| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Jan 2007 : 06:27:34
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters of this forum:
Peace be unto the house.
Here is our reply (edited) to a response we received, via e-mail, from a couple of brothers. We feel it may serve to further edify.
Greetings and salutations, brothers **** and *******:
Peace be unto the house.
It is certainly a pleasure to meet another brother, even if it is seemingly under rather stressful conditions.
We quoted: “Federal reserve notes...shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.” - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html (Our thanks to brother Jay for this apparent pearl.)
*****: When was the last time they were redeemable as such? Certainly not this side of 1933!
We respond: If you had gone to the Cornell Law School website via the web address we posted with that quote you should have found at the top right, just above it, the words How Current is This? The following, in part is what you would have found:
1. How current is this?
The information in the published US Code is a year or two old, having been subjected to extensive review and codification edits. It is not supposed to directly represent the news from Congress. There are other publications for the latest laws.
The most recent edit of Title 12 of the US Code was released by the Law Revision Counsel - LRC - ( http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on 2006-06-07
...and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Thu Jun 8 09:28:47 2006
We wrote: When we look at these directives and admonitions of Yahuwah with a rational mind, we see that He is telling us, His citizens, not to use unjust weights and scales, weights and scales intended to cheat the seller or buyer with! And, figuratively, weights and scales intended to pervert judgment with.
******: So now we have to "rationalize" that which the scriptures states so clearly and any deviation thereof the consequences of which can not only be seen but are already being felt by many included but not limited to myself?
We respond: Here are Noah Webster’s (c.1825) definitions of the word rational.
RA'TIONAL, a. [L. rationalis.] 1. Having reason or the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason; opposed to irrational; as, man is a rational being; brutes are not rational animals. It is our glory and happiness to have a rational nature. 2. Agreeable to reason; opposed to absurd; as a rational conclusion or inference; rational conduct. 3. Agreeable to reason; not extravagant. 4. Acting in conformity to reason; wise; judicious; as a rational man.
Yes, brother ****** we must look at everything with the rational mind that our Creator endowed us with, in our humble opinion. If your use of the word “rationalize” was not intended in conformity to the word rational, as we obviously used it, then feels as though you were replying emotionally, as opposed to rationally, and it feels as though you were attempting to twist our words and then throw them back at us. We are not accusing you of this, and certainly hope this isn’t the case, but are simply pointing out that your words had that “ring” to them.
Now, in our opinion, upon reading and dissecting (looking up every word if necessary, which many times it is) the Scripture concerning “weights and balances (scales)”, we have determined that YaHuWaH was clearly “telling us, His citizens, not to use unjust weights and scales, weights and scales intended to cheat the seller or buyer with! And, figuratively, weights and scales intended to pervert judgment with.”
Were you stating that you disagree with this assessment?
It is our opinion, perhaps out of ignorance, that it was our refusing to obey YaHuWaH’s commands concerning usury (Ibriy [Hebrew] neshek, a noun, which means, “interest on a debt”), which comes from the root word nashak, a verb, which means "to oppress with interest on a loan", that caused the nations to be prostrated. If this is the truth of the matter, which we perceive it is, then it is the fellowcitizens of your respective nations, who borrow FeRNs into existence at neshek (interest), not the strangers and sojourners among you who simply use them, that cause their own nations to lose their sovereignty (in-alien-able rights); as it is written: …the borrower is servant to the lender. This is what caused you to lose your lands, and yes, even your children, not to the “heathens” as your repeatedly state, but rather to the “lenders”.
As fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el (not to be confused with the man-made STATE OF ISRAEL) we neither borrow nor lend at usury.
We hope this information has proved helpful.
May Yahuwah bless all His children with eyes that see and perceive, ears that hear and understand, and contrite and humble hearts. amein
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2007 : 08:04:06
|
Leviticus 19:36 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard [measure], in weight [weighing], or in measure [a measure (for liquids)]. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym, which brought you out of the land of mitsrayim.
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
You wrote: I believe that the scriptures go a little bit deeper than a literal interpretation!
We respond: The topic we are currently on is a wonderful one in which to demonstrate this, in our humble opinion.
At Leviticus 19:36, regarding “just balances (scales) , and just weights”, we see that it begins with the words, “ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment”; this is because this is alluding to the figurative, or non-literal meaning of “just balances“ (scales) “, and just weights”.
“Just balances” is translated from the Ibriy [Hebrew] mozen, which means, “a pair of scales and is from the root word ‘azan which means, “through the idea of scales as if two ears); to weigh, that is, (figuratively[1]) ponder”. We see a likeness of these scales being held in the hand of the graven image of the Roman goddess, Justia[2], atop many UNITED STATES courthouses. This Roman goddess tells you that you are in Caesar’s courthouse; and that is the wrong courthouse if you are a fellowcitizen of Yisra’el, "a prince of 'El" [a sovereign of God]. “Here’s your sign!”
The figurative, or non-literal, meaning of “just weights”, which Yahuwah alludes to in the above verse, are the “stones”, or "weight", of those who are being placed in the scales of true justice. When a man claims that his "unalienable rights" (PERSONS don't have them) have been abridged, which is, we believe, the only true claim a sovereign man can make, the pondering, or “weighing”, of who is within his rights and who is not, must begin at perfect balance (in the mind of the judge or judges), i.e. the persons of men cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to affect that balance.
This concept goes hand in hand with what the writer of the Declaration of Independence was putting forth when, with his quill, he graved the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” When we return to the Kingdom of Yahuwah we all have equal weight. "They say they all are kings..."
And the reason we said that you are in the wrong courthouse; that is the courthouse for PERSONS.
Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man is a term of nature; person of civil [Roman] law.
This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition. – American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that Yahuwah is no respecter of persons...
This is why Yahu'shua teaches that it is not Lawful to give tribute unto Caesar; "caesar" is the PERSON of a man.
“Here’s your sign!”
Endnotes:
[1] Clue: Variations of the word "figurative" show up approximately one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two times in James Strong's Dictionaries.
[2] Her origins are in civic abstractions of a Roman mindset, rather than archaic mythology, so drawing comparisons is not fruitful. Portrayed as an impassive woman, blindfolded and holding scales and a cornucopia, the sculpted figure outside a county courthouse is Iustitia, not Themis. - Wikipedia
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 29 Jan 2007 10:27:24 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2007 : 15:39:55
|
Dear readers,
While we are waiting for UNCLE BUCK to meet the challenges put to him, let's examine brother Robert's post wherein he tries to
justify his use of DEBT SCRIP in CAESAR'S REALM while at the same time trying to preach that being subject to CAESAR'S REALM is a sin. We will show below that brother Robert contradicts himself when he uses - and benefits from - one part of the SYSTEM while at the same time denounces the same SYSTEM he allegedly hates.
quote:
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters of this forum:
Peace be unto the house.
Here is our reply (edited) to a response we received, via e-mail, from a couple of brothers. We feel it may serve to further edify.
It certainly does edify the exact nature of the FRN and the REALM it is governed by.
quote:
Peace be unto the house.
It is certainly a pleasure to meet another brother, even if it is seemingly under rather stressful conditions.
We quoted: “Federal reserve notes...shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.” - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html (Our thanks to brother Jay for this apparent pearl.)
Here's the pearl that choked the horse!
Let's look at the whole section and not just the little snip brother Robert posts.
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411 Prev | Next
§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks
and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
Wow. The section is quite telling. FRN's themselves are not lawful money. Issued at the discretion of the FRS Board of Governors for the purpose of making advances to Federal Reserve banks through FRN agents. Authorized for no other purpose. Yes, they can be redeemed for 'lawful money' but most retail CORPS want SCRIP when you do business with them. After all CAESAR requires that there are TAXES, CUSTOMS and other PUBLIC DUES involved in CONSUMER PURCHASES. When brother Robert uses FRN DEBT INSTRUMENTS he willfully enters into a REALM governed by the very SYSTEM he claims it is a sin to be involved with! So the obvious question - having listed the above - still remains.
