek and post their comments on the points you posted from your studies.




Edited by - BatKol on 04 Aug 2006 18:01:01
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 04 Aug 2006 :  14:58:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
In the last post was outlined the connection between Baptism, the Holy Spirit and being ‘born from above’. The results of which are what Paul identifies as basically crucifying the “old man“ and putting “New Man”.

Paul explains the details in the following verses:

Rom 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with [him] in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of his resurrection;
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;
Rom 6:7 for he that hath died is justified from sin.

Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

Eph 4:20 But ye did not so learn Christ;
Eph 4:21 if so be that ye heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus:
Eph 4:22 that ye put away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit;
Eph 4:23 and that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
Eph 4:24 and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2006 :  09:10:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This section from Paul likens part of Baptism as being buried with Christ. Early Christian commentaries see this death burial represented in the going down into the water and the resurrection into life being represented as coming up from the water a 'new creature'.

Col 2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:
Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Col 2:10 and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.



Edited by - BatKol on 05 Aug 2006 09:14:33
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2006 :  14:50:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So we now have established that Paul, while also confessing and proving himself to be a Roman CITZEN, claimed to be a Citizen of Heaven as well. What exactly is this Kingdom that Paul was a Citizen of?

Let’s examine the topic with a Greek source text Bible, the context of scripture and a Greek Bible dictionary. Why a Bible dictionary and not a regular dictionary? Simply because a Bible dictionary deals with the original language the source text was written in. The Bible writers were not using an English Webster’s or Black’s Law dictionary thousands of years ago so the best we can do is to use a dictionary which sole purpose is to define the language the Bible was originally written in. Add Biblical context to the equation so the proper definitions can be chosen from the listings and “scripture will interpret scripture”.

Where is the Kingdom of Paul's Heavely Citizenship?

Ps. 103:19 (LXX) The Lord has prepared his throne in the heaven; and his kingdom rules over all

kuriov en tw ouranw htoimasen ton qronon autou kai h basileia autou pantwn despozei

Heaven
ou¹rano/v transliterated ouranos {oo-ran-os'}

1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
a) the universe, the world
b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
c) the sidereal or starry heavens
2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings

Definition number two is certainly the description closest to the context of Heaven as the word pertains to the Kingdom of God. The key word in that definition being eternal. Consider also that the Heavenly Father is eternal. So if Heaven is 'the seat of order of all things eternal', it too is eternal. Having said that where does Christ locate the Kingdom of God which can add to our understanding of the location of the Kingdom as it pertains to man?

Luke 17.21 "nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

entos {en-tos'} transliterated within

1) within, inside
a) within you i.e. in the midst of you
b) within you i.e. your soul

Definition b makes mention of the Soul within you. This is important because the Soul is also in the eternal realm yet connected to our non-eternal bodies awaiting its final judgement. The Greek word for Soul in scripture is Psyche and is defined as

a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body).

So we have located the Kingdom of God in eternal Heaven as well as in the eternal Soul. Eternity is not limited to the dimension of the created realm where "flesh cannot please God" and our earthly life is "but a vapor".

Heavenly Citizenship in the Kingdom of God

As we have already identified in the preceding posts Baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit played an essential role in Paul's Citizenship of Heaven. We have already identified the location of the Kingdom of God. Ruling over all and eternal. Pertaining to men, located in our eternal Soul. So if this treasure is hidden in our Souls it is Baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit which activates the Citizenship of Heaven. Receiving the Holy Spirit into the Soul is being “born again”. Casting away the old man putting on the New Man in Baptism (Rom. 6; Col. 2, Eph 4, etc).

John 3:3 - "Jesus said, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'"
John 3:5 - "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."


When Paul received the Holy Spirit and was Baptized, casting off the old man, he became a Citizen of Heaven.

So then how is it that Paul can be both a Citizen of Heaven as well as a CITIZEN of the ROMAN EMPIRE without the conflict of serving two masters?

I will hopefully outline this in detail later today.




