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

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 Matters Effecting the Ecclesia
 IRS 501(c)3 CHURCHES
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Admin
Forum Administrator

Saint Kitts and Nevis
114 Posts

Posted - 25 Oct 2001 :  14:57:33  Show Profile  Visit Admin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Re-emergence of the Divine Right of Kings

America is in a state of moral free-fall, plunging toward self-destruction. In the face of ever-increasing national immorality, the "legalization" by government of many acts which have for centuries been held to be criminal, as well as the rapid erosion of the People's basic constitutional rights and liberties, where is the church? Martin Luther stated,

"The church must be reminded that it is neither the master nor the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state."

John Adams put it this way,

"The church is the moral compass of society."

America has lost her moral bearings, yet the church stands strangely mute. Even Rev. Kennedy wishes he could say much more. How did it happen? Most churches today are legally organized as "creatures of the State." In other words, they are State-churches. For all intents and purposes, they can only do what their government masters authorize. They have "rendered unto Caesar" what is exclusively Christ's. Somehow churches thought they needed the "privileges and benefits of the State." But there's no free lunch. The government demands something in return - the surrender of constitutionally protected rights, like freedom of speech, and even freedom of religion! The church, as D. James Kennedy asserts, has been gagged.

Why do churches and ministries incorporate and become 501(c)3s? "Because our attorney told us we needed to," is the most common reason. Pastors and ministers have been tricked into believing that they can't function without the legal blessing of the civil government. But there's at least two sides to every story, and you have the right to know that your attorney (even if he is a Christian) probably withheld vital information from you.

First-century Christians knew there were significant legal and theological ramifications to taking licens from Caesar. This is why they never incorporated any church. The corporation originated in Roman Civil Law, 250 or more years prior to the birth of Christ. Corporations were the most ubiquitous legal entities in Roman society, used to maintain subservience and government conformance. The corporation is a "creature of the State," and "the State is the sovereign" of all corporations. For the early church to incorporate would have been a public declaration that Caesar was sovereign over Christ -- blasphemy! There is virtually no difference between modern corporations and those used by ancient Rome.

[click the blue floppy disc icon at the top to view/print the entire article]

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27

peterkershaw
Junior Member

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 23 Mar 2004 :  19:31:13  Show Profile  Visit peterkershaw's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I appreciate seeing my article on the 501c3 church posted here. Hopefully it will prove useful to many as they seek to convince pastor and minister of the legal and theological perils of organizing and operating any church as a "creature of the State."

Feel free to print it out and furnish a copy to your pastor. An html version is also available at http://hushmoney.org/DRK501c3.htm

For those not familiar with Heal Our Land Ministries, we provide the resources necessary to unlicense any incorporated 501c3 church at http://hushmoney.org

Let us know if there's anything we can do to assist.


No king but King Jesus!

Peter Kershaw
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 23 Jun 2004 :  20:35:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like the direct approach:

From memory, the 501(C)(3) statute in the Code Book gets quickly to "Disqualified organizations" and refers to section 170 and some subsections for a definition of disqualified "church".

See for yourself. I recall mention of "church or coalition of churches".

Regards,

David Merrill

Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Jun 2004 21:27:30
Go to Top of Page

yardstick
Senior Member

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 :  21:10:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David:

The disqualification refers to the expenditures of churches to influence legislation by lobbying or grassroots methods. Churches fall into the "disqualified" category, which means they are not permitted to have expenditures influencing legislation by lobby or grassroots methods without losing their "exempt" status. I saw no mention of whether they could lose "exempt" status for expenditures to influence the election of candidates.

