| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 09:30:54
|
BATKOL:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson
My goodness, how difficult can this be; Thomas thought it was "self-evident"! All men are created equal, that is to say, they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these (THIS INDICATES THAT THERE ARE OTHERS) are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The only Lawful authority that a government has is to protect these unalienable Rights given to us by our Creator and then only for those who knowingly or ignorantly consent to be protected by it. This is the epitomy of Romans thirteen; their only Lawful authority is to praise those who are equitable and punish those who are not; end of story. And, when government itself becomes the iniquitous one we are to alter or abolish it and start a new one, one that will protect everyone's unalienable Rights. (We have yet to find in the set-apart Scripture where we are instructed to "alter" man's government, perhaps because it may not be possible.)
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Ibid.)
If the majority of the people are not with us in this endeavour, which, judging by this "called out assembly", they APPARENTLY are not, then we are Commanded by our Creator to "come out from among them, and be ye separate" (2 Cor. 6:17) so that we are not accomplices with her in her immoral acts (Rev. 18:4), we are told not to follow a mulitude to do evil (Ex. 23:2).
All we are doing is trying to find the Way out, according to the Scripture, which has been tampered with for ages (Rom. 1:25), in which to accomplish this. If you believe we are doing it wrong, if we are wrongly dividing what is left of the Word of Truth after the lying pen of the scribes have had their way with it for ages upon ages, you can try to trash us, you can try to stomp on us physically and/or verbally if you so desire, or you can get down off your high horse and show us the correct Way to "come out of her" so that we "receive not of her plagues", but do not ever try to tell us that we are to follow her into the depths of depravity so that we can wax rich through the abundance of her delicacies, that that is the will of Yahuwah. That is totally irrational!!!
Thank you for your time.
brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 12 Aug 2006 09:54:37 |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 10:32:36
|
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name (title) shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty 'El, The Everlasting Chief, the Prince of Peace (welfare). 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of Dawid, and upon his kingdom, to errect it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from this time even unto eternity. The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom (jurisdiction) of his dear Son...
TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.] ...2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
translate v.t. 1. to bear or change from one place, condition, etc., to antoher; to transfer. 2. Specif.: a To remove to heaven; - originally implying without death. - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,copyrights from 1916-1960, page 903
translate vt. 1 to move from one place or condition to another; trasfer; specif., a) Theol. to convey directly to heaven without death Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of Americian English, Third College Edition, page 1421
translate
TRANSITIVE
VERB: 6a. Ecclesiastical ...b. to convey to heaven without death - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright 2000
Yahuwah, we thank you for Rescuing us from the power of darkness and for conveying us into the Jurisdiction of your dear Child.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, into perpetuity. Amen.
HalleluYah!!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 12 Aug 2006 10:45:07 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 10:56:51
|
quote:
BATKOL:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson
My goodness, how difficult can this be; Thomas thought it was "self-evident"! All men are created equal, that is to say, they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these (THIS INDICATES THAT THERE ARE OTHERS) are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The only Lawful authority that a government has is to protect these unalienable Rights given to us by our Creator and then only for those who willingly and knowingly consent to be protected by it. This is the epitomy of Romans thirteen; their only Lawful authority is to praise those who are equitable and punish those who are not; end of story. And, when government itself becomes the iniquitous one we are to alter or abolish it and start a new one, one that will protect everyone's unalienable Rights.
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Ibid.)
ONEISRAELITE:
There are many comments to be made here. Firstly, there is nothing new under the sun. Governments are created and destroyed. In fact, the one which sprang from the document you quote did not secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. Not everyone had unalienable rights under it. But then again neither did the Rome under which Paul wrote Roman 13, even though that same GOVT found Paul and Christ not guilty of the charges made agains them by the Jews. I will address the bigger picture in all of this below.
quote:
If the majority of the people are not with us in this endeavour, which, judging by this "called out assembly", they APPARENTLY are not, then we are Commanded by our Creator to "come out from among them, and be ye separate" (2 Cor. 6:17) so that we are not accomplices with her in her immoral acts (Rev. 18:4), we are told not to follow a mulitude to do evil (Ex. 23:2).
