| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Feb 2007 : 16:40:50
|
The Apotheos of Washington
http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/apotheos.HTM
These gods were called theos, in the Greek. The New Testament translates the word theos into the word god or God. Theos was a common term used at the time of Christ to address judges and magistrates.11 The same is true of the word elohim,12translated God or god in the Bible's old testament.
What the Apo Theos did was simply appoint all the judges deciding imperial matters in the federal courts of the Empire. A god is a judge who exercises authority, and this is why God the Father says, "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage..." Ex 20:1-2.
The Bible goes on to say, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Ex 20:3-5
We imagine that God is only concerned about dead stone idols but it is the spirit of what they represent in those ancient cultures that incurs the sin. They are monuments of the authority and jurisdiction of men over men, both princes and priests who exercise authority over their fellow man and brothers. Like Cain and Nimrod, Pharaoh and Caesar and all others, from princes to presidents, the right to make law and judge men belongs to God--- and it is as wicked to elevate men to sovereign ranks and pedestals of power created by their own hands as it is to oppress13 men under the exercising authority of governments that assume the office of our Father in Heaven.
The United States Constitution was designed according to Roman precepts despite the assumption that it was a Christian effort. The unwise but good intentions of the men involved in its implementation were the product of an ignorance of Christ's true gospel. This should be of no surprise when we study the 2000-year attempt to twist the gospel into something it was not, and to blur the vision of what it was meant to be.
Christ preached a different type of kingdom, a government of free will, faith, liberty,14 and love. It was at hand15 and it was appointed16and it was not to be like the governments of the other nations17 including Rome---and therefore also the United States.18
................
"Are men the property of the state? Or are they free souls under God?
This same battle continues throughout the world."
Cain started the first civil government recorded in the Bible.22
Nimrod was a mighty provider instead of the LORD.23
Abraham departed from the city states and set up an alternative system to that of those civil powers.
Pharaoh ruled over the people who sinned against their brother and their father.24
Moses led three million People to a new land and established Laws and Statutes by which the people were to rule themselves.25
The Princes of Israel were the Fathers of the households.26
Israel was a government and nation without a king, where they lived without a central government of authority.27
Samuel warned the people about returning to centralized ruling power.28
Judea was the remnant of that government and kingdom and Rome came to protect the peace in that kingdom which again had fallen into civil turmoil.
Jesus preached a kingdom that was at hand.29
He was hailed as a king.30
Did the acts of the king.31
Proclaimed king.32
Admitted that he was the king.33
Internationally accepted as king.34
He appointed that kingdom.35
Sent out His disciples as Ambassadors.36
They in turn appointed others elected by the people over the business of a government.37
They were not to be like the governments of those other nations which exercised authority over the people.38
Jesus was setting up a government Of the People, By the People and For the People, just as Abraham39 and Moses40 had done before him. Israel---or the kingdom of God as Luke and Mark called it and the kingdom of heaven41 was a True Republic42 where the people were free from things public under the perfect law of liberty. It was a government where the people needed to learn to govern themselves, where they were to come together being as concerned about their neighbors rights, just as much as they were concerned about their own.
"And the second [is] like, [namely] this, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' There is none other commandment greater than these." Mr 12:31
It was not a government of that Roman world43 and jurisdiction but was a government that was at hand. This Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven was a government where there was no earthly Father or Patronus44 demanding your obedience other than your own natural Father and your Father in Heaven.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Exodus 20:12
A government of and by the people must always remain a government "for the people". The word FOR can have several meanings. In The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language the word FOR is defined at least in one place, "Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action". This is the commonly accepted meaning in the phrase "for the people". But in a legal dictionary the word FOR is defined, "Instead of; on behalf of; in place of; as, where one signs a note or legal instrument 'for' another, this formula importing agency or authority."45
If this definition is used then "FOR the People" may mean a government "instead of" or "in place of" the people.
The same phrase but different meanings.
Which meaning do you hear in your own heart?
Again, what is the mystery of a free government?
If a government is truly 'for' the benefit and welfare of the people those who sit in a position to exercise authority must truly love the people more than they love power. Throughout history the stories of good men gone bad under the temptation of power and authority is consistent making the adage, "Power corrupts" all too true.
The first section of the book The Enterprise of Law written by Bruce Bensen shows that "our modern reliance on government to make law and establish order is not the historical norm"46 .
"The historical norm was customary law which, spontaneously created and voluntarily obeyed, provided law and order in all early societies. Since customary law had precisely the same status and served the same purpose as the state-created law we take for granted today, the commonly-held belief that law and government develop together is mistaken."47
Those ancient systems, where the civil power remained in the hands of the individual freeman also required those individuals to love their neighbors as themselves. They had to be as concerned about their neighbors rights and freedoms as they were their own rights and freedoms or their society would dissipate.
This has been the sound advice recorded in "sacred writings" concerning government from the earliest history of mankind.
Leviticus 19:18 " ... thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD." Not to mention, Zechariah 8:17. And James 2:8, "If ye fulfil the royal [kings] law according to the scripture, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:'"
This was wise political advice from a Prince to His people. It was also a warning to a free people concerning the mystery of how to remain a free nation.
"For this, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet'; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'." Romans 13:9
A democracy is a government of the people, and it is a government by the people---or at least 51% of them but it is not necessarily a government "for the people". It is a collective government instead of the individual freeman because it is a government where the mob is King. It is the mob who is often exercising authority over the minority. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he stated, " A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
In order to gain from the gifts, gratuities, and benefits of a Democracy, one must be willing to take something from his neighbor. Dependence on those benefits graced by the benefactors of the state, automatically brings about a new state of mind in the people---and a new corporate state is born out of their collective activity.
Thomas Jefferson also said, "Dependence begets subservience and venality,48 suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." When men are ambitious or covetous, for what their neighbor has, they are changed by their greed. When they have power over their neighbor, though that power is small, it corrupts them, it tempts and taints their souls. They become addicted to their own desires, sloth, avarice, and indulgence until they equate freedom with comfort, liberty with affluence, and the responsibility bestowed on them by God as an intolerable burden.
"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."
–Mark Twain
In a Democracy the voice of the people elects the benefactor or patron of the nation. That Benefactor guarantees certain advantages and blessings to the people and is sworn to provide them. But in return, he demands a corresponding allegiance. Because the Benefactor takes on the responsibility of care and provision he also obtains a corresponding power to exercise authority, demand compliance, and extract support. This relationship may begin when a government takes on the role or office of Protector, Patron, or Patronus.49
People have the right to band together in a common purse of rights and allow the Voice of the People50 to determine which rights they may continue to enjoy and which rights they must forfeit, but that band of would-be rulers has no right to compel membership in that society against consent, without application or novation.