How can brother Robert preach against the SYSTEM while at the same time benefiting off of FRN's which are created and regulated by the same SYSTEM??
quote:
*****: When was the last time they were redeemable as such? Certainly not this side of 1933!
The bigger question is why is brother Robert - who preaches it is a sin to subject yourself to CAESAR'S REALM - willfully entering into and benefiting from - a REALM that is absolutely governed by CAESAR? He claims CAESAR's LAW and God's law are like oil and water. He says they can't be mixed. After all, he could redeem the DEBT SCRIP for lawful money. But then again, that would be hard to complete the essential CONSUMER transactions when going to the CORP. TAXES are required and gold would be too much of an inconvenience.
quote:
We wrote: When we look at these directives and admonitions of Yahuwah with a rational mind, we see that He is telling us, His citizens, not to use unjust weights and scales, weights and scales intended to cheat the seller or buyer with! And, figuratively, weights and scales intended to pervert judgment with.
Here's the classic red herring he uses to dodge the real issue. The issue is not really cheating the buyer or seller. Both agree or else the COMMERCE does not get complete. No, the real bottom line issue is why is brother Robert engaging in the use of DEBT CURRENCY with a "DEAD CORP", paying TAX and willfully entering into CAESAR'S REALM - if he teaches that entering into CAESAR'S REALM is a sin?
quote:
******: So now we have to "rationalize" that which the scriptures states so clearly and any deviation thereof the consequences of which can not only be seen but are already being felt by many included but not limited to myself?
We respond: Here are Noah Webster’s (c.1825) definitions of the word rational.
RA'TIONAL, a. [L. rationalis.] 1. Having reason or the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason; opposed to irrational; as, man is a rational being; brutes are not rational animals. It is our glory and happiness to have a rational nature. 2. Agreeable to reason; opposed to absurd; as a rational conclusion or inference; rational conduct. 3. Agreeable to reason; not extravagant. 4. Acting in conformity to reason; wise; judicious; as a rational man.
Yes, brother ****** we must look at everything with the rational mind that our Creator endowed us with, in our humble opinion. If your use of the word “rationalize” was not intended in conformity to the word rational, as we obviously used it, then feels as though you were replying emotionally, as opposed to rationally, and it feels as though you were attempting to twist our words and then throw them back at us. We are
not accusing you of this, and certainly hope this isn’t the case, but are simply pointing out that your words had that “ring” to them.
Now, in our opinion, upon reading and dissecting (looking up every word if necessary, which many times it is) the Scripture concerning “weights and balances (scales)”, we have determined that YaHuWaH was clearly “telling us, His citizens, not to use unjust weights and scales, weights and scales intended to cheat the seller or buyer with! And, figuratively, weights and scales intended to pervert judgment with.”
All that distracts from the real issue at hand spelled out above. The issue is not weights and measures as much as it is benefiting off FRNS which are not - and can never be - lawful money. brother Robert likes to say, "My daddy told me not to play with DEAD THINGS" yet he has no problem using DEBT SCRIPT issued by the FED to enter into COMMERCE with a DEAD THING (i.e. - LEGAL FICTION).
quote:
Were you stating that you disagree with this assessment?
It is our opinion, perhaps out of ignorance, that it was our refusing to obey YaHuWaH’s commands concerning usury (Ibriy [Hebrew] neshek, a noun, which means, “interest on a debt”), which comes from the root word nashak, a verb, which means
"to oppress with interest on a loan", that caused the nations to be prostrated.
If this is the truth of the matter, which we perceive it is, then it is the fellowcitizens of your respective nations, who borrow FeRNs into existence at neshek (interest), not the strangers and sojourners among you who simply use them, that cause their own nations to lose their sovereignty (in-alien-able rights); as it is written:
…the borrower is servant to the lender. This is what caused you to lose your lands, and yes, even your children, not to the “heathens” as your repeatedly state, but rather to the “lenders”.
As fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el (not to be confused with the man-made STATE OF ISRAEL) we neither borrow nor lend at usury
But appearently it is OK for brother Robert to preach against entering into CAESAR'S REALM while at the same time entering into CAESAR'S REALM to benefit from his FRN FICTION, pay him a TAX for the privilege of doing business with a DEAD THING.
quote:
We hope this information has proved helpful.
Quite helpful. The code you linked us to helped us understand even more the nature of the FRN. If you claim it is a sin to enter into CAESAR'S REALM or to pay a TAX to CAESAR, then why do you? |
Edited by - BatKol on 29 Jan 2007 16:29:01 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2007 : 09:26:24
|
Yisra’el (y + sar or sarah + ‘el) means, “a prince or princess of ‘el”, which can be interpreted generically as “a sovereign of God”, and at least some, if not all, of the founding fathers knew this, which is why, reportedly, both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, suggested, for the obverse (front) of the Great Seal, images of the Exodus. The Exodus is a story of a people coming out of bondage, a people re-claiming their sovereignty, just as the so-called founding fathers were doing when they wrote their Declaration of Independence.
This why we read, in that document, “…dissolve the political bands…assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” and “… they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”.
This “separate and equal station”, is the status of “Yisra’el”, “princes (sar) and princesses (sarah) of ‘El”, “sovereigns of God”, it comes with the "perfect Law of liberty", your “unalienable rights”, which are, according to Black's Sixth, “ rights so fundamental… they can never be abridged”, i.e. they are every man’s permanent possession. We, like the founding fathers, have simply re-claimed those rights and that station [status], and no man on earth may take them away.
Yahu’shua, as it is written, was sent to bring the Good Tidings of the commonwealth of Yisra’el, to “the princes of ‘El”, to “the sovereigns of God”!
commonwealth n. …2 a) a nation or state in which there is self-government - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 282 [Emphasis added]
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’el.
And he commissioned those of us who have accepted his offer to be free, to pass the word.
And he sent them to preach the Kingdom of Yahuwah
And that is what we do, and, Yahuwah willing, we will let no thing and no one distract us from our assignment!
For those not desiring to be "sovereigns of God", we give you, once again, the words of Samuel Adams.
" If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Endnote:
H8269 sar BDB Definition: 1) prince...
H8282 sarah BDB Definition: 1) princess...
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 01 Feb 2007 09:15:29 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2007 : 08:21:27
|
There has been made a correction to our last post, we apologize for the apparent error we have made. Fortunately, for us all, it works out the same.
Franklin chose an allegorical scene that demonstrated the Motto, "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." Where there is a depiction of the Exodus when the Jewish <sic> people are confronted by Pharaoh and achieve their liberation from slavery in Egypt. Jefferson suggested a depiction of the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night for the front of the seal... - Wikipedia [Emphasis added]
Guess that ignorant guy "Franklin" didn't know that, at least according to some people, "tyrants" are ordained by God. In fact, we would have to say that apparently all of the so-called "founding fathers" were ignorant of this fact, or they never would have Declared their Independence from their king.
And, would someone read the book of Exodus and show us where the "Jewish people are confronted by Pharaoh"?
H3064
yehudiy
yeh-hoo-dee'
Patronymic from H3063; a Jehudite (that is, Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (that is, Judah)
Did the other eleven tribes remain behind in bondage? Or is it that virtually the whole world has been deceived into believing that only the "Judaite" or "the descendants of Jehudah" are the chose poeple.
"...Yahudah [Judah] hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith Yahuwah.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 02 Feb 2007 07:11:51 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2007 : 07:00:34
|
Now, put this "Yisra'el, princes of 'El, sovereigns of God" understanding together with these other verses of the Scripture.
Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto Yahuwah even his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:10 And hast made us, unto our 'Elohiym, kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light
This is why he is called the "King of kings", brothers and sisters! (See Rev 19:16) Although, it would have been more accurate, and perhaps more understandable, in our opinion, to have translated it "Sovereign of sovereigns"; "G935 basileus ...a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively)[1]".
And what is an "holy nation"? It is defined by the next three words in that same verse, "a peculiar people".
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
And what does it mean to be a "peculiar people"?
Thayer Definition: 1) that which is one’s own, belonging to one’s possessions; 1a) a people selected by God from the other nations for his own possession
"...from other nations..." come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahuwah...and I will receive you...
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
That, brothers and sisters, was the purification, the cleansing, that was taking place. The immersion in water was the symbolic act showing that they had washed away all connections with any other person (pleasel forgive our use of this word), nation or system, that they had become his; that no one or no thing else any longer had a claim on them; it shouted to the world from the rooftops, "we are Yisra'el, we are princes and princesses of 'El, we are sovereigns of the Supreme Sovereign, and as such, we are Yahuwah's sole possession!"