Here is the root problem. You assume that all who do not agree with your private rendering of scripture are a multitude doing evil and are accomplices with their immoral acts. Why not take a deep breath and rethink your assertions?
quote:
All we are doing is trying to find the Way out, according to the Scripture, which has been tampered with for ages (Rom. 1:25), in which to accomplish this.
This verse you quote does not say that scripture has been tampered with. You can’t just pluck one verse out of its context to make your argument and then expect everyone to agree with you!
Look at the context of Rome 1:25
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
The context here is worshipping people, birds, four footed animals and creeping things instead of the incorruptible God.
quote:
If you believe we are doing it wrong, if we are wrongly dividing what is left of the Word of Truth after the lying pen of the scribes have had their way with it for ages upon ages
Think about this. The context of the lying pen of the scribes is the OT law!!
Jer 8:8 - "How can you say, 'We are wise, we have the law of the Lord'? Why, that has been changed into falsehood by the lying pen of the Scribes!"
Fact: The NT was not around when Paul wrote this. Paul goes through much pain to explain the correct understanding of the Faith. No doubt, over half of the NT was written by him. Paul was a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE who argued in COURT, appealed to Caesar, etc. yet by your rendering of his own work and the words of Christ he would actually be serving two masters! Joseph and Mary would not have really be righteous and blessed but rather first commandment breakers for going and enlisting in the TAX roles.
quote:
, you can try to trash us, you can try to stomp on us physically and/or verbally if you so desire,
I am refuting your assertions. I am attacking your theory not you personally. By me pointing out context to you does not mean I am trashing you or stomping you physically and/or verbally.
quote:
or you can get down off your high horse and show us the correct Way to "come out of her" so that we "receive not of her plagues",
“Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins"
Come out of what? This letter of Revelations was written to the early churches warning of what was 'coming quickly' against Jerusalem for the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy that the Temple was going to be destroyed. This is a deep topic and I can prove that Jerusalem of the Jews was Mystery Babylon who got what was promised in 70 AD.. However, if you want to apply this to today list what sins were being committed and see if you are personally partaking in those sins. Consider your assesment with the whole context of scripture and those who wrote it, not just a few verses out of context.
As for the ‘correct way’ it is spelled out in the NT when recognizing context. I will make an outline later today after I spend some time with my wife and children.
quote:
but do not ever try to tell us that we are to follow her into the depths of depravity so that we can wax rich through the abundance of her delicacies, that that is the will of Yahuwah. That is totally irrational!!!
Who here has ever asked you to follow anybody into the ‘depths of depravity‘? Nobody here ever promoted homosexuality, abortions, worshipping demons, etc. Of all the people I have talked to on this list, I don’t know anybody driving Porches, living in lavish mansions, etc. To my knowledge, most are just working families like yours and mine. Probably pay rent like you and me, etc.
I will make that outline and post it later on.
quote:
Thank you for your time.
You are welcome. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 14:29:58
|
You wrote: Here is the root problem. You assume that all who do not agree with your private rendering of scripture are a multitude doing evil and are accomplices with their immoral acts. Why not take a deep breath and rethink your assertions?
We respond: Your personal attack on the messenger has not gone unnoticed. We rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. But that aside, after taking a deep breath; if a government, which we supposedly created, has turned into a liwyathan and is doing very evil things, not only to its own people, but to peoples throughout the earth, and is intentionally breaking every one of the Ten Commandments on a daily basis, and knowing this we still choose to remain affiliated (joined) to it, the Scripture demonstrates for us that Yahuwah considers us accomplices to its atrocities. So you take a deep breath and rethink your assertions that it is we who assume that those who remain joined to an evil company are accomplices. We do not pass judgement on another man's servants.
And, all of the Scripture is about things that are prophesied to happen, things that have already come to pass, and are the things that are destined to occur again if we do not learn from our mistakes.
Yahuwah is our Judge, Yahuwah is our Lawgiver, Yahuwah is our King
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 12 Aug 2006 14:58:06 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 23:47:00
|
quote:
quote:
You wrote: Here is the root problem. You assume that all who do not agree with your private rendering of scripture are a multitude doing evil and are accomplices with their immoral acts. Why not take a deep breath and rethink your assertions?
We respond: Your personal attack on the messenger has not gone unnoticed. We rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
I have not personally attacked you. I am refuting your assertions.