See 26 USC 501(a), (c)(3), (h)(1) thru (5) and (h)(7). See 32 CFR Part 736, 34 CFR Part 73 and 46 CFR Part 502 for implementing regulations.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 :  21:28:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have seen that; what you are talking about. I will look again but by following the definition to Section 170 - "churches and coalitions of churches" are disqualified. Maybe tomorrow I will drop in to the federal repository.
Go to Top of Page

yardstick
Senior Member

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 :  21:37:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David:

Here is the link to Section 170 on LII:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000170----000-.html

I am most interested to see what you find out. Please post it. Thanks.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 :  22:12:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks, that saves me a stop;
quote:
(i) a church or a convention or association of churches,
is referred to under "Disqualified organizations." in the 501 Section.

This contains the tacit admission that tax exempt organizations are other than "church". Of course Ronald Reagan said the Tax Codes are gibberish and I think this is a perfect example. One could read through and make the interpretation you did. But looking at the paragraph structure reveals a supreme contradiction. One has a sign out front, "Church". But the testimony of the parishioners is this is other than a church.

If you go to the definition of disqualified organizations, you find the above term "church".

Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Dec 2004 22:21:42
Go to Top of Page

yardstick
Senior Member

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 03 Dec 2004 :  00:09:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill

Thanks, that saves me a stop;

You're welcome David.
quote:
(i) a church or a convention or association of churches,

is referred to under "Disqualified organizations." in the 501 Section.

The definition under Section 170 is as you describe (though it is not much of a definition IMHO).
quote:
This contains the tacit admission that tax exempt organizations are other than "church".

Here, I must respectfully disagree with you. I would say this falls under subsection (c), not (h). Below is a copy of subsection (h), to which the reference to "disqualified organization" specifically applies. I recommend starting at para 5, then para 3, then 1 and 2.

I apologize in advance for the length of the post; however, even editing it does not reduce the wordiness of government "legalese" by much:

(h) Expenditures by public charities to influence legislation

(1) General rule

In the case of an organization to which this subsection applies, exemption from taxation under subsection (a) shall be denied because a substantial part of the activities of such organization consists of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, but only if such organization normally--
(A) makes lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount <snip>
(B) makes grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount <snip>

(2) Definitions
For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Lobbying expenditures
The term ``lobbying expenditures'' means expenditures for
the purpose of influencing legislation <snip>
(B) Lobbying ceiling amount <snip>
(C) Grass roots expenditures
The term ``grass roots expenditures'' means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation <snip>
(D) Grass roots ceiling amount <snip>

(3) Organizations to which this subsection applies
This subsection shall apply to any organization which has elected (in such manner and at such time as the Secretary may prescribe)to have the provisions of this subsection apply to such organization and which, for the taxable year which includes the date the election is made, is described in subsection (c)(3) and--
(A) is described in paragraph (4), and
(B) is not a disqualified organization under paragraph (5).

(4) Organizations permitted to elect to have this subsection apply:
An organization is described in this paragraph if it is
described in--
(A) section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (relating to educational
institutions),
(B) section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii) (relating to hospitals and
medical research organizations),
(C) section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) (relating to organizations
supporting government schools),
(D) section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (relating to organizations
publicly supported by charitable contributions),
(E) section 509(a)(2) (relating to organizations publicly
supported by admissions, sales, etc.), or
(F) section 509(a)(3) (relating to organizations supporting certain types of public charities) except that for purposes of this subparagraph, section 509(a)(3) shall be applied without regard to the last sentence of section 509(a).

(5) Disqualified organizations

For purposes of paragraph (3) an organization is a disqualified organization if it is--
(A) described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches), <snip>

So according to para (5), and (3), subsection (h) expenditures under para (1) and (2) are not allowed for churches, which means that churches cannot have expenditures for purposes of lobbying to influence legislation, or expenditures for grassroots efforts to influence legislation. Paragraph (7) confirms this:

(7) No effect on certain organizations
With respect to any organization for a taxable year for which--
(A) such organization is a disqualified organization (within the meaning of paragraph (5)), or
(B) an election under this subsection is not in effect for such organization,

nothing in this subsection or in section 4911 shall be construed to affect the interpretation of the phrase, ``no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation,'' under subsection (c)(3).
quote:
Of course Ronald Reagan said the Tax Codes are gibberish and I think this is a perfect example.
It's intentional.
quote:

One could read through and make the interpretation you did.