And, as Uncle Buck might say, "this position is tenable with common sense"...
TEN'ABLE, a. [L. teneo, to hold. See Tenant.] That may be held, maintained or defended against an assailant, or against attempts to take it; as a tenable fortress. (Ibid.)
Common sense, that power of the mind which, by a kind of instinct, or a short process of reasoning, perceives truth... (Ibid.)
...it will stand on its own two feet! And only the blind (Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 28:13), or those desiring to take your sovereingty away from you, would ever try to deny this; false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahu'shua, that they might bring us into bondage.
[1] Strong's Greek Dictionary
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 02 Feb 2007 07:52:51 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2007 : 07:54:22
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
It certainly appears as though it may be time for yet another correction and perhaps even an heartfelt apology.
We have found, and reported it here at ecclesia.org, that the word Christian evolved from the “LL(Ec) christianus, CHRISTIAN: sense development as in SILLY]]”, which it did. (Source: Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 327)
However, we have now uncovered new, and perhaps even contrary evidence as to what that means, and would like to share it here.
It would seem that the word Christian, meant, before this new “sense development”, “human being (in contrast to brutes)”.
So what does this same source say about the word brute? It says in the etymology for that word that it comes from the Latin word brutus which means heavy, dull, irrational and is defined as 1 lacking the ability to reason. And, “in contrast to”, means, “to compare so as to point out the differences” (Ibid.). In case we are not being clear enough here, those who were christianus (Christians) were evidently the exact opposite of brutus (brutes), they were rational as compared to irrational!
But what of the word SILLY? This, if we are reading this correctly brothers and sisters, is the word which has changed in “sense development”! It seems to have originally meant, again according to this same source, “good, blessed, innocent”; its sense development apparently went from: happy ~~> blissful ~~> unaware of reality ~~> foolish. It “orig.” (originally) meant 1 a) simple; plain; innocent b) feeble; infirm; helpless, which is reinforced by this from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, "In the symbolical language of Scripture the lamb is the type of meekness and innocence", kinda’ like lambs for the slaughter, we suppose.
If all of the foregoing is correct, you have my heartfelt apology; I apologize for any pain I may have caused by my apparent and obvious ignorance.
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Just as "lambs" is " the symbolical language of Scripture" depicting "meekness and innocence", we can know that "wolves" here is also not literal; Joseph Henry Thayer gives it this meaning, "metaphorically...cruel, greedy, rapacious, destructive men.
RAPA'CIOUS, a. [L. rapax, from rapio, to seize. See Rap.] 1. Given to plunder; disposed or accustomed to seize by violence; seizing by force... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Any one here, besides us (3X), ever had their means of travel taken from them by men and women "disposed or accustomed to seize(-ing) by violence [and] force"? Could you please describe, for the other brothers and sisters here, the clothing the rapacious creatures who perpetrated this crime were wearing?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Drivers-License/ (This is not a recommendation of this group.)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Were they wearing a mask that supposedly is the symbol of "good"?
Again, "wolves" is not literal, and the word "ravening" simply reinforces the "metaphorical" definition in that preceding verse.
1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) an extortioner, a robber (Ibid.)
RAV'ENOUS, a. 1. Furiously voracious; hungry even to rage; devouring with rapacious eagerness; as a ravenous wolf, lion... 2. Eager for prey or gratification... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
And lastly, we have "wickedness", "1) depravity, iniquity, wickedness; 2) malice; 3) evil purposes and desires (Ibid.)
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Feb 2007 08:39:23 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2007 : 15:38:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’el.
And what was the result of that mission?
Jn. 1:11 "He came to His own but His own did not receive Him."
Mat 21:42-43: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (fulfillment of Zach 11:10)
Zach. 11:10, LXX - "And I will take my beautiful staff, and cast it away, that I may break my covenant which I made with all the people (Israel). And it shall be broken in that day;
Matt 23:27 - Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling.
Mt. 8:10-12 “Truly, I say to you, not in Israel did I find such persuasion. But I say to you that many will come from east and west, and will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the Heavens; But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness; (Fulfillment of Zach 11:10"
Mt. 13:14-15 “And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled upon them, which says, ‘In hearing you will hear and in no way know, and seeing, you will see and no way perceive.’ For the heart of this people has grown fat, and they heard heavily with the ears, and their eyes were closed, lest they see with the eyes and they hear with the ears, and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I heal them.”
Acts 28:28 “Well, did the Holy Spirit speak through the prophet Isaiah to your fathers, Therefore, let it be known to you that the salvation of God was sent to the nations; And they will hear.”
Rom. 10:20-21 “But Isaiah is very bold and says, “I was found by those not seeking Me, I came to be revealed to those not inquiring after Me.” But to Israel He says, “All the day I stretched out My hands to a disobeying and contradicting people.”
Romans 11:7 - How then does the matter stand? It stands thus. That which Israel are in earnest pursuit of, they have not obtained; but God's chosen servants have obtained it, and the rest have become hardened.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 04 Feb 2007 15:43:53 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2007 : 15:40:34
|
quote:
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
It certainly appears as though it may be time for yet another correction and perhaps even an heartfelt apology.
We have found, and reported it here at ecclesia.org, that the word Christian evolved from the “LL(Ec) christianus, CHRISTIAN: sense development as in SILLY]]”, which it did. (Source: Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 327)
However, we have now uncovered new, and perhaps even contrary evidence as to what that means, and would like to share it here.
It would seem that the word Christian, meant, before this new “sense development”, “human being (in contrast to brutes)”.
So what does this same source say about the word brute? It says in the etymology for that word that it comes from the Latin word brutus which means heavy, dull, irrational and is defined as 1 lacking the ability to reason. And, “in contrast to”, means, “to compare so as to point out the differences” (Ibid.). In case we are not being clear enough here, those who were christianus (Christians) were evidently the exact opposite of brutus (brutes), they were rational as compared to irrational!
But what of the word SILLY? This, if we are reading this correctly brothers and sisters, is the word which has changed in “sense development”! It seems to have originally meant, again according to this same source, “good, blessed, innocent”; its sense development apparently went from: happy ~~> blissful ~~> unaware of reality ~~> foolish. It “orig.” (originally) meant 1 a) simple; plain; innocent b) feeble; infirm; helpless, which is reinforced by this from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, "In the symbolical language of Scripture the lamb is the type of meekness and innocence", kinda’ like lambs for the slaughter, we suppose.
If all of the foregoing is correct, you have my heartfelt apology; I apologize for any pain I may have caused by my apparent and obvious ignorance.
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Just as "lambs" is " the symbolical language of Scripture" depicting "meekness and innocence", we can know that "wolves" here is also not literal; Joseph Henry Thayer gives it this meaning, "metaphorically...cruel, greedy, rapacious, destructive men.
RAPA'CIOUS, a. [L. rapax, from rapio, to seize. See Rap.] 1. Given to plunder; disposed or accustomed to seize by violence; seizing by force... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Any one here, besides us (3X), ever had their means of travel taken from them by men and women "disposed or accustomed to seize(-ing) by violence [and] force"? Could you please describe, for the other brothers and sister here, the clothing the rapacious creatures who perpetrated this crime were wearing?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Drivers-License/ (This is not a recommendation of this group.)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Were they wearing a mask that supposedly is the symbol of "good"?
Again, "wolves" is not literal, and the word "ravening" simply reinforces the "metaphorical" definition in that preceding verse.
1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) an extortioner, a robber (Ibid.)
RAV'ENOUS, a. 1. Furiously voracious; hungry even to rage; devouring with rapacious eagerness; as a ravenous wolf, lion... 2. Eager for prey or gratification... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
And lastly, we have "wickedness", "1) depravity, iniquity, wickedness; 2) malice; 3) evil purposes and desires (Ibid.)
On point to what brother Robert has posted concerning Christians:
Here is a statement written by Justin Martyr around 153AD in defense of early Christians in context of their persecution by the Romans.