I am refuting the doctrine that you promote which is a re-telling of the one concocted by the Jews to frame Christ. Why are you are so emotionally attached to defending and quoting the sayings of the Jews used against Christ? Here is the bottom line on this certain matter.
Either the Jews framed Christ or the Gospels framed the Jews.
quote:
But that aside, after taking a deep breath; if a government, which we supposedly created,
We did not create it. All power is sanctioned by God. There is no authority but that which is of God. Nebuchadnezer had to learn this the hard way. "seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
quote:
has turned into a liwyathan and is doing very evil things, not only to its own people, but to peoples throughout the earth,
Nothing new under the sun. I am sure your words were shared by the Canaanities before the Israelites followed the commandment to "kill every man, woman and child" when taking the Holy Land. Or the native Americans, or, or, or, etc, etc. What kind of GOVT do you think ROME was during Paul's day, yet he was a CITIZEN of that EMPIRE when he wrote Romans 13. Joseph and Mary complied with GOVT. As of this moment our GOVT does not keep any one of us - who are willing - from helping the widows and the orphans in our own backyard. There is something deeper here.
quote:
and is intentionally breaking every one of the Ten Commandments on a daily basis,
In this country - even in its imperfect construct - the GOVT reflects the people and this means that the majority are breaking the Ten Commandments on a daily basis. This is our fault. If we were doing our job as followers of Christ by embodying the Spirit of the law for the people to see, instead of hairsplitting over the letter of old, imperfect Israelite law and conspiracy theories, perhaps this environment would change all together.
quote:
and knowing this we still choose to remain affiliated (joined) to it, the Scripture demonstrates for us that Yahuwah considers us accomplices to its atrocities. So you take a deep breath and rethink your assertions that it is we who assume that those who remain joined to an evil company are accomplices. We do not pass judgement on another man's servants.
Here is the inconsistency of your theory. Let's take your statement and apply it honestly across the board. You tout this ideology yet
refuse to accept that being affiliated to the FICTIONAL FRN system of BUYING/SELLING/TAXING with CORPS makes you an accomplice to that same SCHEME. Heck, most of the atrocities you list are committed to prop us this very SCHEME. No, there is something bigger in all of this. People need changing then the SYSTEM(s) can change. First we need to heal ourselves, then help others heal, then God will force the GOVT to accommodate. Right now the current GOVT is not standing in our way in this first step. I am not speaking as one healed. I am one speaking as one wanting to be healed and seeing the medicine clearly spelled out in scripture in such a way that even a child can understand it. No, the doctrine is not full of the intrigues of masons or conspiracy theories but rather the very hard work of inner transformation; The correction of that which all men inherited from the fall of Adam. Correct that, all else is cake.
quote:
And, all of the Scripture is about things that are prophesied to happen, things that have already come to pass, and are the things that are destined to occur again if we do not learn from our mistakes.
The only way we will learn from our mistakes is to remove the that which causes the mistake. To be cured from the mistake of Adam which preceded all GOVT. All manor of GOVT - as given by God - is a direct reflection of our collective nature. Until we overcome our own fallen Adamic nature (via the second Adam)- or at least have enough of those who have to tip the scales - we will only be attacking the symptoms and not the disease. If we can't overcome our own fallen nature we inherited from Adam's mistake in this current GOVT system which currently allows us Bibles, open confession of Christ, open discourse, etc. then history shows God will send us worse.
The zealots could not understand this and got wiped out. Why promote failed ideas and the doctrines of Jews created to frame Christ when the medicine for the curse of Adam is spelled out for us?
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2006 : 07:22:13
|
Let’s start with this:
It would seem that you are a little bit paranoid, thinking there was some kind of personal attack on you, especially since your name was not even mentioned.
BATKOL: My position is being completely misrepresented here…
ONEISRAELITE: Be ye wise as serpents, there are some persons that will try to con you into believing that if you pay a sales tax you are committing high treason against your king. You can screw your thinking cap on backwards and still see that this is poppycock. [Emphasis added]
BATKOL: Now, after all this time, he is clearly misrepresenting me.