The greatest failing in such schemes of the multitude is the suffocation of virtue where "Faith, Hope, and Charity began for to flee".51 It is this custom and practice of coveting even a button on your neighbors coat that sets men in danger of becoming the victim of despots. Whether they are obvious despots and dictators or just our neighbor seeking the benefit of our forced contribution in support of their own desires---each man becomes George the III and a traitor to freedom and liberty.
"Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you." Abraham Lincoln
The Kingdom of God has always relied upon the freewill offerings of the people to fill its treasuries and left the contributions to the support of its ministers in the hands of those who receive that direct service. It formed an interlaced network of men and women who took the responsibility of freedom as a compelling obligation of daily choice.
Governments of men compel that national contribution robbing all of the exercise of choice, which feeds the soul and nurtures virtue in mankind.
"I desire what is good.
Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor."
King George III of England
Democracy is no answer, indirect or pure. All have a hand in the covetous collection of our "neighbor's goods" by electing men to that office of "collector of the national treasury". The soiled activities of plundering our neighbors, or robbing widows and orphans through taxation, usury, and inflation is like a cancer that eats away at the souls of God's children.
The temptation to rule our neighbors and be corrupted by that power of rule, has been too great for even good men. Jesus passed the test, the temptation of power, but few come close to His willingness to remain a servant, when the power to rule and judge is given them..
"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt." Patrick Henry.
We should not make men rulers or benefactors. If we want God given rights and freedoms we must take the responsibility to rule ourselves according to God's precepts and choose to charitably provide for the honest needs of each other, stranger or neighbor.52
From Abraham to Moses to Jesus setting the captives free and living under God the Father was a key element and precept of the Gospels.
And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.. Ps 119:45
God wants men to be free souls under Him and not under any other authority.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Galatians 5:1
It is the spirit, nature, and righteousness of His kingdom that leads us, guides u,s and grants us that freedom.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Mt 6:33
"From the Cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the Laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Oh, God of Truth, deliver us."
An ancient Hebrew prayer
Previous -FINIS- Audio Covenants, Contracts and Constitutions
Constitution Series
Roasting the Sacred Cows: Constitutions
Disclaimer
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/4cowdisclaimer.html
The Constitution Part I
1. The Party of the first part
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/4dconstitution.html
The Constitution Part II
2. Centralized Authority or Free Dominion http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/4dconstitution2.html
The Constitution Part IIl
3. Is the Constitution constitutional? http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/4dconstitution3.html
The Constitution Part lV
4. Pursuing Perspective and Precepts http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitution4abreak.html
The Constitution Part V
5. Equality of Responsibility and Rights http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitution5equal.html
The Constitution Part Vl
6. Bound by Words: Oaths
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitution6aoath.html
The Constitution Part Vll
7. Since surrendered, A Quest for freedom http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitution7aquest.html
The Constitution Part Vlll
8. Charters and Oaths
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitution8charters.html
The Constitution Part lX
9. Allegiance: We make the constitution constitutional http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitution9alleg.html
The Constitution Part X
10. For the People?
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/a4constitutionx.html
Audios of
Covenants, Contracts and Constitutions
Books
The Covenants of the gods
Thy Kingdom Comes
Articles
The Voice of the People
To exercise authority brings one under authority.
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/voteking.asp
In those days of the kingdom
The Kingdom Part 1....
[This series of articles on the kingdom are listed in the exegesis section.]
Ten Commandments vs. Ten Laws
A Foundation of the Laws for a nation
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/10laws.html
What Christian never do and Blasphemers often do?
Taking in vain the name and title of the Messiah.
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/christiansdont.html
Did Paul claim to be a citizen of Rome?
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/article/roman.html
Did Paul claim to be a citizen of Rome? print friendly
http://www.hisholychurch.net/pdfiles/law/Roman.pdf
The Non Coercive Church
Should Christians Judge???
(Re: Restoring Non-Coercive Church Discipline )
http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/coercivechurch.html
The Unseen System: A solution for our times.
What is liberty?
An introduction to the purpose of much of what this sight contains..
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/1beginning.html
Pride and Prejudice
"Are men the property of the state?
Or are they free souls under God?
This same battle continues throughout the world?"
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/2souls.HTM
A Strong delusion
... all nations deceived. Revelation 18:23
And shall go out to deceive the nations ... Re 20:8
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/3deception.html
[This series of articles on the Constitution are listed in the exegesis section.]
The UN, US and the Devvy Kidd article
http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/article/undevykid.html
WAR! And its fortunes and unfortunate
Where is the war best fought?
Muslims and Christians
http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/a4war.html
*************************
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. |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2007 : 06:00:38
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick (Uncle Buck):
Peace be unto the house.
Thank you for your pro-Kingdom post. There are some definite pearls to be gleaned from it; take this one as an example.
"We imagine that God is only concerned about dead stone idols but it is the spirit of what they represent in those ancient cultures that incurs the sin. They are monuments of the authority and jurisdiction of men over men, both princes and priests who exercise authority over their fellow man and brothers." [Emphasis added]
We would, on the other hand, have to take exception to this: "Jesus was setting up a government Of the People, By the People and For the People, just as Abraham and Moses had done before him."
In our understanding it is a government of Yahuwah, by Yahuwshua (Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 9:6-7), for His people. In fact, we find it rather strange that Gregory made that statement at all, since we perceive that he then proceeded to give evidence which seemingly contradicts that position.
"Like Cain and Nimrod, Pharaoh and Caesar and all others, from princes to presidents, the right to make law and judge men belongs to God--- and it is as wicked to elevate men to sovereign ranks and pedestals of power created by their own hands as it is to oppress men under the exercising authority of governments that assume the office of our Father in Heaven." [Emphasis added]
"Throughout history the stories of good men gone bad under the temptation of power and authority is consistent making the adage, "Power corrupts" all too true."
Indeed it does, which is why Yahuwah, after allowing us to try our own ways for a time (the Supreme Magistrate winked[1]), decided to give us an "incorruptible chieftain".
Psalm 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
The word corner is translated from the Ibriy [Hebrew] word pinnah, which, as an Ibriy idiom (figurative), means chieftain. And rosh (head) pinnah (chieftain) means, "head chieftain" i.e. "highest chieftain"; he is our Principle Officer, the Prime Minister of Yahuwah's Kingdom, the commonwealth of Yisra'el [the self-governing[2] sovereigns of God].
Yashu'yahu [Isaiah] 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord Yahuwah, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
"A sure foundation" is one that cannot be corrupted, i.e. it cannot go "bad under the temptation of power and authority".
Mark 12:-11 What shall therefore the Supreme Sovereign of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Supreme Sovereign's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (See also Mattith'yahu 21:41-42; Luke 20:16-17; Act 4:11; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1Peter 2:6-8)
Indeed it is, "marvelous in our eyes". HalleluYah!!!