I had to spend some time studying the structure to come to the conclusion that I did.
quote:
But looking at the paragraph structure reveals a supreme contradiction.
Are you referring to the structure of subsection (h)? All the references in the paragraphs above (within subsection (h)) specifically refer to "this subsection", I think.
quote:
One has a sign out front, "Church". But the testimony of the parishioners is this is other than a church.
Do you mean the testimony of the "church" is that it is other than a "church"?

As I understand it, the Code sections we have been discussing are only prima facie evidence of the law, not the law itself. They can (and sometimes do) have errors or omissions. For "correct" interpretation, one should be looking at the Public Law underlying the Code section, keeping in mind that it is a fundamental rule of law making that the words in the laws mean what they say and say what they mean, are not open to "interpretation", and that one should not read more into the words than what is there, nor ignore the plain text of the law, rendering it superfluous...

Is this not so?
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 03 Dec 2004 :  06:49:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
It is our humble opinion that the “church” should not be lobbying or have anything to do with influencing legislation in secular governments anyway, since they and their congregation have been instructed by the Scripture not to be “of the world”. By doing these things they acknowledge the existence of a fiction, which thing, because it does not have the breath of life, is non-existent [vanity], i.e. it is not “of” Yahowah. For it is written, Yahowah is the ‘Elohiym [Ruler] of the living!
*Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Yahowshua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahowah thy ’Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.
*If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
*I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

We see from these verses of the Scripture that we are to be "in" the world, but not [part] "of" it.
*Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Incorporate, vt. means, “4. To unite; to associate in another government or empire. The Romans incorporated conquered countries into their government.Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language It also means to be “in the body” and this is the wrong body [politic]; we are to be “of” (and "peculiar" to) the body of the Anointed One [King and Principle Officer], i.e. the body of His government.
PECU'LIAR, 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. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
The 501(c)(3) “churches” have married [united with, i.e. incorporated with] the wrong husband, contrary to what we were instructed, “ ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead"… And the two “shall be one flesh”…church and government have become one, and this particular church/government, as it is written, “hath nothing in me [Him]”.
* What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
By making themselves confederates [friends] “of” the world, they have made themselves the enemy of Yahowah!
*Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with Yahowah? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of Yahowah.
*And I saw the beast, even the kings
[rulers] of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

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

P.S. This topic is sister Kathleen's "hot button", so my hope is, that I have done it justice while she sleeps.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Dec 2004 07:42:46
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 03 Dec 2004 :  08:02:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes Yardstick and OneIsraelite;

The testimony I hear is that a pastor promotes the building/organization etc. as a church but the testimony of declaring tax exemption is declaring not to be a church to the United States/IMF. The process of dual testimony is easily done by the pastor and parishioners deferring responsibility to attorneys/accountants/tax advisors or just ignorantly declaring the exemption on their 1040 without trying to understand the gibberish.

I think where my assertion trumps yours is [presuming they are somehow distinctive assertions]:
quote:
(5) Disqualified organizations

For purposes of paragraph (3) an organization is a disqualified organization if it is--
(A) described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches), <snip>
The "(3)" is from the paragraph structure of the famous "501(C)(3)" section lingo. But I have always felt that the paragraphs were designed by the slickest attorneys around. I would hate to ever have to argue our dispute convincing a jury.