Edited by - BatKol on 05 Aug 2006 14:57:38
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2006 :  18:01:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As I am preparing the details for how Paul could be both a Citizen of Heaven as well as a CITIZEN of the ROMAN EMPIRE, it is important to show how those who say that "dual citizenship" is “serving two masters” actually come to their false conclusion. Mainly this is achieved by taking verses completely out of context and then inserting their own desired meaning. Then - by selectively quoting definitions for key words out of a non-Biblical dictionary written over 1,500 years after the non-English source text was written - they begin to build their case.

Let's take a look at one well worn example that always comes up. The topic of Paul and what law he was speaking about in Galatians.

The context of the Law being discussed with the Galatians is Mosaic Law but our detractors will say that it is really the civil law of GOVT. Really? The context of the letter to the Galatians itself proves their claim to be false. Let's look at the context of the law as it is discussed in Galatians to prove Paul is addressing certain Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronical Laws and not civil law of the ruling GOVT.

The problem with these specific Mosaic Laws and the Gentiles begins in Chapter 2 with the false brethren. We see that Paul and Titus went to Jerusalem and "not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:". It is well known that the Jews were harassing the Gentile believers concerning percepts of the Deuteronical/Mosaic Law such as circumcision. Is circumcision a civil law or a Torah law? Torah.

Let's move on and see what other items are revealed in the context that prove the Law being spoken about is Torah. Look at verse 7. Paul clearly explains that he was entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision while Peter was entrusted with that of the circumcision. Circumcision is Torah law, not civil law.

More? Yes. Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles when some of the disciples of James came around. This is against certain understandings of Torah law that Gentiles were unclean. Paul explains that he asks Peter in front of everybody how Gentiles are to be expected to live like Jews when the Jews don't even follow their own laws. Paul goes on to explain that he is dead to those laws mentioned above. What laws were those? Torah laws.

What about after Paul's statement about being dead to the law? There are many verses which prove the law being spoken about the Galatians are certain Torah laws. In Chapter 3:10 Paul quotes Deut 27:26 and the curse of the law. What law is that? Torah law. Paul, in response to Deut 27:26 explains that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law". I could go on and provide verse after verse in Galatians and elsewhere which proves that the context is certain Torah laws.

The above is just one example. If you want more examples go to the earlier pages of this thread as many out of context verses have already been debunked.

Edited by - BatKol on 05 Aug 2006 18:16:00
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2006 :  07:35:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Buck

Greetings brother Batkol,
peace be unto the house.

My best test is show me any of the original disciples who were baptised in water???




Greetings again brother Rick.

Still working on contacting the linguists on the prepositions but I do have some more to add concerning your challenge of showing you where the original disciples received a water baptism like Christ and others.

Having already given much support in the former posts for the role of water in the "one baptism" here are some verses which show that the apostles also got baptised in the same way that they were baptising others:

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Peter says "doth also now save us". Paul puts forth the same idea below:

Titus 3:4-5 - "After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Romans 6:3 - "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Add these to the verses I have already provided concerning water baptism and the details involved and one can see that - like Christ -the apostles also received the same.

Edited by - BatKol on 07 Aug 2006 08:30:02
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2006 :  09:17:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The question of how Paul can have both dual citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and the ROMAN EMPIRE can be answered by looking at scripture.

Firstly, it must be understood that the Most High and Christ hold supreme authority over all rulers. Nothing is out of His control.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Psa 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.

Rom 13:1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Jhn 19:11 Jesus answered (Pilate) , Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

So these verses are quite clear who is in total control. Paul clearly understood this and was able to put his Citizenship of Heaven first. This proper arranging of his priorities enabled him to maintain his Heavenly Citizenship without conflict to his EMPIRE CITIZENSHIP. After all, God rules over all, there is no power but that which is not ordained by God and by Christ all things were created.

What does Paul say about the Kingdom of God?

Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men.

Paul was able to put the precepts in proper order of the Kingdom of God which is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Obviously these precepts did not conflict with his CITIZENSHIP in the EMPIRE. In fact, what does Paul say in COURT about his conduct?