Endnotes:
[1] G5237 hupereido ..."overlook, that is, not punish"
[2] This "self-governing" thing, is a most interesting paradox, we perceive. The truth of the matter, as we see it, is that we are semi-sovereigns, and as such we are not under the so-called laws of man only so long as we are obedient to the Eternal Moral Law of the Supreme Sovereign.
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
P.S. We love the new addition to your "signature", brother Rick. Kind of reminds us of a verse of the Scripture. (I know, I know, "What doesn't?")
...if I yet pleased men,
I should not be the servant of the Anointed.
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 12 Feb 2007 17:59:19 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2007 : 12:38:44
|
quote:
I am the God [figuratively magistrate, i.e. Master]
No. Not figuratively. Notice the captial G. That's God, the supreme Deity.
quote:
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...
It is a well established fact that brother Robert likes to ignore context and then put his own spin upon bits of statements made in the Bible. Here is another classic example. Let’s simply read the context of the two sentences he lifts these verses from and see what is being discussed.
Mat 22:23 -33: The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard [this], they were astonished at his doctrine.
Clearly the context is Jesus answering the question put to him by the Sadducees concerning who’s wife is who’s in the resurrection. He answers the question but also address their general disbelief in the resurrection of the dead by implying the fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not actually dead but living. That is why the multitude was astonished. This squares up with the many scriptures which speak about “life after bodily death”. The astonishment is the fact - as Paul explains - the Israelites were blinded to the OT.
quote:
And, as some of you have no doubt discovered, there are many who are still "astonished at his doctrine", even to this very day!!
Many are surely astonished at your doctrine which allows you molest the scriptures by plucking verses out of context and then re-tooling them to fit your theory which causes many righteous people in the same scriptures to be first commandment breakers.
quote:
Those who are "astonished at his doctrine" might want to delve into the question, "who, or what, is the god of the dead"?
Here brother Robert wants to set up a straw man question based on the a priori assumption that God spoken of in Jesus’ answer in Matthew 23 - which is clearly “the supreme Deity” - is the same definition as he is implying for “god” in his question.
quote:
Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the Kingdom of Yahuwah.
Now he wants to connect this statement about one who is spiritually dead with his own teaching. Of course - to be expected - doing a little language editing along the way!
Now on to Uncle Buck.
Well, Uncle Buck is trying to pass off a bait and switch instead of anything that backs up his theory. When challenged to provide even one example FROM SCRIPTURE which shows "elohim" or "theos" contextually speaking about a flesh being that is not an Israelite in context of the OT Torah he gives us some bit on George Washington! Sir, do I have to point out to you that the text you offered is not scripture?
Now let’s look at the word Uncle Buck is posting from his copy and paste of somebody elses’ work. Please note he tried this on his last post to me and the information he was trying to peddle was fraught with error and partial quotes.
Let’s see what the author himself says:
"Brumidi depicted George Washington rising to the heavens in glory, flanked by female figures representing Liberty and Victory/Fame. A rainbow arches at his feet, and thirteen maidens symbolizing the original states flank the three central figures. (The word "apotheosis" in the title means literally the raising of a person to the rank of a god, or the glorification of a person as an ideal; George Washington was honored as a national icon in the nineteenth century."
Uncle Buck, seeing as you are using this word as your spring board for your argument, can you please show us the word “apotheosis” used in context in the Bible?
Aside from this word not being “theos” but a derivative of such you are only offering weak, unsupported speculation that the word elohim or theos is ever used for a non-Israelite ruler. We do, however, find a great many other words that are used in the Bible to address non-Israelite rulers which - had they been used instead of "elohim" would give your theory some credibility. For example, Melek is masoretic Hebrew for king yet we don’t see that word used in the first commandment. Nasiy' is masoretic Hebrew for ruler yet we don’t see that word used in the first commandment. No, the context for the word “elohim” is false god/deity and I have provided many examples to back this us - directly on point to prove this.
Dear Readers, what brother Robert and Uncle Buck are doing is playing with the Bible to try and make it support their false teaching. A false teaching which makes a good many of the righteous people in the Bible first commandment breakers and servants of two masters.
Paul gives us this clear warning:
Act 20:29-30
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. |
Edited by - BatKol on 12 Feb 2007 12:46:21 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2007 : 19:26:15
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
In our last post we gave this as a Footnote:
[2] This "self-governing" thing, is a most interesting paradox, we perceive. The truth of the matter, as we see it, is that we are semi-sovereigns, and as such we are not under the so-called laws of man only so long as we are obedient to the Eternal Moral Law of the Supreme Sovereign.
It reminded us of Letter Four of Letters to Jessica, written by brother Robert: Bissett. We post it once more for the edification of Kingdom believers.
Dear Jessica,
Now I want to tell you the story of a little girl named Laura. She grew up in America about a hundred years ago when many grown-ups believed that God ruled as king for real and not humbugs. You can read the story yourself in the book, Little Town on The Prairie, by Laura Ingalls Wilder.
Laura was born in a log cabin in the year 1867. The story takes place in the summer of 1881 when she was fourteen. It is the Fourth of July. That is the day Americans celebrate the beginning of wizards called United States of America. Back then it wasn't nearly so powerful a wizard in grown-up's minds as it is now because they knew their grandparents had made it up out of thin air.
In Laura's true story a man had just read the Declaration of Independence to the crowd. The Declaration is the letter that Americans sent to King George in 1776 telling him he was a humbug. They told him they didn't believe in wizards called kings anymore. They said God does not want us to be ruled by humbugs no matter what they are called, king, ceasar, parliament, judge, or whatever. They said the Law of Nature, and of Nature's God made them free no matter what people in England may think.
Right after that the crowd sang a song called, America. This song was written to honor God as our for real king by Samuel Smith in 1832. This is the hymn or anthem of our country[1]. The last verse goes like this...
My fathers' God, to Thee,
Author of Liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King!
Today, even Christians are unaware of it, but once it was commonly believed that God Himself was America's ruler, not men. Here is what Laura thought to herself those many years ago...
The crowd was scattering away then, but Laura stood stock still. Suddenly she had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind, and she thought: God is America's king. She thought: Americans won't obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own conscience. No king bosses Pa; he has to boss himself. Why (she thought), when I am a little older, Pa and Ma will stop telling me what to do,and there isn't anyone else who has a right to give me orders. I will have to make myself be good.
Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means,you have to be good. 'Our father's God, author of liberty-'The laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow you with a right to life and liberty. Then you have to keep the laws of God, for God's law is the only thing that gives you a right to be free.'