This below was addressed to TITUS ÆLIUS HADRIANUS ANTONINUS PIUS Roman Emperor (138-161). Also, note the statements concerning paying taxes as well as the early Christian understanding of "the Kingdom" (which squares up exactly with what the NT explains).
Chapter 3. Claim of judicial investigation.
But lest any one think that this is an unreasonable and reckless utterance, we demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as they deserve; [or rather, indeed, we ourselves will punish them.] But if no one can convict us of anything, true reason forbids you, for the sake of a wicked rumour, to wrong blameless men, and indeed rather yourselves, who think fit to direct affairs, not by judgment, but by passion. And every sober-minded person will declare this to be the only fair and equitable adjustment, namely, that the subjects render an unexceptional account of their own life and doctrine; and that, on the other hand, the rulers should give their decision in obedience, not to violence and tyranny, but to piety and philosophy. For thus would both rulers and ruled reap benefit. For even one of the ancients somewhere said, "Unless both rulers and ruled philosophize, it is impossible to make states blessed." It is our task, therefore, to afford to all an opportunity of inspecting our life and teachings, lest, on account of those who are accustomed to be ignorant of our affairs, we should incur the penalty due to them for mental blindness; and it is your business, when you hear us, to be found, as reason demands, good judges. For if, when you have learned the truth, you do not what is just, you will be before God without excuse.
Chapter 4. Christians unjustly condemned for their mere name.
By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people. But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offence, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved. And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses and of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is. For as some who have been taught by the Master, Christ, not to deny Him, give encouragement to others when they are put to the question, so in all probability do those who lead wicked lives give occasion to those who, without consideration, take upon them to accuse all the Christians of impiety and wickedness. And this also is not right. . .
Chapter 8. Christians confess their faith in God.
And reckon that it is for your sakes we have been saying these things; for it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie. For, impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure life, we seek the abode that is with God, the Father and Creator of all, and hasten to confess our faith, persuaded and convinced as we are that they who have proved to God by their works that they followed Him, and loved to abide with Him where there is no sin to cause disturbance, can obtain these things. This, then, to speak shortly, is what we expect and have learned from Christ, and teach.
Chapter 11. What kingdom Christians look for.
And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid.
Chapter 17. Christ taught civil obedience.
And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, "Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?" And they said, "Cæsar's." And again He answered them, "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, "To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required." Luke 12:48
I will be posting more statements from the early Christians which support the above attitude toward the meaning of the Kingdom as well as civil obedience including the "line in the sand" for Christian civil disobedience. |
Edited by - BatKol on 04 Feb 2007 15:51:56 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2007 : 17:42:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Dear readers,
While we are waiting for UNCLE BUCK to meet the challenges put to him,
Greetings believers and skeptics!
Justin Martyr hasn't explained why the christians were being persecuted? How dumb can anyone be to believe that Caesar was murdering believers who simply did not wish to sin and wanted to pay their taxes! FOOLISHNESS indeed.
Proverbs 8:8-9 All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who UNDERSTANDS, AND RIGHT TO THOSE WHO FIND KNOWLEDGE.
If I have the Set-Apart Spirit it is the same that the disciples had in 30AD. I do not have to rely on Justin Martyr for my belief, I can rely on the scriptures and the Set-Apart Spirit. I believe you are peddling a dangerous doctrine 'Batkol' unless you can explain why christians have been persecuted for not wanting to sin and agreeing to pay their taxes and obeying every stupid law that man created! It doesn't make any sense to murder for being a 'good citizen of Caesar'. You could throw a whole library of books at me to 'justify' your belief but all it will do is bruise my skin.
I thank brother Robert: and sister Kathleen: for confirming my thoughts before posting in response to 'Batkol' in relation to elohim being used for men.
2Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god (ruler) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Good Tidings of the Anointed One, who is the image (likeness, representation) of Yahuwah, should shine unto them.
We agree, brother, this verse points out nicely that there are ‘elohiym [gods], or “rulers, judges”, who are “of this world”. And it also demonstrates for us that they ultimately serve Yahuwah’s purpose, which, according to this verse (and supported by others[1]), is to blind the unbelievers minds to the Good Tidings of the Kingdom of Yahuwah.
Hence, this bears repeating, doesn’t it, brother [Rick]? “…the god (ruler) of this world[2] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Good Tidings of the Anointed One”…should shine unto them”.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary gives us these synonyms for the Greek word eikon, which is translated image in the King James Version: a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance. We underlined our favorite; it is the one we choose to emphasize because we believe it points out, quite nicely, that “the Anointed One” is the “representative” of Yahuwah [2].
And, among Joseph Henry Thayer’s definitions for the Greek word eikon translated “image”, in 2Corinthians 4:4, we find this enlightening piece of information: 1a2) the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed. True Christians are transformed into the image of the Son of God!! Question: If there are “true Christians” would this not mean that there are “untrue, or false, Christians”?
Endnotes:
[1] See Mattith’yahu 13:15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:12
[2] “In the coronation of all popes…the tiara is placed on the candidate’s head with the words [in Latin]: ‘Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou are Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ’ [Vicarius Felii Dei].”
“Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions [Latin: infernorum; hell]’.”
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Vicarius-Felii-Dei.pdfThe good news in this is that those on the seven hills of Rome know that the true believers are transformed as “children of Yahuwah (the Living One)”, which of course makes them princes and princesses of the Supreme Sovereign, and “as a princes (sovereigns) hast thou power with gods (rulers) and with men; the bad news is that they don’t tell them, they instead falsely claim that power, and MORE, for themselves.
Thankyou again brother Robert: and sister Kathleen:, and Batkol the scriptures and Faith are supposed to be simple to understand for the illiterate, uneducated, young etc... You don't get persecuted for paying taxes and refusing to sin. You get persecuted for being obedient to Yahuwah and coming out!
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Maxim: A man warring for Yahuwah should not be associated with secular business. |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 04 Feb 2007 17:44:35 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2007 : 00:57:37
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
You wrote: How dumb can anyone be to believe that Caesar was murdering believers who simply did not wish to sin and wanted to pay their taxes! FOOLISHNESS indeed.
We respond: We believe you are exactly right, my brother. And there is nothing new under the sun. Even today, the modern-day CAESAR doesn't give a rat's behind what you claim to believe (freedom of religion) as long as you show your allegiance to HIM, instead of Yahuwah, by taking and using HIS chattel number, by paying HIS taxes (giving "tribute[1] unto caesar"), by obeying HIS statutes (graven images of the Romish congress) and HIS decrees (executive orders) and by praying to HIM for license (driver's, business, marriage, building permits, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum).
And "caesar" doesn't care a whit who you honor with your lips so long as you, by your actions, entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the Anointed Yahushua, the commonwealth of Yisra'el and its Supreme Sovereign, Yahuwah...so help you God.
...they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Endnotes:
[1] G5411 phoros ...a load (as borne), that is, (figuratively) a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property; whereas G5056 is usually a general toll on goods or travel)
WHEREAS, adv. s as z. [where and as.] 1. When in fact or truth, implying opposition to something that precedes. ... 4. But on the contrary. [See No. 1.] - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Why is the former tribute, whereas the latter is not? Simple, even strangers and sojourners may pay "toll on goods or travel" (toll roads, bridges, gas tax, and etc.)
What do you say, brother Rick, is that tenable with common sense?
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Feb 2007 11:38:28 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2007 : 08:36:15
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
We posed this question on a previous post, "Any one here, besides us (3X), ever had their means of travel taken from them by men and women "disposed or accustomed to seize(-ing) by violence [and] force"? Could you please describe, for the other brothers and sisters here, the clothing the rapacious creatures who perpetrated this crime were wearing?"
Evidently no one here has ever had their means of travel stolen by men and women "disposed or accustomed to seize(-ing) by violence [and] force" or else they do not wish to politely participate in this conversation.
Having harmed no living, breathing being, either in his body or his possessions, we have had ours stolen three times (3X), and all three times the perps were wearing some kind of police-force costume, complete with assorted weaponry including, but not limited to, guns.
Why do we say they "stole" our means of travel? Well let us take a moment to analyze this situation rationally.
Does any one, as a man, have the Lawful authority to take our truck from us without our permission?