You are not the only one who has made the cockamamie assertion that if a man pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in another nation he has committed high treason against his own government, there are many, which is precisely why we used the word persons, plural, when we made the original statement.
On the other hand you used my screen name SIXTEEN times, in your very first post alone, and yet still claim that yours is not a personal attack. Now, which of us do you suppose might be just a little bit delusional. It certainly appears as though you might want to heed your own advice and "take a deep breath and rethink your assertions".
Oh, and by the way, this is not a personal attack, I am merely "refuting your assertions".
BATKOL: oneisrealite has for years claimed that being a SUBJECT to GOVT STATUTES is breaking the first commandment. He basically says that GOVT STATUTES and YHWH's Law are like "oil and water" and that being subject to both is like serving two masters.
No BATKOL it is not I who claim this. I believe you may be attacking the wrong one with your above statement.
(Wayiqra [Leviticus] 18 RNV) Then Yahuwah spoke to Mosheh saying,
{2} "Speak to the sons of Yisra'el and say to them, 'I am Yahuwah your 'Eloah.
{3} According to the doings of the land of Mitsrayim where you dwelt, you shall not do, and according to the doings of the land of Kena'an where I am bringing you, you shall not do nor shall you walk in their ordinances [H2708].
{4} You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances to walk in them. I am Yahuwah, your 'Eloah.
{5} You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments that if a man does, he shall live by them. I am Yahuwah.
H2708
chuqqah
BDB Definition:
1) statute, ordinance, limit, enactment, something prescribed
1a) statute
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?
(1 Korinthios 11 RNS) {3} But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Anointed, the head of woman is man, and the head of the Anointed is Yahuwah.
Where does “the Roman emperor” fit into that headship?
EM'PEROR, n. [L. imperator, from impero, to command.] Literally, the commander of an army. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
His title today, of course, is "COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES".
And, we feel you may have been misled, the Zealots of Yahuwah can never be wiped out. That is only wishful thinking on the part of the Roman government.
(Yasha'Yahuw 9 RNV) {9:7} Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of Dawiyd and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Aug 2006 10:12:27 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 05:35:33
|
BATKOL: If what oneisraelite is saying is correct then Joseph and Mary - who are considered righteous and blessed in the NT - would not have been going to register for the tax
Foremost, we can only find one witness in our books of the Set Apart Scripture, Luke, for this accusation against Joseph and Mary that they were “going to register for the tax”.
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
But, even if we presume them guilty of the charge, we have been unable to find anywhere in the Set Apart Scripture where Joseph and/or Mary are referred to as righteous, as you are apparently claiming.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point us toward the appropriate witnesses in the Scripture, which tell us that Joseph and Mary are righteous.
We can, also, find nowhere in the Set Apart Scripture where Joseph is called blessed (fortunate, well off), and, as before, we are left with only Luke as the sole witness of Mary being called “blessed (spoken well of) art thou among women”, notwithstanding that this one witness says it twice, once reportedly from a messenger and once supposedly from Eliysheba [Elizabeth].
Again, we would be grateful if you could point us toward any other witnesses that verify your claims.
We thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 14 Aug 2006 05:52:02 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 06:33:34
|
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus [Yahushua]…was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. – Excerpted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. (Ibid.)
INSURREC'TION, n. [L. insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority... It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
This "less extensive rising of citizens" were, and are, the "called out ones", i.e. the true ekklesia, a political term, if you will forgive the expressions, as opposed to a religious one. In Yahuwah's Kingdom there is no separation of church and state, again, if you will please forgive us for the use of these two words.
It differs from rebellion, for the latter [rebellion] expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. (Ibd.)
This is a very important distinction, since we are not attempting "to overthrow the government", nor are we trying to "place the country under another jurisdiciton", but rather we have simply been "called out" from, and have left, the governments, i.e. jurisdictions, of men and have been translated into another jurisdiciton.
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son
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 “sect of the Nazoraios” was not, and to this day is not, a sect of people from a place called Nazareth (the guarded one), it is exactly what Joseph Thayer defines it as in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Nazarite = “one separated”, though the worldly ones [PERSONS belonging to the STATE] may do everything in their power to try con-vince us into believing otherwise.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 14 Aug 2006 08:58:15 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 09:40:55
|
Dear brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
I would like you to know, I do not enter into these debates with you for sport, I do not enter them because I wish to always be right, and I most certainly do not enter into them because I hate you…I enter into these sometimes heated deliberations with you because I love you, though admittedly I may momentarily forget this fact out of sheer frustration, just as I am sure you must do with me.