This is a true story with a very important lesson. You see, today grown-ups don't believe as Laura did a hundred years ago. They have stopped believing that God is America's ruler. They have stopped believing that we should keep God's laws. That is why we do not have liberty and justice for all. That is why the Pledge of Allegiance is a trick and a lie. Grown-ups have been tricked into obeying the laws of humbugs rather that the laws of God. When Americans stopped believing that God rules them and the world, Americans stopped being free. That means they are slaves to the humbugs and ruled by wizards.
I think Laura was a very smart girl. I think it is time grown ups and children in America stopped playing make-believe games about wizards and started to obey God's law again.
Many grown-ups think they can obey God's law and still play Wizards of America. The truth is that God's first law tells them they can not do both. But they would rather believe a lie. They may ask you to believe the same lie. But remember what Laura said and don't believe them. You are free to choose a man to rule you. You are also free to choose God to rule you. But don't forget, when you choose one you have rejected the other.
See 1Samuel 8:7
Endnotes:
[1] "My Country, 'Tis of Thee," also known as "America," was America's unoffical anthem; "The song served as a de facto national anthem for much of the 19th century". "By a law signed on 3 March 1931 by President Herbert Hoover, "The Star-Spangled Banner" was adopted as the national anthem of the United States."
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 13 Feb 2007 06:35:48 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2007 : 06:56:47
|
Lyrics to "My Country, 'Tis of Thee," also known as "America"
1
My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring!
2
My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.
3
Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.
4
My father's God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King.
One cannot help but notice that liberty and freedom is is at the very core of this song, since it is found in every stanza. And, in the title, My Country 'Tis of Thee, Who the "Thee" refers to is found in the last stanza, "To Thee we sing...Great God our King". Amein and amein
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 13 Feb 2007 07:13:03 |
|
|
|
Bruce Carl
Junior Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2007 : 12:37:41
|
Using the English Rules of Grammer, it is obvious that the subject of the first verse is only quote:
My country!
Bruce Carl |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2007 : 18:57:17
|
Greetings and salutations, Bruce Carl:
Peace be unto the house.
Originally posted by Bruce Carl
Using the English Rules of Grammer, it is obvious that the subject of the first verse is only [Emphasis added] quote:
My country!
Pleased to make your acquaintance, Bruce Carl.
Agreed. And, using those self-same English Rules of Grammar, can we agree that the subject of the last verse is only quote:
God
...and that it [the last verse] succinctly points out that He is the Author of [its] liberty, it is "to Thee we sing" [Note the capital "T" on Thee], and that he is our King?
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 13 Feb 2007 22:02:19 |
|
|
|
Bruce Carl
Junior Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2007 : 01:56:09
|
Brother Robert.
Greetings!
quote:
...and that it [the last verse] succinctly points out that He is the Author of [its] liberty, it is "to Thee we sing" [Note the capital "T" on Thee], and that he is our King?
.
We do agree!
Bruce Carl |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2007 : 07:48:21
|
Greetings and salutations brothers and sisters,
Peace be unto the house.
Thank you for your agreement, Bruce Carl. It is good when we can agree on some things.
We would like to take this anthem thing a few steps farther.
One of the noteworthy things about My Country ‘Tis of Thee [Modern English translation of this being, My Country It Is of You], written by Reverend Samuel Francis Smith, as opposed to other poems and songs, including the Star-Spangled Banner, is that it is about the country, i.e. the land[1], liberty, freedom, and the Creator and King of them, and not about corporate flags representing governments of men.
After My Country ‘Tis of Thee having been the “de facto national anthem for much of the 19th century”, presumably a period of sixty nine years or more, why would a president of the UNITED STATES then take the initiative to make a law naming a poem about a fifteen-star, fifteen-stripe banner flag (star-spangled banner), written by a lawyer, and set to “an old British drinking tune”, To Anacreon in Heaven, which was so difficult to sing that it “was commonly used as a sobriety test: If you could sing a stanza of the notoriously difficult melody and stay on key, you were sober enough for another round”, should be the national anthem of the UNITED STATES?
“Key', the author of the poem, Defense of Fort McHenry, which later became known as Star-Spangled Banner, 'and Skinner boarded the British flagship, HMS Tonnant, on 7 September (1814) and spoke with Major General Robert Ross and Admiral Alexander Cochrane over dinner, while they discussed war plans. …Because Key and Michle Skinner had heard details of the plans for the attack on Baltimore, they were held captive until after the battle…”
Are we expected to believe that General Robert Ross who, “led the army which burned the American capital and is thus credited as the first commander to defeat a full United States army in the field”, and the knighted, Admiral Alexander Cochrane, were willing to discuss “war plans” in the presence of these two men who were reportedly sent by the commander-in-chief of the enemy forces? Let us put our hats on straight and think about this one for a moment. (One second later) THAT’S RIDICULOUS!!
How difficult would it to have been to escort these two men, at the least, out of the room “while they discussed war plans”? It is our opinion that both Francis Scott Key and John S. Skinner, and perhaps even Dr. William Beanes, and the PERSON who sent them to secure the release of the "good" doctor, could have been “friends” of the enemy[1].
If this is the truth of the matter, why on earth would a later president then pass into law that a poem written by one of them and set to "an old British drinking tune" was to be the official national anthem?
Endnotes:
[1] Country. The territory occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory. - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 245
[2] “…Key and Skinner showed them letters written by wounded British prisoners praising Beanes and other Americans for their kind treatment”.
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 14 Feb 2007 21:26:44 |
|
|
|
Bruce Carl
Junior Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2007 : 19:11:02
|
Brother Robert,
Greetings!
Considering the attack was being planned for the next day and the extreme difficulty of escaping from the ship and somehow managing to make it to the shore and to friendly forces without being shot or too cold to move makes it quite likely that the British would treat them this way. And considering the fact that many Americans had British relatives, it is not surprising that they could be friendly.
Bruce Carl |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2007 : 09:36:20
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Did anyone go to the website put up by brother Rick (Uncle Buck) concerning the Apotheosis of Washington? Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
APOTHE'OSIS, n. Deification; consecration; the act of placing a prince or other distinguished person among the heathen deities. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary
Let us begin with the eagle idol, which of course, adorns the "Roman helmet" of the statue atop the United States Capitol; the one that Thomas Crawford developed "in his studio in Rome". It is called the Statue of Freedom, which is most likely, the Roman goddess of freedom, Libertas, a variation of which is to be found in New York harbor; "A modern, and purely symbolic, representation of the deity, is the famous Statue of Liberty (Enlightening the World), which stands on Liberty Island in New York harbor".