The founding document[1] for the united states government states that governments[2] derive their "just powers", i.e. Lawful authority, from the consent of the governed. We agree! Thus when we make it manifest to these men and women in the police costumes that, "We do not consent to your seizing our means of travel", they have no just power to do so; no one, or one hundred, or one million men can give their government "just powers", i.e. Lawful authority, which they, as private men and wo-men, do not possess themselves. Thus, reason, common sense, the Natural Law that Yahuwah wrote upon the hearts of all His children, tells us they are stealing our means of travel when we make it manifest that we do not consent.
The key then, fellowcitizens of the Kingdom, we believe, is to make it manifest that we do not consent; something I did not do, with sufficient clarity, those three times spoken of in this post.
MAN'IFEST, a. [L. manifestus.] 1. Plain, open, clearly visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding; apparent; not obscure or difficult to be seen or understood. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Caveat: This may not work for the CAESAR's CITIZENS or with STATE REGISTERED VEHICLES, for it is written, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Endnotes:
[1] The Declaration of Independence
[2] We can only presume that the writer of the Declaration of Independence meant "de jure governments", because seizing power over other men at the point of a gun is not tsedeq, i.e. "right (natural, moral or legal)".
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Feb 2007 08:46:34 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2007 : 15:47:44
|
quote:
Greetings believers and skeptics!
Justin Martyr hasn't explained why the christians were being persecuted? How dumb can anyone be to believe that Caesar was murdering believers who simply did not wish to sin and wanted to pay their taxes! FOOLISHNESS indeed.
Uncle Buck, the only FOOLISHNESS is that did you even bother to read what I posted which answered your question. The reason for the persecution was explained quite clearly however it completely argues against your theory. What’s more is Justin Martyr argues the point that the Christian persecutions are unjust because they were good citizens and certainly paid taxes. I’ll enjoy refuting the rest of your nonsense below.
quote:
Proverbs 8:8-9 All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who UNDERSTANDS, AND RIGHT TO THOSE WHO FIND KNOWLEDGE.
If I have the Set-Apart Spirit it is the same that the disciples had in 30AD.
That’s a real big “if” because what they say and what you say are two different things. You certainly do not have the same Set-Apart Spirit that Paul, the Roman Citizen had seeing as the theory you put forth would make him out to be “serving two masters“. You say the exact opposite of Peter who wrote about obeying the human institutions of the king or govenor. You certainly don't have the same Set-Apart Spirit he did seeing as your theory implies he is teaching to break the first commandment. You certainly don’t have the same Set-Apart Spirit that the just Joseph had seeing as the theory you put forth would make him out to be “serving two masters” for registering with the EMPIRE. The word "just" used to describe Joseph means "one who follows divine law" yet your theory claims that it is against "divine law" to register with Rome. Now I have provided you with personal eyewitness testimony from a Christian circa 153AD directly addressing Caesar’s persecutions which squarely refutes your assertions. Yet still you whine and hiss.
quote:
I do not have to rely on Justin Martyr for my belief, I can rely on the scriptures and the Set-Apart Spirit.
Yeah, why bother putting any authority to a Christian eyewitness circa 153 AD who address the fact that Christians were getting persecuted even though they paid their taxes and were good citizens! And no, you are not relying on the scriptures at all seeing as I gave you proofs and examples from the Bible which refute your assertion. You might want to test your so called spirit (and your rabbi for that matter) that is whispering these concepts in your ear. You are relying on your private interpretations which are easily proven false. You have also dodged many of the items I asked you to clarify. Items that at least brother Robert finally had the courage to address in a strait forward manner. Mainly, that the volumes of scriptures and examples from the Bible which argue against his - and now your - theory are simply “corrupt scripture”. So we know brother Robert’s rebuttal to Paul's Empire citizenship, "Just" Joseph's registering with Rome, etc, etc, etc, etc. Stop dodging and explain how YOU get around all those examples. Do you agree with your rabbi that those examples are just "corrupt scripture"?
quote:
I believe you are peddling a dangerous doctrine 'Batkol' unless you can explain why christians have been persecuted
You should reserve that first line concerning those who preach strait from the Jew's lies used to frame Christ and the apostles to support their teachings. As for your challenge I will both explain it and prove it.
Christ explains it here:
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Now read Justin Martyr’s testimony which is a direct fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy:
“And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment.
“
Uncle Buck both Christ’s words and Justin Martyr’s witness of the point blank fulfillment of His prophecy stand in direct rebuttal to your theory. These early Christians were being persecuted for Christ’s name sake. Simply admitting you were a Christian got you killed. Denying it made you free. There is more to this also which I will explain to you.
quote:
for not wanting to sin and agreeing to pay their taxes and obeying every stupid law that man created! It doesn't make any sense to murder for being a 'good citizen of Caesar'. You could throw a whole library of books at me to 'justify' your belief but all it will do is bruise my skin.
You need to study Roman and early Christian history to understand why the believers were being persecuted even though they were paying taxes in accordance to Romans 13 and Christ's own command. Let me give you a simple gloss to help you even though I doubt it will do any good.
Firstly, persecuted - as I have proven - for simply being Christians and refusing to deny it. Secondly, the Christians did NOT follow every law and they were persecuted for the ones they did not follow. Even though they paid taxes and followed most of the laws as citizens, they refused to participate in the pagan state religion of worshiping Caesar's image when that law was instituted (keep in mind - per Professor Sordi's book on this exact topic - the "imperial cult" had never been formally imposed or encouraged by any of the emperors to whom the early Christian apologists from Aristides to Quadrantus, from Melito to Athenagoras, were addressing their works). You see, exactly like the persecuted Sharach, Messhack and Abednego from the book of Daniel - who were Babylonian GOVT officials mind you - the Christians of the periods where the imperial cult was enforced refused to worship the literal image of Caesar even though in all other respects they were good citizens.
By your false theory these Christian martyrs and Biblical heroes were already worshiping Caesar by simply being citizens or by paying taxes. But your theory is wrong as both history and the Bible show.
Basically the “line in the sand” has always been through out both the OT and NT that following the laws of the land - as evidenced by Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego, Joseph, Paul, etc - is acceptable until you are asked to break God's commandment. By your false teaching of the first commandment you make those mentioned - and even the early Christian martyrs - servants of two masters.
All through out this thread I have presented scriptures which clearly support my position. Now I have also provided historical persecutions of early Christians. Below I will show you your "elohim" error yet again.
quote:
I thank brother Robert: and sister Kathleen: for confirming my thoughts before posting in response to 'Batkol' in relation to elohim being used for men.
2Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god (ruler) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Good Tidings of the Anointed One, who is the image (likeness, representation) of Yahuwah, should shine unto them.
We agree, brother, this verse points out nicely that there are ‘elohiym [gods], or “rulers, judges”, who are “of this world”.
That verse does not point out what you assert. You are just parroting brother Robert’s errors which have been proven false time and again.
Firstly, you are bastardizing the text to be plural when it is clearly singular. The text says "god" not "gods" so you agreeing with brother Robert about "elohim" puts you in the same error he promotes. FWI, plural gods would be "theiotes, theotes" yet that is not what Paul wrote when you look at the source text. Where do you read a plural "elohim"? It amazes me how much you people use the term "lying pen of the scribes" yet have no problem molesting and twisting scripture to fit your agenda.
Secondly, you are bastardizing the NT by blending koine Greek of the 1 AD with Jewish Massoretic so-called “Hebrew” of the 9th century. No matter how many times you are reminded of this simple fact you folks still just don't understand that the NT is not written in Massorite Hebrew so you are not even on the same planet - let alone era - with your assertions!
Thirdly, as I show below, Strong’s supports the fact that when the plural word “gods” is refering to a flesh being it is in context to God’s representatives. Christ proves this when he quotes Ps. 82 to the Pharisees who were abusing their position like the bad “gods” back in Israel’s days. True, God does appoint all rulers but not all 'flesh rulers' are titled “gods”. Only those who represent God’s positive side of the plan as I have proven time and again. You and brother Robert trying to bastardize 2 Cor 4:4 with a plural, misapplied Hebrew redering of "elohim" shows us that the very passage you are trying to molest is speaking to you!