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!!
But I do know that the set apart spirit of Yahuwah has been trying to guide me for some years now. I say trying because, though I struggle against them, I too many times let my own ego, emotions and/or the rudiments of the world enter in. For this I can only apologize to you, and to any others I may have offended.
May Yahuwah bless and keep you and yours,
brother Robert: of the house of Yisar’el
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 14 Aug 2006 09:44:12 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 13:07:10
|
quote:
Let’s start with this:
It would seem that you are a little bit paranoid, thinking there was some kind of personal attack on you, especially since your name was not even mentioned.
See below.
quote:
quote:
BATKOL: My position is being completely misrepresented here…
ONEISRAELITE: Be ye wise as serpents, there are some persons that will try to con you into believing that if you pay a sales tax you are committing high treason against your king. You can screw your thinking cap on backwards and still see that this is poppycock. [Emphasis added]
BATKOL: Now, after all this time, he is clearly misrepresenting me.
You are not the only one who has made the cockamamie assertion that if a man pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in another nation he has committed high treason against his own government, there are many, which is precisely why we used the word persons, plural, when we made the original statement.
But you DO think I made this assertion so I am included in your statement when you say “you are not the only one who has made this cockamamie assertion“. This is exactly where you are clearly misrepresenting me. What I am stating is that I DO NOT think that one commits “high treason” by paying sales tax but if I apply your “accomplice” theory equally across the board then one would certainly be such an accomplice to “high treason“. That has been my well established position yet you get it wrong again even here.
quote:
On the other hand you used my screen name SIXTEEN times, in your very first post alone, and yet still claim that yours is not a personal attack. Now, which of us do you suppose might be just a little bit delusional. It certainly appears as though you might want to heed your own advice and "take a deep breath and rethink your assertions".
A personal attack is if I were to say, “ONEISRAELITE is a no good %%$#$%”. Such an attack would have no bearing on the subject matter and would be considered Ad Hom. On the other hand, if I were to say in reponse to a verse you quoted, “ONEISRAELITE has ripped this verse out of context” this is not a personal attack. It is a comment on your method.
quote:
Oh, and by the way, this is not a personal attack, I am merely "refuting your assertions".
I am not saying you are personally attacking me. What you are doing is misrepresenting my well established position. I don't take personal offense to you misrepresenting my position but I will point out the misrepresentation.
quote:
quote:
BATKOL: oneisrealite has for years claimed that being a SUBJECT to GOVT STATUTES is breaking the first commandment. He basically says that GOVT STATUTES and YHWH's Law are like "oil and water" and that being subject to both is like serving two masters.
No BATKOL it is not I who claim this. I believe you may be attacking the wrong one with your above statement.
ONEISRAELITE at least you recognize that I have not misrepresented your theories. That’s a good start seeing as how many hours I have invested in studying them….. and yes they are YOUR theories of what certain verses mean.
quote:
(Wayiqra [Leviticus] 18 RNV) Then Yahuwah spoke to Mosheh saying,
{2} "Speak to the sons of Yisra'el and say to them, 'I am Yahuwah your 'Eloah.
{3} According to the doings of the land of Mitsrayim where you dwelt, you shall not do, and according to the doings of the land of Kena'an where I am bringing you, you shall not do nor shall you walk in their ordinances [H2708].
{4} You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances to walk in them. I am Yahuwah, your 'Eloah.
{5} You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments that if a man does, he shall live by them. I am Yahuwah.
H2708
chuqqah
BDB Definition:
1) statute, ordinance, limit, enactment, something prescribed
1a) statute
Here is a simple gloss which deals with the broad strokes of where the verse quoted above fits into this Kingdom discussion. It does not cover all of the other details of prophecy, etc which would further support this short statement on such a huge topic.