The banners and ensigns of the Roman army had idolatrous images upon them, and hence they are called the “abomination of desolation” (q.v.). The principal Roman standard, however, was an eagle. – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary [Emphasis added]
And, here's a bit more background on it for those who are interested in some of the "heathen deities" of one's government if one is a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. Some of what we are now about to share with you can be found at the Architect of the Capitol website. http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/rotunda/apotheosis/apoth_war.cfm
In the rotunda of your Capitol, moving clockwise, we first encounter the Ancient Roman goddess, Bellona. Bellona's attribute is a sword and she is depicted wearing a helmet and armed with a spear and a torch. Right next to her is the Eagle, “the principal Roman standard”.
"In Roman mythology, Nerio was an ancient war goddess and the personification of valor. She was the partner of Mars in ancient cult practices, and was sometimes identified with the goddess Bellona…Spoils taken from enemies were sometimes dedicated to Nerio by the Romans."
Next we find the Roman goddess “Minerva teaching Benjamin Franklin, Robert Fulton, and Samuel F.B. Morse”.
How quaint!
“Adapting Greek myths about Athena, Romans said that Minerva was not born in the usual way, but rather Jupiter had a horrible headache and Vulcan opened up his head and out came Minerva dressed in armor and holding a shield; this image has captivated Western writers and artists through the ages.”
Continuing clockwise the next image to hit our minds is that of the Roman god of the sea, “Neptune holding his trident and Venus [the Roman goddess of love] holding the transatlantic cable, which was being laid at the time the fresco was painted”.
Are we starting to get a feel for this?
Next we see the Roman god Mercurius, better known to us today as Mercury, “handing a bag of money to Robert Morris, financier of the American Revolution”.[1] Mercury is “a major god of trade, profit and commerce”.
Should make one wonder who the "financier of the American Revolution" really was, since the Roman god Mercury is depicted handing Robert Morris,Superintendent of Finance, the money.
That one is followed by the Roman god “Vulcan at the anvil and forge, producing a cannon and a steam engine”. “He was god of fire and volcanoes, and the manufacturer of art, arms, iron, and armor for gods and heroes”.
And to think, some of us thought [the] Caesar was dead. Ha!
After the graven image of the Roman god Vulcan we find the Roman goddess “Ceres seated on the McCormick Reaper, accompanied by America in a red liberty cap [handing the Roman goddess Ceres the reigns] and [the Roman goddess of flowers] Flora picking flowers”. Ceres is the Roman “goddess of growing plants (particularly cereals) and of motherly love”.
So when did this all come to pass? As some of you might have been able to guess, presuming you didn’t know, “The Apotheos of Washington in the eye of the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol was painted in the true fresco technique by Constantino Brumidi in 1865”. It “was painted in eleven months at the end of the Civil War”, when the original republic no longer existed.
And what of this artist, Constantino Brumidi? Well, in our opinion, the plot thickens; “Brumidi (1805-1880) was born and trained in Rome and had painted in the Vatican and Roman palaces before emigrating to the United States in 1852”.
Well now, ain’t that one of the darndest “coinkydinks” you’ve ever seen? Wonder why they would engage a guy like that in to paint the United States Capitol?
The banners and ensigns of the Roman army had idolatrous images upon them,
and hence they are called the “abomination of desolation.
-Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary-
Endnotes:
[1] "Three days after becoming Superintendent of Finance Morris proposed the establishment of a national bank."
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 15 Feb 2007 18:30:57 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2007 : 14:04:35
|
Having posted all of the info above we are left wondering why oneisraelite - who preaches it is a sin to subject yourself to CAESAR'S REALM - willfully engages and benefits from CAESAR'S FICTIONAL FRN's which carry the very symbols he discusses above. He claims CAESAR's LAW and God's law are like oil and water. He says they can't be mixed so .... how does oneisraelite justify engaging in the use of DEBT FICTION with a "DEAD CORP", paying TAX to "the enemy" and willfully entering into CAESAR'S REALM - if he teaches that entering into CAESAR'S REALM is a sin?
No SS# or DL# needed to enter into CAESAR's REALM. All that is required is that you follow the rules!
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 07:27:10
|
"Who You Are" or "Where You Stand"!
In essence, the issue of "who you are" as compared to "where you stand", may be summed up in the following statement: "By declaring and or by defining who you are, you do not define where you stand, but when you declare where you stand, you have also concurrently defined who you are without discussing the matter."
In other words, when I inform a judge by declaring to him that I stand in the Kingdom[1] of Yahweh, and ask him to declare to me whether or not his court stands in Yahweh's Kingdom, that judge already knows that I am a real, live man of Yahweh, and he knows that I am not a "straw-man", without my having ever brought up that issue.
However, if I declare to that same judge that I am not a straw man, or that I am not a corporate persona of the state and that I am a real live man of Yahweh, that judge still has every right according to man's law to do everything in his power to entice me into volunteering to enter into "his" jurisdiction. The public record is replete with examples of men and women that have rightly declared that they are real live men or women of Yahweh, yet, these same men or women have been subsequently tricked into volunteering to step into the judge's jurisdiction, simply because they did not know where they should be standing! In fact, the mere act of your offering evidence in the form of argument over the issue of the "name" implies that you have tacitly and obviously unwittingly, accepted the judge's alleged authority to rule on that issue!
In short, "who you are" is an issue designed to aid in the court's trickery. That is why they always start with that issue by asking for a "name", or confirmation of a name. Virtually any response you offer in direct response to the issue of a name, can only be accepted by them as an offer of evidence concerning the issue of the "name", not the issue of jurisdiction. Even if you "win" the argument with your evidence of "who you are", or "who you are not", you still have not dealt with the more important issue of "where you stand", and in fact you have volunteered to enter their jurisdiction but only as a "man"! Again, the public record is replete with examples where the courts have ruled against real live men and women of Yahweh for this very reason.
By ignoring the issue of the name; by not responding to it at all; by simply going right to the issue of "where you stand", YOU will be the one trapping the judge as opposed to him potentially trapping you into his jurisdiction. The judge will not be able to tell you that his court stands in Yahweh's Kingdom any more than he will be able to tell you it does not stand in Yahweh's Kingdom, and until he addresses your simple question of where his court stands, he does not have any jurisdiction to continue with his quest to have you address "his" issue of a name.
Why do you think the police, the prosecutors, the courts, or all of the other "persons", always ask you what your name is? Why do you think they persist on this issue so adamantly, often demanding that you "give them your name"? The answer may surprise you.
They really do not care who you are, but they really do care "where" you are! And in most cases, they do know the difference! Basically, they only have jurisdiction over you as a man when you offer to "go" someplace with them. You must "go" into their jurisdiction before they have any control over you. Your name, whether or not it is in upper, or lower case or some mixture thereof, is not the real issue. Whether you are a man of Yahweh or a "straw-man" cannot really be the issue, because YOU cannot be a straw man even if you wanted to be. Your "standing" is the issue!