Let’s look at the Greek word “Theos” used in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges
Uncle Buck do you see that 4)a)1)? You want to use that definition to mean government rulers but the word - if it is in context to a flesh being - is in the context of God’s representative. The “god” (note the singular!) in 2 Cor 4:4 does not fit that definition but rather the first one. And who is the “god (singular)of this world”? Satan.
Here is a good snip that explains the proper context of 2 Cor 4:4:
Question: "How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)?"
Answer: Similar titles are found elsewhere in Scripture concerning Satan. Satan is called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These titles, and many more attributed to Satan throughout Scripture, signify his capabilities. To say, for example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people therein.
This is not to say that he rules the world completely, only God does this. But it is to say that God, in his infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world and has allowed Satan to operate with an agenda. When the Bible gives power to Satan over the world it must be made clear that God has given him domain over unbelievers, and unbelievers alone. Believers are no longer under the rule of Satan (Colossians 1:13). Unbelievers, on the other hand, are caught "in the snare of the devil" (2 Timothy 2:26), lie in the "power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19), and are in bondage to Satan (Ephesians 2:2).
So when the Bible says that Satan is the "god of this world" it is not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea that Satan himself rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In the case of 2 Corinthians 4:4, the unbeliever follows Satan's agenda. It is this agenda that I believe is the focus of the title "god of this world." According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." Satan's agenda includes pushing a false philosophy onto the unbelieving world. A false philosophy that blinds the unbeliever from the truth of the gospel.
Uncle Buck, you (along with brother Robert) are promoting such a false philosophy that makes many righteous Bible heroes actually breakers of the first commandment as well as "serving two masters".
|
Edited by - BatKol on 06 Feb 2007 21:59:35 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 06:52:59
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
We posted the following at the outset of this thread.
"The intent of this new topic is to provide information to those who would like to leave the beast system and enter the Kingdom of Yahuwah here on earth. It is not the purpose of this topic to debate whether the Kingdom is real or whether or not it is available to believers now. If you are currently an unbeliever we politely ask of you, please, do not attempt to distract us from our stated goal, which we hope will lead to the full manifestation and acceptance of Yahuwah's Kingdom here on earth."
With that in mind, have any of you seen (figurative) anyone fitting the following description here on the Kingdom of Yahuwah thread?
PER'SECUTOR, n. One that persecutes; one that pursues another unjustly and vexatiously, particularly on account of religious principles.
PER'SECUTE, v.t. [L. persequor; per and sequor, to pursue. See Seek and Essay.] ...2. Appropriately, to afflict, harass, or destroy for adherence to a particular creed or system of religious principles, or to a mode of worship.
HAR'ASS, v.t. 1. To weary ...2. To weary with importunity...
IMPORTU'NITY, n. [L. importunitas.] Pressing solicitation; urgent request; application for a claim or favor, which is urged with troublesome frequency or pertinacity.
VEXA'TIOUSLY, adv. In a manner to give great trouble or disquiet.
Well, if you do, would you please tell him for us that we do not even read, let alone respond, to his brand of persecution.
"...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms..."
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 08 Feb 2007 06:59:32 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 11:24:36
|
Dear readers,
oneisraelite claims he is unjustly persecuted which is an out right falsehood. His own statements and methods demand to be examined so that is what we shall do.
As has been clearly proven on this thread oneisraelite's teaching on "Yahuwah's Kingdom" is based on certian key foundational assertions.
I challenge anyone to disprove what I am posting below concerning his well established exegesis.
The fact is these points about oneisraelite's foundational assertions are well known:
1. Corrupt scriptures:
oneisraelite's rebuttal to my examples from scripture that disprove his theory is that the scriptures are corrupt and that he is lead by "the spirit" to use "what is left of it, buffet-style". Indeed, on this very thread he has told us that he believes that "the written versions of Yahuwah’s Word have been tampered with." But this confession is nothing new to those who follow oneisraelite's theories and - yes - his "corrupt scripture" doctrine is certainly a handy catch-all that can allow him to offer a blanket response to all of the verses and examples from both the OT and NT which sqarely refute his teachings. He has told me point blank in the past that he believes "the Set-Apart scriptures are the delusion sent by Yahuwah". Quoting on the "His name is not Yahushua" thread he confesses "there is a preponderance of evidence that this has occurred, and it is “the honour of kings [sovereigns] to search out the matter.” Please visit the new thread entitled "the "corrupt scripture" excuse" on this website for an indepth rebuttal to oneisraelite's error on this item. The evidence he claims that backs up his statement - if it were accurate - does not warrent his discount of so many verses from both the OT and the NT which prove him false.
So what have we learned after all of these years of debating oneisraelite? While admitting that he is not even close to figuring all of this stuff out - still - it's the scriptures that are wrong.
2. Out of context verses, re-edited to fit his theory:
Moving forward with the claim that the scriptures are corrupt, he gives himself license to restore "the Set-Apart scriptures". In his alleged restoration he half quotes bits of verses, regularly pulls them out of context while often inserting masoretic Hebrew to replace the original Greek text. I have proven this in detail through out this and other threads but - of course - we are dealing with a teacher who believes he is justified in these actions because the "scriptures are corrupt".
Here's just one classic example from this thread. There are others if one wants to go back and see for themselves.
quote:
quote:
No man can serve two masters [G2962]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
G2962
kurios
Thayer Definition:
1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
If the above definition is truth, then could we not restate that verse thusly: No man can serve the Messiah and the Roman emperor: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other?
Wait! You leave out last part of the verse.
Mat 6:24 - No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
I’d rather not restate the verse but leave it in it’s original context. This verse can be taken at face value. Money can’t be your God! Only God can be your God. So simple a child can understand it if it is quoted in full. If being a citizen was serving two masters then Paul, Silas and Cornelius were guilty of this. If registering with Rome is serving two masters then Joseph was guilty.
3. Teaching the Jew's lies against Christ and the apostles:
In the process of this self appointed quest to fix the alleged corrupt scriptures he quotes the false statements made by the Jews against Christ and the apostles through out the first half of this thread and all through out other threads he teaches his "private interpretations".
Here are just a few classic examples from this thread:
quote:
quote:
…these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king…
A false claim by Christ's enemies. The exact claim was examined by the Roman Govt and found to be false.
quote:
quote:
And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
(my note: Luke 20:20)
They spied on him, and knew that he was teaching that the children (citizens) of one kingdom (jurisdiction) do not lawfully have to pay tribute to the government of another kingdom (jurisdiction). (See Mattith'yahu 17:26
Once again onesiraelite employs the claims of Christ's enemies. In this case he posts Luke 20:20 which tells of spies pretending to be just men(!) to promote his theories. Why believe the spies who were pretending to be "just men"? As we know from reading later in the book of Matthew Christ was cleared of these false charges by Pilate.
Let's look at the sequence:
"Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him" - Matthew 26:4
“The Chief Priest, the elders, and the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death” - Matt 26:59
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it" - Matthew 27:24
quote:
Paul joined this “rising” and was, as a consequence, also accused of sedition.
…we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Ioudaios throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoraios…
This statement was a lie concocted to frame Paul, yet oneisraelite uses it to back up his teaching.
There are many other examples to be found if one simply wants to read this and other threads.
4. Quotes Satan as proof for his position:
Notice how on Jan 22 2007 : 07:57:05 AM oneisraelite underlines the statements quoted by Satan to back up his well established position?
And the devil [G1228], taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil [G1228] said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Yahu'shua answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, satan [G4567]: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahuwah thy 'Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.
He quotes the devil as if he is one to be trusted just like he quotes the Jews when they are lying to frame Christ and the apostles! Well, folks both the devil and Jews are liars in the NT.
Quoting the devil and believing him when he claims authority 'to give the kingdoms of the world to whoever he chooses' is the exact opposite of what these verses say on that same topic:
Dan 2:20-21; Dan 4:17 - +; Dan 4:25 - +; Dan 5:21 - +;
Colossians 1:15 - + ; Psa 103:19 ; Rom 13:1 ; I Timothy 6:15
5. Admits he does not really have "all" the answers - not even close - yet teaches anyway.
quote:
quote:
I would also like you know that I do not, no, not for one millisecond, believe that I have all the answers. As much as I may desire it, I do not have all the answers, not even close!!
I assert that the Bible, as it is written without re-editing, has all of the answers.