The biggest error - and it is certainly one I was also guilty of in the past - is not understanding the very Sinai covenant you quote in the context of the history of the Israelites, their kingdom and what happened when Christ was rejected. This Sinai covenant was in place for a people who were to “utterly destroy” all of the inhabitants of the land they were going to take and institute their own kingdom. The Bible shows that Israel was able to set up their promised kingdom. The law of the land was the Sinai covenant. They had some good kings in context to the covenant as well as some bad ones. The bottom line is that the Israelites did not observe the judgments and ordinances so they experienced the curses found in Lev 26, Deut 28 which amounted to the loss of their kingdom and them being sent into bondage.
They had a second shot at the kingdom when their captors helped them back to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple. To make a long story short the same pattern emerged with the ups and downs as in the last kingdom. Never the less Jerusalem was chosen again with a rebuilt temple ready for the Messiah. But what happened? “He came to His own but His own received Him NOT”.
Yes, the Zealots’ political rendering of scripture was one shared by a great number of Jews who wanted Rome crushed. However, Christ was not preaching this doctrine. If Christ was preaching sedition against Rome certainly the Jews would have carried Him on their shoulders like they did with the Messianic hopeful the Zealot Judas son of Hezekiah back in 4 BCE. Indeed, the Jews wanted Barabbas not Christ who was also most likely a Zealot. What did Christ say to these "we want Barabbas" Jews who rejected Him?
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;“
Mat 21:42 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?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Matt 23:37 - 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!
38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
Is there OT prophecy for the rejection of Christ and the loss of the exclusive kingdom of Israel secured by the Sinai Covenant because the killed Christ? Yes.
Zec 11:9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that which dieth, let it die; and that which is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let them that are left eat every one the flesh of another.
Zec 11:10 And I took my staff Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples. (Fulfilled Matt 8:10-12, Matt 21:42, Matt 23:37)
Zec 11:11 And it was broken in that day; and thus the poor of the flock that gave heed unto me knew that it was the word of Jehovah.
Zec 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty [pieces] of silver (fulfilled Matt 26:15, Matt 27:9-10).
Zec 11:13 And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah (fulfilled Matt 27:3-10, Acts 1:18-19).
Zec 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. (fulfilled Matt 8:10-12, Matt 21:42, Matt 23:37)
So we know that Christ said the “sons of the Kingdom” were cast into outer darkness. We know that for rejecting Christ, He said that the Kingdom will be taken from “the children” and given to a nation bearing much fruit. Are there other verses which identify who this “nation” is? Paul - the Apostle to the Gentiles - gives us some clarity:
Acts 28:27 -28 - For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it
“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.” Rom. 10:20-21
This is not to say that the promised remnant of Israel would not be saved. They were and are - however - the New covenant is NOT like the Old. Salvation is offered to ALL but the scriptures and history show that in context to the flesh Israelites they were only to be only a tiny flock.
To the Gentiles Paul explains that the Sinai covenant is the covenant of bondage:
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
Gal 4:23 Howbeit the [son] by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the [son] by the freewoman [is born] through promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things contain an allegory: for these [women] are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
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! So simple a child can understand it.
quote:
(1 Korinthios 11 RNS) {3} But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Anointed, the head of woman is man, and the head of the Anointed is Yahuwah.
Where does “the Roman emperor” fit into that headship?
Below Christ just as Paul put him.
quote:
And, we feel you may have been misled, the Zealots of Yahuwah can never be wiped out. That is only wishful thinking on the part of the Roman government.
(Yasha'Yahuw 9 RNV) {9:7} Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of Dawiyd and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.
This verse does not speak about a group of Jews known as the Zealots who were defeated by Rome. In fact, the zeal of YHWH destroyed the Jewish Zealots who rejected Christ would but instead wanted the Zealot Barabbas instead.
quote:
quote:
BATKOL: If what oneisraelite is saying is correct then Joseph and Mary - who are considered righteous and blessed in the NT - would not have been going to register for the tax
Foremost, we can only find one witness in our books of the Set Apart Scripture, Luke, for this accusation against Joseph and Mary that they were “going to register for the tax”.
If you are going to stick with this line of reasoning I am going to have a field day hitting you with the many items that are only mentioned once in the Bible! Like Moses marrying the Ethiopian (you have used this verse youself more than one in debating certain people.) The story of Peter saying “Yes, my master pays taxes”. That only appears once, yet you use it quite a bit.
quote:
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Here is the context of the verse you quoted:
Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.