There are only two possible places for you to "stand". You have your entitlement to Yahweh's gift of being able to stand in Yahweh's Kingdom. And you have the option of "stepping" out of Yahweh's Kingdom and into the kingdoms of man. There are many ways the tricksters may utilize to induce, coerce, intimidate or influence you to step into one of their imaginary "kingdoms", but the result is always the same. The principle result of stepping into any one of their jurisdictions, is that you have voluntarily stepped out of Yahweh's Kingdom - the only true sanctuary. [Emphasis added]
Quite possibly the most successful and most common manner of trickery the courts employ to entrap men or women of Yahweh, is to ask this simple, yet seemingly helpful and harmless question; "do you understand?" Now they may ask if you understand what is going on, or if you understand their procedures, or if you understand what they are saying, or any variety of things, but they will always ask if you "under" stand them. In the old established English language, the use of the words "under" and "stand", were often used to describe relationships between landlords and subjects, or between those in authority and those in subjection to that authority. In other words, a landlord might very well state to his tenants, that they "stand under" his authority. The English language is also replete with examples of reversing word order within commonly used phrases, yet maintaining the same meaning, or as was the early custom in terms of "standing"; the "tenants 'under stand' the landlord", or conversely, the "landlord 'stands over' his tenants".[2]
What this really means in modern use of the language is no different. When a court asks "do you understand?", the correct response would be; "I comprehend your words, but I do not stand under (understand) your authority."[3] The rules of court clearly state that definitions of both words and phrases as they apply in law, may not always be the same as those that apply or that are common in daily language usage outside of the law! So NEVER say to a court, that "you under-stand them", because this clearly provides them with your consent to be under their jurisdiction - "under their standing", even if you have established yourself as a real live flesh and blood man of Yahweh, and even if all you intended to state, was that you "comprehend" them!
Think of this. I am a man of Yahweh and everywhere I go I am standing in Yahweh's Kingdom. An officer of some man's court asks me to attend at his court. When I walk into a room that he alleges to be his court, even at his request, I have not yet stepped into his jurisdiction, because I am always standing in Yahweh's Kingdom. It then is of no significance what my name is or how it is written, but it is then of paramount importance that I make my declaration of WHERE I am standing! Anyone in that room may ask me my name. My response is simple and straight-forward. "I am a man of Yahweh standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, where do you stand?" Or I might say; "I am a man of Yahweh standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, where are you?"
Of course there are many possible responses that a statement such as this may elicit. One of the most probable responses, is for the judge to say something like this; "This is my court and you are in my court." He may even demand that because he "says" you are standing in his court, that you "give the court your name". There are also many possible responses you might offer. For example, "I am in Yahweh's Kingdom and my name is not for you, do you not have a name of your own?" Or I might say; "I am in Yahweh's Kingdom and you say this is your court, please explain to me where your court is (or where your court stands)?" If he says his court is "right here", then I might say; "I am standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, are you also?"
The bottom line with this truthful reasoning is simple. I will always be standing in Yahweh's Kingdom and that is all I am required to declare. [Our emphaisis] Without exception, I will only ask him where he is standing or if he is standing in Yahweh's Kingdom or where his court stands. I might even walk over to his side on his bench if he says something like "my court is right here in this room (or this room is my court)." If I did walk to his place ("right here") behind his bench, then he will undoubtedly ask me to go back to what he will claim to be "my place", or order me to "stand there", to which I would simply ask; "Is that your court over there because a moment ago you said this right here (point to where he sits) was your court. Is your court in Yahweh's kingdom, because I stand in Yahweh's Kingdom?"
If I was in a challenging mood, I might ask the judge; "Can you show me where Yahweh's Kingdom ends and your court begins, because at this time I stand in Yahweh's Kingdom and I do not understand where your court is?" Do you think he will declare that Yahweh's Kingdom ends outside of his alleged court room? You might hope so but do not count on it. If he did make such an unlikely statement, my response would be; "I assure you that I am standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, therefore your opinion of Yahweh's Kingdom is mistaken. You say your court is not in Yahweh's Kingdom then I am not in your court and I am not able to understand where your court is."
Now you might conclude that many possible variations of dialogue could ensue. It does not matter what the court officers state, so long as I maintain my simple declaration of being a man standing in Yahweh's Kingdom. My declaration is true, it is sound, and above all, no man can prove it to be otherwise. [Emphasis added] The judge can never bring himself to acknowledge that he is attempting to operate outside of Yahweh's Kingdom, hence the judge will never gain jurisdiction over me. And he cannot confirm that he is willing to operate inside of Yahweh's Kingdom, because inside of Yahweh's Kingdom the judge is merely another man and no man has been granted authority over another by Yahweh.
Which brings up one more point. I may ask the judge something like; "Are you a judge in (this) your court that you cannot find for me?" If he says; "I am a judge in this (or my) court", then I would respond with; "You testify that you are therefore not a man and that you do not stand in Yahweh's Kingdom, as Yahweh alone declares Himself as Judge in His Kingdom. As I am now standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, I bid you farewell and may Yahweh bless you with understanding of His Kingdom."
You might also consider that upon making your declaration of where YOU stand, that you add the following underlined words: "I am a man of Yahweh standing in Yahweh's Kingdom, and I can only see other men, my brothers standing in this room with me in Yahweh's Kingdom." This will leave the judge in the very uncomfortable and inescapable position of not being able to respond in either the affirmative or the negative. He will try to simply ignore your statement.
He cannot agree that he and the other court officers are also "men of Yahweh", as in so doing, he would be negating his own alleged authority. He also cannot disagree with you and say that he and the other court officers are not of Yahweh's Kingdom, because this would be tantamount to admitting Treason and breach of Office (in spite of it being true). Because he cannot then identify who HE is, you cannot understand how he can proceed and you state this to him. Then you have him in the position where his only choice of action is to dismiss the court room because he literally cannot make a response that will not cause him infinitely more grief than what he and his court officers intended to inflict upon you.
This article was sent to us by the Natural Congregation of Yahweh (http://www.naturalgod.com/) The red numbered footnotes added by us.
Endnotes:
[1] Though this author does not specifically bring it up in this treatise, kingdom means, "king's dominion, which is also known as "jurisdiction".
[2] We have yet to see any real evidence to justify that the word understand has anything to do with standing under something. The origin of the word understand, from all sources we have looked at, seems to be the OE understandan, which means literally, to stand among, hence observe, understand.
[3] We would suggest that this is not the "correct response" because the truth of the matter is that we do not fully comprehend what is truly said. As a witness to this truth we give you this from the beginning pages of our Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition.
A Final Word of Caution
The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also the type of legal issue, dispute, or transaction involved can affect a given definition usage.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you
The language of their so-called law is "ever-changing"; that house is built on sand!!