But one thing sheds light. I pointed this out to a very bright fellow and he said to look at Section 170 specifically. These organizations are "one of a feather". They are grouped topically. So in support of my paragraph structure assertion we find the "church" would be grouped in the secular and profane by any attorney.
quote:
(4) Organizations permitted to elect to have this subsection apply:
An organization is described in this paragraph if it is
described in--
(A) section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (relating to educational
institutions),
(B) section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii) (relating to hospitals and
medical research organizations),
(C) section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) (relating to organizations
supporting government schools),
(D) section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (relating to organizations
publicly supported by charitable contributions),
(E) section 509(a)(2) (relating to organizations publicly
supported by admissions, sales, etc.), or
(F) section 509(a)(3) (relating to organizations supporting certain types of public charities) except that for purposes of this subparagraph, section 509(a)(3) shall be applied without regard to the last sentence of section 509(a).
Which I think is a powerful statement about testifying tax exemption where you worship God. And this seems in perfect coherence with the points OneIsraelite brings forth.

I have heard a couple churches were threatened by the Treasury for preaching political partialism last year. So your point is very important too. Also recall that Robert E. Rubin, former Treasury Secretary declared the church burnings in the South terrorism, in the same tone he declared the burning of IRS buildings in Colorado Springs terrorism. Robert Rubin said that! My father, who is mainstream even caught that one and asked me about it. He thought that was awful weird that Robert Rubin the Secretary of the Treasury was in the middle of that. The Christian church is a mighty political Cash Cow and protected as such. I recall a huge Baptist Church in the Midwest got shut down for not being 501(C)(3) about eight years back.

Your last question, Yardstick. You are talking about common law and that distinct from equity. Prior to 1938 Erie doctrine. Justice Brandeis corrected an erroneous ruling that deteriorated the common law in 1842 Swift v. Tyson and this began the bankrupt or "federal common law". In equity it is simply what you convince the court or sometimes even a jury of. The amendments to the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 tells all.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+28USC1333
quote:
The ``saving to suitors'' clause in sections 41(3) and 371(3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words 'any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled'' for the words ``the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.'' The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.
So if the attorney-in-the-black-robe allowed you to resort to the Public Law behind the codes, you might win the case in front of a jury. But the attorney would be obligated to overturn it upon threat of the losing Treasury's appeal. Sheer speculation about that but I think it pretty well established attorneys have a fiduciary responsibility to the Bank and Fund. For example, since we all agree on the basic precept about kingdoms and allegiance, I am not going to spend any time sourcing out the Public Law on Section 501.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Dec 2004 08:31:57
Go to Top of Page

yardstick
Senior Member

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2004 :  19:28:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite

Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
It is our humble opinion that the “church” should not be lobbying or have anything to do with influencing legislation in secular governments anyway, since they and their congregation have been instructed by the Scripture not to be “of the world”. By doing these things they acknowledge the existence of a fiction, which thing, because it does not have the breath of life, is non-existent [vanity], i.e. it is not “of” Yahowah. For it is written, Yahowah is the ‘Elohiym [Ruler] of the living!
*Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Yahowshua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahowah thy ’Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.
*If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
*I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

We see from these verses of the Scripture that we are to be "in" the world, but not [part] "of" it.
*Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Incorporate, vt. means, “4. To unite; to associate in another government or empire. The Romans incorporated conquered countries into their government.Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language It also means to be “in the body” and this is the wrong body [politic]; we are to be “of” (and "peculiar" to) the body of the Anointed One [King and Principle Officer], i.e. the body of His government.
PECU'LIAR, 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. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
The 501(c)(3) “churches” have married [united with, i.e. incorporated with] the wrong husband, contrary to what we were instructed, “ ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead"… And the two “shall be one flesh”…church and government have become one, and this particular church/government, as it is written, “hath nothing in me [Him]”.
* What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
By making themselves confederates [friends] “of” the world, they have made themselves the enemy of Yahowah!
*Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with Yahowah? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of Yahowah.
*And I saw the beast, even the kings
[rulers] of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

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

P.S. This topic is sister Kathleen's "hot button", so my hope is, that I have done it justice while she sleeps.


You hit the nail on the head, One...