Why tamper with it based on false assumptions? Why not just quote the complete passage instead of snipping bits and pieces and recontextualizing them to fit your theory? Why teach the Jew's lies used to frame Christ and the apostles? Why quote Satan to support your position? Why do all of this while admitting point blank that - not for a millisecond, not even close - that you have all of the answers? |
Edited by - BatKol on 08 Feb 2007 13:42:59 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 18:23:07
|
Greetings Batkol and friends. Peace be unto the house.
I admire you thirst and desire for truth! I was just given this link:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/jews_killed.htm
Having read your belief that the bible (scriptures)is/are the truth we shall see what the bible says of Yahushua's death. It certainly doesn't read as if Caesar was upset because people were being healed and not buying corporate pharmaceutical company brand products thus diminishing taxes to Caesar.
What Does the Bible Say?
Was Jesus crucified for breaking the law of the Hebrews, by healing the sick and comforting the poor on the Sabbath. Is this the source of anti-Semitism?
Actually, that's not true at all. It is true that Christians typically make the these claims as reasons why Jesus was crucified, but are not the actual credible claims made `"in scripture."
Assuming that he really was crucified at all, the gospels show that he was crucified (not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment reserved exclusively for those guilty of crimes against the empire), in accordance with Roman (not Jewish) laws, by Romans (not Jews), for breaking a Roman (not Jewish) law forbidding sedition against the Roman Empire.
The actual reason for the crucification is clearly stated in John 19:12 as: "every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."
In other words, sedition. Also in Luke 23:2, "And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.";
And Acts 17:7, "Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus."
According to the original Greek texts, when asked if he really was the king, Jesus' reply to Pilatus was very clearly a yes!
Pontus Pilate even made a sign in three languages [Jn 19:20] and posted it above Jesus' head, so that spectators (assuming there were any) would know the exact reason he was being crucified. It was written in Latin, (the official legal language of Rome); Greek, (the common language spoken by the Roman Army, and also the language of trade throughout the Empire); and in Aramaic, (Jesus' native Hebrew language.)
The sign (according to the Greek text of all gospels) said: "Jesus the Nazarene, king of Ioudaion."
"Nazarene" being a religious sect [Acts 24:5], and "Ioudaion" being the Greek word for the region including both Judea and the Arab lands to the south -which is where the Arabic Herodian family actually comes from. (Contrary to popular belief, the Herodians weren't Jewish, but were Arabic, one of many reasons why the Jews resented them so much.)
Sedition was the sole reason Jesus was crucified by hanging him on a tree [Acts 10:39, 13:29].
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Maxim: A man warring for Yahuwah should not be associated with secular business. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 20:41:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Buck
Greetings Batkol and friends. Peace be unto the house.
I admire you thirst and desire for truth! I was just given this link:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/jews_killed.htm
Greetings Uncle Buck. You were given the same pack of blatent errors I have already debunked on this thread. I truly wish you would just read the actual Bible instead of links. If you would read closely you would see the Bible agrees with what I am posting and the link just repeats the exact same errors constructed by the same method of selective and partial quoting that brother Robert keeps trying to pass off. I will show you this in detail below.
quote:
Having read your belief that the bible (scriptures)is/are the truth we shall see what the bible says of Yahushua's death. It certainly doesn't read as if Caesar was upset because people were being healed and not buying corporate pharmaceutical company brand products thus diminishing taxes to Caesar.
Clearly you are not reading the whole Bible story on this item but rather just agreeing with the errors in your link.
Let's see exactly what the Bible says because - as I will show - the link you provide makes the same mistake that oneisraelite does.
Stay with me for this!
quote:
What Does the Bible Say?
Was Jesus crucified for breaking the law of the Hebrews, by healing the sick and comforting the poor on the Sabbath. Is this the source of anti-Semitism? Actually, that's not true at all. It is true that Christians typically make the these claims as reasons why Jesus was crucified, but are not the actual credible claims made `"in scripture."
The Bible tells us why the Jews hated Christ and wanted Him dead. The Jews admitted it to His face when they tried to stone Him.
John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God,"
This is the root cause. The Jews - amidst their false testimony and trickery - even admit this in court with Pilate out of one side of their mouth. Christ must die because He claims to be the Son of God. Blasphemy is punishable by death according to "their law". However, the Jews were not allowed to carry out a death sentence so they had to have a "false testimony" about Christ to get Pilate to do the dirty work. Read on.
quote:
Assuming that he really was crucified at all, the gospels show that he was crucified (not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment reserved exclusively for those guilty of crimes against the empire), in accordance with Roman (not Jewish) laws, by Romans (not Jews), for breaking a Roman (not Jewish) law forbidding sedition against the Roman Empire.
This is just flat wrong. Pilate declared three times in John that he found no fault in Christ. The sedition charge is the "false testimony" that the Jews trumped up for Pilate. Let me show you why you should have just read the scriptures themselves instead of reading some false info from a link:
It is nessisary to read all of this scripture below to get the clear picture. When you snip a few verses and post only partial sentences you can manipulate the Bible to say whatever you want.
Jhn 18:29 - 19:38:
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault [at all].
Fastforward past the scouraging to
Jhn 19:4 - 8 :
Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man!
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
Folks, the charge was not sedition as brother Robert, Uncle Buck and the linksters want us to believe. The charge is death for blasphemy according to THEIR LAW.
quote:
The actual reason for the crucification is clearly stated in John 19:12 as: "every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."
What is it with you people not even giving us the complete sentence? Clearly you don't want the readers to see the whole verse!
Here it is folks:
John 19:12 - And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
I ask you Uncle Buck and our viewing audience:
Having read the whole story and the complete verse above, isn't it clear why the Jews claimed this? Pilate declared Christ not guilty and innocent and was ready to release Him so the Jews turned it around on him! They just got through saying "according to OUR LAW" out of the one side of their mouth and - when that did not work - now they are changing strategy.
quote:
In other words, sedition.
Wrong. Not Rome's law but the Jew's law. After Pilate thrice declared Christ innocent and was going to let Him go. "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
quote:
Also in Luke 23:2, "And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.";
Since you are jumping around from Luke to John let's make sure we get the full picture of "who" was accusing Christ and what their aim was:
"Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him" - Matthew 26:4
“The Chief Priest, the elders, and the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death” - Matt 26:59
What did all this amount to?
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it" - Matthew 27:24
quote:
And Acts 17:7, "Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus."
LOL! This verse is not even talking about Christ. You are quoting from the lies trumped up by the Jews and “Certain vile fellows of the rabblers” to frame the apostles! I already covered this in my “Contexts of Persecution in Acts” thread:
Twelfth instance
Act 17:5-9
What: Paul and Silus framed in Thessalonica but released by rulers
Culprits: Jealous Jews and certain vile fellows of the rabblers
Why: Successful preaching and conversions
Just for fun look at the Jew’s plan backfire in the next chapter and get beat by the Romans instead!
Thirteenth instance
Act 18:12-17
What: Paul framed in Corinth and brought before proconsul Gallio but plot backfires and Romans beat Sosthenes Jewish ruler of Synagogue instead. (LOL!)
Culprits: Jews
Why: Paul’s preaching.
quote:
According to the original Greek texts, when asked if he really was the king, Jesus' reply to Pilatus was very clearly a yes!
That’s right. Yet Pilate found Christ NOT GUILTY, INNOCENT and JUST after examining Him and hearing His explaination of His Kingdom so your - as well as the Jews' - claim of sedition is BUNK! Pilate was worried about the Jews causing a revolt as is plainly told here:
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it" - Matthew 27:24
quote:
Pontus Pilate even made a sign in three languages [Jn 19:20] and posted it above Jesus' head, so that spectators (assuming there were any) would know the exact reason he was being crucified.
But that is not what He was being crucified for. Pilate already declared Jesus innocent, just, not guilty after Jesus explained His Kingdom to him. Remember he was going to release Christ but the Jews were not having it.
quote:
It was written in Latin, (the official legal language of Rome); Greek, (the common language spoken by the Roman Army, and also the language of trade throughout the Empire); and in Aramaic, (Jesus' native Hebrew language.)
The sign (according to the Greek text of all gospels) said: "Jesus the Nazarene, king of Ioudaion."