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 17 Feb 2007 08:03:56 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 22:46:24
|
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] (Minutes archived and publicly available.)
"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property [their body] in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. "Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living.
"They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
"They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
"After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
"This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. "The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation (“The United States of America”) to foment this plot against Americans."
This was spoken to Woodrow Wilson [over] 80 years ago by Edward Mandell House.
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come to light. - Yahu'shua, the Anointed
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 17 Feb 2007 07:18:11 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2007 : 09:57:04
|
"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he grave them upon two tables of stone.
If thou wilt enter into life,
keep the Commandments.
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 21 Feb 2007 06:51:27 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2007 : 18:38:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] (Minutes archived and publicly available.)
"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property [their body] in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. "Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living.
"They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
"They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
"After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
"This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. "The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation (“The United States of America”) to foment this plot against Americans."
This was spoken to Woodrow Wilson [over] 80 years ago by Edward Mandell House.
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come to light. - Yahu'shua, the Anointed
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
A quick search of quotes from brother Robert's post reveals that these statements only to be found within so-called "patriot" websites claiming that the statements are "public record". No mention as to which record, the date of the alleged statement, etc.
What is to be readily uncovered, however, is a fictional novel written by Edward Mandell House entitled "Philip Dru: Administrator" which speaks about the overthrow of the constitutional government and proposes a communist/socialist structure as its place.
All of this still leaves us to the root questions as they pertain to the Roman Empire in Jesus', Paul's and the early Christians such as Justin Martyr. The Roman Republic had already been over thrown and replaced by the Roman Empire in New Testament times yet we read some key examples of righteous Biblical heroes who complied with the Empire. Even in the OT Samuel advises the Israelites to continue to serve YHWH after they demanded - and recieved after full disclosure- a king "like the nations". Jesus' very own parents - Joseph and Mary - comply with the Roman decree that all must register for the census and are called "righteous" and "Blessed". Paul was an Empire citizen who utilized the LEGAL benefits only enjoyed by such. Even Christ Himself could not be found guilty of the false charges of sedition trumped up against Him by the Jews when examined by Pilate.
If we are to apply brother Robert's theories many of the Heroes in the Bible were actually first commandment breakers who "served two masters". Of course, we do have brother Robert's handy catch all for the above scripture examples. That's that the scriptures themselves are corrupt.
|
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2007 : 23:51:58
|
Greetings friends, Romans and countrymen, lend me your ears. I wonder if Caesar actually said that phrase? I also like the pecking order Friends=Princes or equals; Romans=subject Citizens with privileges, Countrymen=slaves (or so I say!).
Batkol, I cannot understand why I have to do my homework and provide a single scripture where Elohim refers to anyone other than a believer? Please enlighten me-Not.
As for Paul, he was falsely accused by the JEWS who in turn were subjects of the Roman Empire and obedient to Caesar. Paul simply used his brain and said, "I don't want to be stoned by the Jews, they have no jurisdiction over me as I am not one of theirs". What is so hard to understand about that? Paul asked Caesar to keep his dogs on the leash with a muzzle. He didn't want to get bitten for patting the dog.
The second time though Nero/Caesar himself made the allegation that Paul was attempting to overthrow the Empire causing sedition. Caesar didn't have to appeal to anybody for permission as he was 'god'. That doesn't make what Caesar did right in chopping his head off. I think they call that an abuse of power (without authority).
The Royal Prerogative in England and Australia:
Claims [unsworn allegations] made by the Crown (Caesar) cannot be supported by mere pretence of prerogative, since the Courts have power to determine the extent and the legality or otherwise of any alleged prerogative (a); nor may illegal acts be rendered justifiable by the plea of the King's commands, or State necessity. [Caesar did the right thing by Paul first time and wrongly the second]. The Crown is bound to observe the law both by statute and by the terms of the coronation oath, which embodies the CONTRACT between the Crown and people upon which the title to the Crown originally depended, and still in large measure depends. It is the duty of the Crown and of every branch of the Executive to abide by and obey the law. If there is any difficulty in ascertaining it the courts are open to the Crown to sue [doesn't say the people take the Crown to court now does it], and it is the duty of the Executive in cases of doubt to ascertain the law, in order to obey it, not to disreagrd it {per Sir Geroge Farwell in Eastern Trust Co. . McKenzie, Mann & Co. Ltd 1915}. Upon any doubtful point of prerogative the Crown and its ministers must, therefore, bow to the decision of the legal tribunals.
(a) The prerogative is thus created and limited by the common law, and the Sovereign can claim no prerogative except such as the law allows, nor such as are contrary to Magna Carta, or any other statute, or teh liberties of the subject. The Courts have jurisdiction, therefore to inquire into the existence or extent of any alleged prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege, quia lex facit regem. If any prerogative is disputed, they must decide the question whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law. ["We are indeed bound to take notice of everything that belongs to the Queen's privilege" Elderton's Case 1703 but if the officers of the Crown claim procedural privileges by virtue of the prerogative they must "make out clearly the prerogative" (A-G to Prince of Wales v. Crossman 1866)]
Apart from legislative authority, which is vested in Parliament subject to certain concurrent rights of the Crown, the law of the constitution clothes the person of the Sovereign with supreme sovereignty and pre-eminence. He is declared by many statutes to be the only supreme head of the realm in matters both spritual and ecclesiastical, and inferior to no man, dependant on no man, and accountable in his proper person to none, save only to God, either in within or without the realm. He is, however, bound by the terms of the coronation oath, and maxims of the common law, to observe and obey the law. Bracton ["Omnis quidem sub eo est, et ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo..... Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo, et sub lege, quia lex facit regem. Attribuat igitur rex legi, quod lex attribuit ei, videlicet dominationem et potestatem, non est enim rex, ubi dominatur voluntas et non lex."]
*************************
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. |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2007 : 00:09:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Buck
Greetings friends, Romans and countrymen, lend me your ears. I wonder if Caesar actually said that phrase? I also like the pecking order Friends=Princes or equals; Romans=subject Citizens with privileges, Countrymen=slaves (or so I say!).
Batkol, I cannot understand why I have to do my homework and provide a single scripture where Elohim refers to anyone other than a believer? Please enlighten me-Not.
As for Paul, he was falsely accused by the JEWS who in turn were subjects of the Roman Empire and obedient to Caesar. Paul simply used his brain and said, "I don't want to be stoned by the Jews, they have no jurisdiction over me as I am not one of theirs". What is so hard to understand about that? Paul asked Caesar to keep his dogs on the leash with a muzzle. He didn't want to get bitten for patting the dog.
The second time though Nero/Caesar himself made the allegation that Paul was attempting to overthrow the Empire causing sedition. Caesar didn't have to appeal to anybody for permission as he was 'god'. That doesn't make what Caesar did right in chopping his head off. I think they call that an abuse of power (without authority).