David, I think we are on the same page here. Just looking at it from different perspectives. Thanks for the additional insights you provide in your last post.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2004 :  19:50:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
anytime.
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2004 :  07:38:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King,
Peace be unto the house.
The thing we find most disconcerting is that this occurred on all levels from the "individual", to the family, to the "church", to the state government, all the way to the so-called federal [confederated] government.
For YaHoWaH spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
CONFEDERACY, n. [L., a league. See Federal and Wed.] 1. A league, or covenant; a contract between two or more persons...
[Note well the etymology of this word says "See Federal and Wed". The "wed" part of it demonstrates for us that we have indeed committed adultery against the King de jure, the Rightful King, or better known Scripturally as Melchisedec. Melchi means "My king" and tsadaq means, "to be right (in a moral or forensic sense)". And "forensic sense" means that it will hold up as evidence in court!!]
Anyway, most of our troubles stem from the same root cause...
Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their 'elohiym [rulers].
Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee...
To "covenant" [vi.] means, ...to bind oneself by contract. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
And, as nearly any of the elders of this ecclesia can tell you, all kosmokrator's so-called law is based on contracts [covenants].

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

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Dec 2004 07:45:37
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2004 :  09:57:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OneIsraelite;


This morning I awoke determined to write to the Suitors and examine at least five perspectives, all different but all leading to the same conclusion you are espousing (pardon the pun) above. I think it is a very powerful and concise point of view. Don't get me wrong. It is just a point of view. By examining many different valid points of view, we can become educated and maybe testify truthfully in life.

Speaking for myself, I have no DOB. I have no bank account. No SSN, address etc. Now take a look for yourself:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg

And you might feel you can say with certainty, that is my DOB right there on the face of "my" Birth Certificate. But don't I have to say it or claim it (like Paul's Roman Citizenship) for it to be mine? By the way, my mother made it very clear when I borrowed it; that is her documentation - not mine. I had to wait until Monday to pick it up at the clerk and recorder. She misunderstood me and presumed I was taking the papers because I just wanted to fax to someone; maybe two hours. She was wary enough that I took the Birth Certificate from her home but became upset when I informed her for over a weekend. So I assure you, that is not my Birth Certificate.

The only way the bond can be imposed upon me is to convince me my name is "David Merrill Van Pelt" the legal name instead of the name my parents Philip Jansen and Louanne gave me, David Merrill. Otherwise I will abate the cause by Refusal for Cause, the cause primarily being misnomer:

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif ^
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg *

So maybe what we need to learn is how to testify truthfully.


Regards,

David Merrill.


^ You may correctly surmise by the sanitation to family name that before I had this 'figured out' and adopted this weeks point of view, I would never have shown you my family's name. The main reason was my fear family members might be contacted about my points of view expressed on the Internet. But I admit, I am skeptical that 'authorities' may just say I have testified to being the legal identity "David Merrill Van Pelt" by publishing the Birth Certificate. I consider it maturity not to let anyone change my name like that. So far, nobody has ever done that. Once a deputy in the booking area called out "Van Pelt" and I told him that was not my name. He said to a collegue, "Just so long as he is responding to it. That is all that matters."

* Notice the spelling of the served party. Because of the detailed description (voluntarily supplied by Lee) I suppose Lee detailed that Tad place the party's name in all upper case. I have spoken with Lee for many years and he is a church-going Christian. Maybe that invokes a point of view in itself? Suppose Lee wants it known on the process that it is not him, the man who was served?

Maybe Tad has been instructed to always put the served party in all upper case lettering. I might ask him sometime. Would that be a mechanism of protection rather than a subjugation? The office of clerk was testifying; not the man.


Edited by - David Merrill on 06 Dec 2004 10:22:02
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2004 :  10:13:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Since we have come this far, let us take the rest of the journey...