So? Christ explained His Kingdom to Pilate and was found innocent, just and NOT GUILTY of any crime against Rome. The Jews could not stand it!
quote:
"Nazarene" being a religious sect [Acts 24:5],
This verse is quoting the Jews who were trying to frame Paul in court. Paul denies the claim here:
Acts 24:13 - Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
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".
However, later Paul endorses the name Christian. We have already covered this in detail in this very thread.
quote:
and "Ioudaion" being the Greek word for the region including both Judea and the Arab lands to the south -which is where the Arabic Herodian family actually comes from. (Contrary to popular belief, the Herodians weren't Jewish, but were Arabic, one of many reasons why the Jews resented them so much.)
Sedition was the sole reason Jesus was crucified by hanging him on a tree [Acts 10:39, 13:29].
Flat wrong for the exact reasons I have shown in this post!
|
Edited by - BatKol on 09 Feb 2007 14:17:59 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 07:37:15
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
Since you have revived this most important subject, we bring this forward once more (with some new additions).
Thought you might find this interesting; Noah Webster's (c. 1825) understanding of what a god is. In his etymology (in brackets) we see that he found the word god, "to be equivalent to...ruler". What a coincidence, so did Francis Brown, (American Semitic scholar and professor of Hebrew and cognate languages), Samuel Rolles Driver, (English Hebrew scholar and regius professor of Hebrew), and Charles Augustus Briggs, (American Hebrew scholar), the authors of Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Lexicon!![1]
GOD n. [...Except the word Jehovah[2], I have found the name of the Supreme Being to be usually taken from his supremacy or power, and to be equivalent to lord or ruler...] 1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe. 2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Lanuage
Did you find it surprising that old Noah discovered that "princes, rulers, magistrates and judges" were also gods? The summation of what a god is, is found within his fourth definition: "Any person or thing...honored as the chief good". "Good" in this instance is a noun, and here is his definition of that word, when used as a noun.
GOOD, n. That which contributes to diminish or remove pain, or to increase happiness or prosperity; benefit; advantage; opposed to evil or misery.
Therefore, whoever or whatever is one's benefactor (good provider), i.e. chief provider of benefits, privileges and protection, is one's god; for 14th Amendment PERSONS, this would be the STATE.
And he said unto them, The kings of the nations exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Endnotes:
[1] Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon gives as its very first meaning of the word 'elohiym, which, in our English Scriptures, was generally translated as variations of the word god, "1a) rulers, judges". These learned Hebrew scholars also give as the first meaning of 'el, which was translated as variations of the word god over two hundred times, 1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
[2] From our extensive studies on the subject we have come to believe that the name Jehovah is the Latin spelling of Hebrew name Y'awa, which we transliterate (for pronunciation purposes), using the English alphabet, Yahuwah. Hawah (pronounced ah-oo-ah) is an ancient Hebrew verb which is supposed to mean, "to breathe", according to Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. Things that truly breathe, have Yahuwah's breath of life in them.
Genesis 2:7 (RNV) And Yahuwah 'Elohiym formed the man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living creature.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 09 Feb 2007 08:08:07 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 13:57:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[font=Book Antiqua]Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
Since you have revived this most important subject, we bring this forward once more (with some new additions).
Thought you might find this interesting; Noah Webster's (c. 1825) understanding of what a god is. In his etymology (in brackets) we see that he found the word god, "to be equivalent to...ruler". What a coincidence, so did Francis Brown, (American Semitic scholar and professor of Hebrew and cognate languages), Samuel Rolles Driver, (English Hebrew scholar and regius professor of Hebrew), and Charles Augustus Briggs, (American Hebrew scholar), the authors of Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Lexicon!![1]
GOD n. [...Except the word Jehovah[2], I have found the name of the Supreme Being to be usually taken from his supremacy or power, and to be equivalent to lord or ruler...] 1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe. 2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Lanuage
Did you find it surprising that old Noah discovered that "princes, rulers, magistrates and judges" were also gods? The summation of what a god is, is found within his fourth definition: "Any person or thing...honored as the chief good". "Good" in this instance is a noun, and here is his definition of that word, when used as a noun.
We find it quite amazing that oneisraelite acts as if definition number two does not exist. What are the first two definitions?
1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe. 2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.
Notice how oneisraelite adds no special text enhancement to definition number two? He gives it no attention. Why? Because definition number two is the most fatal item to his theory when context comes into the picture.
I have already provided many contexts in relation to the first commandment which clearly show "god" to be definition number two but our detractors - yes, even the ones who have the courage to respond - are NOT able to offer any rebuttal. Why? For the same reasons you will not see them offer a rebuttal to my last post. Simply put, they can't without saying "the Bible is corrupt". The alternative would be them recognizing the early, 'tax paying' Christian martyr-citizens of Rome were correct in their understanding of the first commandment when refusing to bow down and worship the image of Caesar. Such an recognition of this fact would lead them to understand that these martyrs were in line with other Bible Heroes like Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego as well as Daniel who - even though themselves GOVT officials - refused to place the king as "the sovereign of the universe", "The Supreme Being". Unfortunately though, according to our detractors' theory, such early Christian martyrs were already "worshiping Caesar" just by being citizens and paying taxes!
brother Rick, we are all still waiting for you to provide even ONE example used in the Bible, in context where the word "elohim" is used to address a flesh being that is not an Israelite connected to the goverment outlined in the "Torah". After all, we are speaking about the first commandment! Don't you think it is important to at least show us the word "elohim" being used for a non-Israelite ruler if we are to take your theory seriously? Certainly you might want to consider that a matter of extreme importance seeing as your theory makes many Bible heroes first commandment breakers! oneisraelite has been challenged with providing such important proof going on years now and has figured out that he can't do it.
The reason why there are many definitions for one word in a dictionary is obviously words take on different meaning when CONTEXT is considered.
So we will wait to see if our detractors can ever meet the simple - yet crucial - challenge presented above.
quote:
Did you find it surprising that old Noah discovered that "princes, rulers, magistrates and judges" were also gods? The summation of what a god is, is found within his fourth definition: "Any person or thing...honored as the chief good". "Good" in this instance is a noun, and here is his definition of that word, when used as a noun.
GOOD, n. That which contributes to diminish or remove pain, or to increase happiness or prosperity; benefit; advantage; opposed to evil or misery.
Notice here oneisraelite does not care to define "chief" which helps further define the word "good"? Chief simply means the highest in authority. Clearly Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack, Abednego, Paul, Cornelius, Silas, Joseph, etc, etc - while submitting to earthly authority - held God to be the "Chief Good", "The Supreme Being", "The Sovereign of the Universe". No conflict at all seeing as there are volumes of scripture which show God to be in exactly that position!
Here's a good one:
Psa 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.
quote:
Therefore, whoever or whatever is one's benefactor (good provider), i.e. chief provider of benefits, privileges and protection, is one's god; for 14th Amendment PERSONS, this would be the STATE.
So if oneisraelite's logic is correct (and it's not) then Paul was breaking the first commandment for being a Roman EMPIRE CITIZEN. The NT is in error for calling Joseph "just" (meaning one who follows divine law) for registering with the EMPIRE. Cornelius the centurian was not really "one who worshiped God with all his house hold" but rather a first commandment breaker. Silas, Paul's preaching partner who was also an EMPIRE CITIZEN was breaking the first commandment. Also, oneisraelite would be a first commandment breaker when he uses the benefit and privilges of FRN's to go visit the FOOD CORP, GAS CORP, etc. He would also be a first commandment breaker for selling his labor for FRN's. Those FRN's - used in those contexts - would certainly fit into the definiton of "good" he provides above.
No, the Bible is not corrupt. The Heroes are real and genuine. |
Edited by - BatKol on 09 Feb 2007 17:28:39 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2007 : 09:54:18
|
I am the God [figuratively magistrate, i.e. Master] of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob? Yahuwah is not the god of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.]
M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater.] 1. A man who rules, governs...
And, as some of you have no doubt discovered, there are many who are still "astonished at his doctrine", even to this very day!! Those who are "astonished at his doctrine" might want to delve into the question, "who, or what, is the god of the dead"?
Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the Kingdom of Yahuwah.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Feb 2007 10:00:33 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