Deu 19:16 If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrong-doing,
Deu 19:17 then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days;
Deu 19:18 and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother;
Deu 19:19 then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to do unto his brother: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
Deu 19:20 And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee.
Deu 19:21 And thine eyes shall not pity; life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
This is about charges made which concern Israelite law matters.
quote:
But, even if we presume them guilty of the charge,
“Guilty of the charge”. There is no guilt involved in their actions.
quote:
we have been unable to find anywhere in the Set Apart Scripture where Joseph and/or Mary are referred to as righteous, as you are apparently claiming.
Joseph is called righteous and Mary is called blessed and favored.
Sorry, I should have really spelled this out for you a bit better but it all would amount to the same idea. Joseph is certainly called righteous. See below.
quote:
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point us toward the appropriate witnesses in the Scripture, which tell us that Joseph and Mary are righteous.
We can, also, find nowhere in the Set Apart Scripture where Joseph is called blessed (fortunate, well off), and, as before, we are left with only Luke as the sole witness of Mary being called “blessed (spoken well of) art thou among women”, notwithstanding that this one witness says it twice, once reportedly from a messenger and once supposedly from Eliysheba [Elizabeth].
Again, we would be grateful if you could point us toward any other witnesses that verify your claims.
We thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.
Here is the evidence you request to back up my claims:
Concerning Joseph:
Mat 1:19 and Joseph her husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away
Righteous dikaios {dik'-ah-yos}
1) righteous, observing divine laws
a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God 1) of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
2) innocent, faultless, guiltless
3) used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
a) only Christ truly
4) approved of or acceptable of God
b) in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them
Concerning Mary:
Once by an angel
Luk 1:28 And the angel having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord [is] with thee; blessed [art] thou among women;'
Luk 1:29 and she, having seen, was troubled at his word, and was reasoning of what kind this salutation may be.
Luk 1:30 And the messenger said to her, `Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God;
Once by Elizibeth while filled with the Holy Spirit:
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe did leap in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
Luk 1:42 and spake out with a loud voice, and said, `Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb;
quote:
I would like you to know, I do not enter into these debates with you for sport, I do not enter them because I wish to always be right, and I most certainly do not enter into them because I hate you…I enter into these sometimes heated deliberations with you because I love you, though admittedly I may momentarily forget this fact out of sheer frustration, just as I am sure you must do with me.
Exactly. This is not sport for me either. It takes up a lot of time and I really should be at work. These topics are always at the top of our list of study so naturally we want to express ourselves and see what holds up. I know you don't hate me and I hope you know I don't hate you. I will say that whoever wants to read these threads will get quite a bit to ponder from both sides.
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!!
Nor do I. We can find out what they are by researching what the scriptures say.
Let's face it. I have had to eat my words more than once here on this and other forums. I welcome those chances because if I am forced to admit this - believe me - it is because I could not argue my own conclusions to my own satisfation... and it ain't for lack of tying!
quote:
But I do know that the set apart spirit of Yahuwah has been trying to guide me for some years now. I say trying because, though I struggle against them, I too many times let my own ego, emotions and/or the rudiments of the world enter in. For this I can only apologize to you, and to any others I may have offended.
I can say this without any contradiction to my position:
I have no doubt that you are being lead to do what you do. I assert that your path - even though I don't agree with your rendering of the first commandment - does not contradict Romans 13, etc. From what I studied of the US STATUTES you are in no way obligated to have a DL or SS#. I assert that both our paths can be found within the Kingdom granted that certain bigger requirements be met. Those requirements are the real work and after those, all things shall be added. So, while I might disagree with you on some major elements, I completely recognize that your walk is not at all in conflict to what we are commanded in the scriptures.
quote:
May Yahuwah bless and keep you and yours,
brother Robert: of the house of Yisar’el
I do pray for the best concerning you, sis Kathleen and bro. Kevin.
P.S. - I also apologise if the tone of my posts got out of hand. These are heavy items we are discussing here.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 14 Aug 2006 14:29:32 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 07:22:44
|
Apology accepted and we thank you for the kind words.
You wrote: From what I studied of the US STATUTES you are in no way obligated to have a DL or SS#.