The Order of Melchizedek


The priests said not, Where is Yahowah? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by the Lord [Baal], and walked after things that do not profit.
Allow us to demonstrate just one out of the myriad of ways they have done this. We think that virtually everyone knows that Yahowshua was made the High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek, so let us dissect [rightly divide] what that truly means, for you will not find this in the houses built with the hands of men.
First we are told by the “religionists of the world” that malkiytsedeq means “king of righteousness”, but is this the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Melchi, Easton’s Bible Dictionary tells us means “My king”; okay so far, but then he defines Melchizedek as “King of righteousness”; this brothers and sisters is not okay! Here is Strong’s Concordance of the Bible’s definition of tsedeq, “From H6663; the right (natural, moral or legal); also (abstractly) equity”; My king of legal right or My Lawful King would be a much better translation as we can see from that last definition. But let us look even deeper. Dr Strong tells us that it comes from #H6663 so let us look at that.
H6663 - Hebrew tsadaq [pronounced tsaw-dak']; a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) right (in a moral or forensic sense)
To be right in a moral or forensic sense”. What does “in a moral or forensic sense” mean?
moral adj. 7 based on the principle of right conduct rather than legality… [There's a big clue for the newbies.]
fo·ren·sic adj. 1. of, characteristic of, or suitable for a law court, public debate, or formal argumentation – Webster’s, New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition
We see from this that My king of legal right or My Lawful King would, again, be a better understanding.
Next we point out that Easton’s Bible Dictionary correctly makes this statement under the heading, Melchizedek ...his priesthood can neither be transmitted nor interrupted by death.
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Let us translate this verse for all to see; But this man because he abides into perpetuity, has a priesthood that will not pass away and is untransferrable (perpetual).
Now that we have collected all this data we have to find out what a “priesthood” is, or more specifically, what a “priest” is.
The first time that the Hebrew word kohen is used in the Scripture is reference to Melchizedek, Genesis 14:18, and here is what we find it means.
H3548 kohen
BDB Definition:
1)priest, principal officer or chief ruler
a.1a) priest-king (Melchizedek, Messiah)

PRIEST, n. [L. proestes, a chief, one that presides...] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
PRESI'DE, v.i. s as z. [L. proesideo; proe, before, and sedeo, to sit.] 1. To be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer.
[Ibid.]
This of course is the root word of "president", i.e. one who presides over. What did the Founder [Father] make him “president” over, a “church”, a “religion” or a Kingdom? [Multiple choice questions make it easier to take the test.] The answer to this really tough question can be found at Luke 22:29.
I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me
[Betcha the “religionists” will answer this, “a religion”! So let us take a vote, let’s see a show of Words; “religion” rears its ugly head a total of five times in the New Covenant, while “kingdom” is used one hundred and fifty-eight times! Sorry, Pastors, but Kingdom wins by a allegorical landslide!!]
And "kingdom", Dr Strong tells us is properly a “realm”. So what is a realm?
REALM, n. relm. [L. rex, king, whence regalis, royal.] 1. A royal jurisdiction or extent of government; a kingdom
So what we need to ask ourselves now is, who is our High Priest, who presides over us, who is our President? Who is the Chief Officer of our government if Yahowshua’s “Priesthood [Presidency] can neither be transmitted or interrupted by death”?
I can only answer for me and my house; as for me and my house, we will serve Yahowah and His President [High Priest], Yahowshua ha Mashiyach. It is done.


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

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Dec 2004 14:52:41
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 06 Dec 2004 :  10:29:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Maybe we can prevail upon you to do such a thorough job of dissecting "Jerusalem"?

The Prince of Peace and King of Righteousness.

A friend pointed out that Prince of Peace is a loose translation for Jerusalem. The concise breakdown is actually much more interesting.

P.S. Thanks... http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=406

Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Dec 2004 11:50:42
Go to Top of Page

source
Senior Member

Canada
65 Posts

Posted - 27 Dec 2004 :  18:49:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Their are two kinds of Church's in the countries we live in, the Church of man and the Church of God .

Which one will you choose??? Decide who on this forum promotes the Church ruled by mans law and who promotes Christ's church and him you shall give ear to... All others are founded in darkness and are to be avoided.