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 09 Aug 2006 :  17:08:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
oneisraelite said:

quote:
They [the Zealots] refused to recognize any human authority, and adopted as a watchword, “No Lord but Jehovah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots.” – Rev. T.F. Wright, Ph.D.

We put forth that no Zealot would bind himself to a leader who did recognize human authority (authorship).


That's correct concerning Zealots. But you don't do your contextual homework. Christ did not come from a Zealot family seeing as Joseph and Mary are shown going to pay TAXES to in Luke 2:1.

1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus 2 that the whole world should be enrolled. 2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, 5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

quote:
The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes. – Rev. T.F. Wright, Ph.D.


Well, we see Joseph and Mary went up from Galilee to be enrolled with the GOVT for TAX purposes.

quote:
We put forth that a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el would not be obedient to a foreign conqueror.


You are wrong. Paul proves you wrong. Also, Christ was found not guilty of the trumped up 'sedition' claims made against him by the Jews. Christ did not preach Zealot doctrines and if he had Pilate would have easily been able to prove this seeing as how much open preaching Christ had done. The Olivet discourse is about as a 180 from Zealot doctrine as you can get. No wonder the Jews did not like Christ. Also, the very war cry of the Zealot does not apply to Christ. He had many friends who were not Zealots so forget applying the , "no friend but the Zealot" to His teachings.

quote:
…these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king…


Again you quote the Jews who sought to frame Christ. Why cherish this verse so much? Read the context and you can see that this statement comes from Christ' enemies! If these bogus claims were true then Pilate would easily have found Christ guilty of sedition. Pilate said point blank that after examining Christ he found Him not guilty of those very charges the Jews made. Why do you keep promoting the same lies about Christ that the Jews did? I still can't understand why you would adopt the Jew's trumped up arguments given the fact that they tried to frame Christ with them???
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 11 Aug 2006 :  09:55:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings brother Rick,

Here is a response I got to your question concerning Baptism:

Dear Sir,

Concerning your request I can tell you that the analysis of Dr.Adams is false.

Let me explain: the greek verb that is used in the bible is 'baptizo" .

The very meaning of greek verb 'baptizo" is: "to dip in or under water", so there is no need to use any preposition in order to define the immersion. The word "baptizo" by itself has the meaning of immersion into a liquid.

The proper English translation of the Greek word "baptizo" is "to immerse".

I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek.

I understand that Dr. Adams is completely wrong and his analysis has no ground at all !

Regards,

L. Padopoulos
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 11 Aug 2006 :  15:35:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The author of the response has also informed me you can find the analysis of the word 'baptizo' at the following links :

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lookup=baptizo%5E&.submit=Analyze+Form&searchText=&lang=greek&formentry=1

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2319319
Go to Top of Page

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 14 Aug 2006 :  17:46:03  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol

Greetings brother Rick,

Here is a response I got to your question concerning Baptism:

Dear Sir,

Concerning your request I can tell you that the analysis of Dr.Adams is false.

Let me explain: the greek verb that is used in the bible is 'baptizo" .

The very meaning of greek verb 'baptizo" is: "to dip in or under water", so there is no need to use any preposition in order to define the immersion. The word "baptizo" by itself has the meaning of immersion into a liquid.

The proper English translation of the Greek word "baptizo" is "to immerse".

I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek.

I understand that Dr. Adams is completely wrong and his analysis has no ground at all !

Regards,

L. Padopoulos




brother BATKOL
Thankyou for inquiring with your greek friend. No disrespect intended to your greek friend but for him to say in authority that"I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek." does not refute Jay Adams position nor my belief that getting dunked in a pool of wet water is a condition precedent to salvation. It would be like me saying "I know this, because I live in the kingdom of Yahuwah and I am annointed with the Set-Apart Spirit so my native language is the Set-Apart Scriptures/tongues." Baptizo is a scriptural idea not a merely a greek word: to plunge; to merse; to merge; to be watered with the Spirit of Truth from above by Yahuwah. Noah didn't get wet did he when the world was baptised!

Just for the record I know many Australians who live IN Australia and whose native tongue is "idiot" and I too speak that fluently!

bless you brother!
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
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 0.22 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000