The Royal Prerogative in England and Australia:
Claims [unsworn allegations] made by the Crown (Caesar) cannot be supported by mere pretence of prerogative, since the Courts have power to determine the extent and the legality or otherwise of any alleged prerogative (a); nor may illegal acts be rendered justifiable by the plea of the King's commands, or State necessity. [Caesar did the right thing by Paul first time and wrongly the second]. The Crown is bound to observe the law both by statute and by the terms of the coronation oath, which embodies the CONTRACT between the Crown and people upon which the title to the Crown originally depended, and still in large measure depends. It is the duty of the Crown and of every branch of the Executive to abide by and obey the law. If there is any difficulty in ascertaining it the courts are open to the Crown to sue [doesn't say the people take the Crown to court now does it], and it is the duty of the Executive in cases of doubt to ascertain the law, in order to obey it, not to disreagrd it {per Sir Geroge Farwell in Eastern Trust Co. . McKenzie, Mann & Co. Ltd 1915}. Upon any doubtful point of prerogative the Crown and its ministers must, therefore, bow to the decision of the legal tribunals.
(a) The prerogative is thus created and limited by the common law, and the Sovereign can claim no prerogative except such as the law allows, nor such as are contrary to Magna Carta, or any other statute, or teh liberties of the subject. The Courts have jurisdiction, therefore to inquire into the existence or extent of any alleged prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege, quia lex facit regem. If any prerogative is disputed, they must decide the question whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law. ["We are indeed bound to take notice of everything that belongs to the Queen's privilege" Elderton's Case 1703 but if the officers of the Crown claim procedural privileges by virtue of the prerogative they must "make out clearly the prerogative" (A-G to Prince of Wales v. Crossman 1866)]
Apart from legislative authority, which is vested in Parliament subject to certain concurrent rights of the Crown, the law of the constitution clothes the person of the Sovereign with supreme sovereignty and pre-eminence. He is declared by many statutes to be the only supreme head of the realm in matters both spritual and ecclesiastical, and inferior to no man, dependant on no man, and accountable in his proper person to none, save only to God, either in within or without the realm. He is, however, bound by the terms of the coronation oath, and maxims of the common law, to observe and obey the law. Bracton ["Omnis quidem sub eo est, et ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo..... Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo, et sub lege, quia lex facit regem. Attribuat igitur rex legi, quod lex attribuit ei, videlicet dominationem et potestatem, non est enim rex, ubi dominatur voluntas et non lex."]
PREROG'ATIVE, [L. proerogativa, precedence in voting; proe, before, and rogo, to ask or demand.] An exclusive or peculiar privilege. A royal prerogative, is that special pre-eminence which a king has over all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his regal dignity. It consists in the possession of certain rights which the king may exercise to the exclusion of all participation of his subjects; for when a right or privilege is held in common with the subject, it ceases to be a prerogative. Thus the right of appointing embassadors,and of making peace and war, are, in Great Britain, royal prerogatives. The right of governing created beings is the prerogative of the Creator.
It is the prerogative of the house of peers in Great Britain to decide legal questions in the last resort. It is the prerogative of the house of commons to determine the validity of all elections of their own members. It is the prerogative of a father to govern his children. It is the prerogative of the understanding to judge and compare. In the United States, it is the prerogative of the president, with the advice of the senate, to ratify treaties.
Bracton wrote in the reign of Henry III., ... affirms that the king ought not to be subject to man, but to God and to the law, because the law makes the king; and therefore the king should ascribe to the law what the law ascribes to him, namely, dominion and power, for there is no king where reigns will and not law. Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem. Attribuat igitur rex legi, quod lex attribuit ei, videlicet, dominium et potestatem, non est enim rex, ubi dominatur voluntas et non lex. Bract. 5b. Yet no one states more strongly than Bracton the exemption of the king from being sued without his consent in such a case as this; for he says that one who has been disseized by the king, or by his bailiffs in his name, per dominum regem vel ballivos suos nomine suo, or, as he elsewhere says, whom the king, or any one in his behalf or in his name, aliquis pro eo vel nomine suo, has ejected, cannot, even if the disseizin be manifest, prosecute an assize to recover possession of the land without the king's consent, but must await his pleasure whether the assize shall proceed or not, expectanda erit voluntas domini regis quod procedat assisa vel non procedat. Bract. 168b, 171b, 212a
*************************
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.
*************************
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 22 Feb 2007 01:53:15 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2007 : 18:41:30
|
quote:
Batkol, I cannot understand why I have to do my homework and provide a single scripture where Elohim refers to anyone other than a believer? Please enlighten me-Not.
If you would have done your homework in the first place you would see that in the Bible when the word "elohim" is used to address a flesh and blood ruler or magistrate, it is speaking only of Israelites who are judicating the Sinai covenant. Nowhere is the word "elohim" contextually used to address a non-Israelite ruler yet that is exactly what you need to even begin to make your case. A case which has many flaws seeing that - when we apply your theory concerning the first commandment - makes many Bible heroes guilty of serving two masters.
quote:
As for Paul, he was falsely accused by the JEWS who in turn were subjects of the Roman Empire and obedient to Caesar.
This red herring you offer does not change the fact that Paul was an Empire Citizen who enjoyed the benefits available only to that status.
quote:
Paul simply used his brain and said, "I don't want to be stoned by the Jews, they have no jurisdiction over me as I am not one of theirs". What is so hard to understand about that? Paul asked Caesar to keep his dogs on the leash with a muzzle. He didn't want to get bitten for patting the dog.
You miss the whole point completely aside from the fact that what you say Paul said is not what he said. Paul did more than use his brain. He used his Roman Empire Citizenship. A status which to the zealots - no doubt - would be repugnant.
quote:
The second time though Nero/Caesar himself made the allegation that Paul was attempting to overthrow the Empire causing sedition.
Oh, really? Chapter and verse, mate.
quote:
Caesar didn't have to appeal to anybody for permission as he was 'god'. That doesn't make what Caesar did right in chopping his head off. I think they call that an abuse of power (without authority).
This red herring - which you fail to offer ANY support for from the scriptures - ignores the fact that Paul was a citizen of the Empire.
I find NO scripture to support your assertion yet I have provided you with both scriptures and accounts of early Christian martyrs who applied those same scriptures, paid taxes, were citizens (like Paul) and who died for their faith. Who died simply for not denying the name Christian which is a direct fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of suffering for His namesake. |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2007 : 05:26:06
|
Eph. 4:4-6 "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Does FAITH = ALLEGIANCE?
All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts. CONSENT makes the law, not mere submission.
*************************
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 23 Feb 2007 05:27:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