Blessings upon those who receive the warning in the spirit it is intended. Ezekiel 33:6

Meaning of Place Name: Jerusalem
Jerusalem: This name means, "foundation of peace: " It is derived from the Hebrew, yarah, "a foundation," and shalaim, or shalem, "peace, perfect, whole."
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 30 Mar 2005 :  22:19:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Church at Salem has been seized!
On Thursday, March 24, 2005, Pastor William Raymond of The Church at Salem, Salem, NJ, was arrested along with his wife during a meeting with the Mayor, the city attorney, and the Sheriff. The church and parsonage were seized by the Sheriff and State Police, acting under orders of city officials and with the authorization of Superior Court Judge Harold Johnson, Cumberland County, NJ. Pastor Raymond recounts, "I asked Dave Puma (city lawyer) and Earl Gage (mayor) to please show all of us in attendance the specific law, which supersedes their First Amendment, authorizing them to compel us to incorporated. Lawyer Puma told me, "well I don't have it with me here, but there is a law". . . . the mayor told us that because we would not incorporate, the city could not consider us to be a church!" Read more details below in his diary entries.

In its entirety at:
http://www.unregisteredbaptistfellowship.com/ChurchSeizure.php


Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 31 Mar 2005 :  08:04:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Manuel:
Peace be unto the house.
We have gone to the website you provided (and further) and read all the transmissions from brother William and though it is no surprise, it is still enough to make us sick at heart. Is it any wonder that Dawid insisted that he hated Yahuwâh's enemies with the perfect hatred (Psalm 139:21-22 LITV)?
O Jehovah, do not I hate those hating You? And am I not detesting those rising against You? I hate them with a perfect hatred; they have become my enemies.
In the plan Yahuwâh originally had for us, from which our ancient ancestors chose to depart, each of our private abodes [and land] was a "church" with the head of the family being the "royal-priest", a sovereign priest (principal officer) and as such owed no man anything but to love one another [as himself].
This man and his family apparently are doing nothing more that attempting to return to the old ways and this is what he is being prosecuted (persecuted) for. But, as Karl Klang said in one of his songs, "It's dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong."
I am certain that the defenders of the Beast system will come forward with just exactly which unintelligible (to the common man) legal "hoops" this poor ignorant man and his family don't know to jump through. We can see by this, I believe, that they do not obey even their own so-called laws, for as virtually everyone at ecclesia.org probably already knows, there is no law which forces an ekklesia [church] to marry (become one with) the STATE, i.e. become incorporated. And I further put forth that virtually everyone here also knows that the Scripture classifies an ekklesia [church] as two or more gathered in his Authority (Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 18:20).
Again, this whole thing makes our blood boil and makes us sick at heart. Perhaps we should pray for their enemies; we suggest Psalm 109 might be appropriate in this instant matter. Let it be done.


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 31 Mar 2005 09:20:44
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 31 Mar 2005 :  19:33:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings to you and your love ones oneisraelite,
There is a problem (legal), that is, from what I have read, and that is that the "HOME" which this man and wife where using as an ekklesia is registered to him, as a "residence." So from what I have read, the problem is the CITY, MUNICIPALITIES ETC., do not recognize IT as a church (ekkelsia). All else is troublesome to regard, knowing of this mans first contract.

I am,
Manuel

PS I think that "the woman in the wilderness" has much to do about this sad turn of events for those on the POWERS AND MUNICIPALITIES.

Edited by - Manuel on 31 Mar 2005 22:01:04
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 05 Apr 2005 :  15:16:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Delaware River floods force thousands from homes

EASTON, Pa. (AP) — After the remnants of Hurricane Ivan filled their little ranch house with several feet of water, Dale and Charlotte Barr spent $40,000 to get it back in shape. They were just about to tackle the last room — the kitchen — when the Delaware River overflowed again this weekend.

In its entirety at:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2005-04-05-delaware-flood_x.htm

Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVIII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000