This statement appears to presume that we are under the US STATUTES (graven images). We are not; we belong to a different Master[1].
We quoted this verse and asked the question…
<quote>"(1 Korinthios 11 RNS) {3} But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Anointed, the head of woman is man, and the head of the Anointed is Yahuwah.
Where does “the Roman emperor” fit into that headship?"<end quote>
You answered: Below Christ just as Paul put him.
We feel that that is an incomplete answer, in that it does not paint the full picture. We feel it should also have said, “…and not above other men, unless they choose to serve him”, which we venture the guess, is precisely where Thomas got his concept.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
“Choose you this day whom you will serve…”
Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt. – Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
We do not choose to serve, i.e. we do not consent to be governed, by an oppressor who will not allow men and women, those men and women who have accepted the conditions attached to the redemption price, the liberty to return to Him who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. So be it.
Endnotes:
[1] M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater. The word then signifies a chief director. See Minister] 1. A man who rules, governs... Nations that want protectors, will have masters. Ames (See 1Shama'el 8:20) 3. The owner; proprietor; with the idea of governing. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 15 Aug 2006 08:00:33 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 11:48:29
|
quote:
Apology accepted and we thank you for the kind words.
You are most welcome.
quote:
You wrote: From what I studied of the US STATUTES you are in no way obligated to have a DL or SS#.
This statement appears to presume that we are under the US STATUTES (graven images). We are not; we belong to a different Master[1].
Let me rephrase my answer then. Even according to the US STATUTES you are in no way obligated to have a DL or SS#. OTOH, you most certainly do consent to enter into US STATUTES and UCC STATUTES when engaging in the FRN SCHEME with CORPS. Personally, I do not think this is a breach of the first commandment, but when I apply your theory concerning YHWH’s law and US STATUTES being like oil and water, I can’t see how one could willfully choose to enter into that FICTIONAL REALM (complete with TAXES). I have not heard any credible justification offered thus far which - if the oil and water theory is correct - reasonably explains why choosing to enter into one REALM of FICTION governed by the US is fine while entering into another REALM of FICTION governed by the US is not OK. Evidently you have worked out a line of reasoning which is satisfactory for you.
quote:
We quoted this verse and asked the question…
<quote>"(1 Korinthios 11 RNS) {3} But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Anointed, the head of woman is man, and the head of the Anointed is Yahuwah.
Where does “the Roman emperor” fit into that headship?"<end quote>
You answered: Below Christ just as Paul put him.
We feel that that is an incomplete answer, in that it does not paint the full picture. We feel it should also have said, “…and not above other men, unless they choose to serve him”
Given all of the comments I have already made concerning this the answer is complete. The scriptures provide many references which prove that God appoints the rulers. His choice. Which ever ones He appoints we are expected to still serve Him first and foremost. You claim this is impossible - like serving two masters - but there are many examples of scripture which prove this is possible so clearly your rendering of what 'serving two masters' does not line up. Daniel served God while also being a high ranking BABYL official (remember his detractors even had to invent a new LAW which went against God’s law to incriminate him because Daniel was a model CITIZEN who also followed all of God‘s Laws and BABYL laws). Paul 'up held' the Law while also being an EMPIRE CITIZEN. Joseph and Mary traveled to sign up for the TAX roles yet the NT says Joseph is righteous (the actual definition of the Greek words means 'following divine laws'). Cornelius was an EMPIRE soldier yet the Bible says very positive things about him. So we have many examples of key people in the Bible who followed both God’s law at the same time as being subject to whatever GOVT God had appointed to rule at the time.
quote:
which we venture the guess, is precisely where Thomas got his concept.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Well, look at the historical context of this statement. The subjects of the colonies did not like the British rule so they fought a war and instituted another government. They held elections and the majority consent put in power new rulers.
quote:
“Choose you this day whom you will serve…”
Context here is Joshua suggesting the Israelites decide in following the Sinai covenant and the kingdom it outlines as it pertains to the land of Canaan. The Israelites lost their exclusive kingdom after having two shots at it. Christ said He took the kingdom away from 'the children'. Indeed, YHWH dissolved the old Israelite kingdom and instituted a better plan. The new Covenant is not like the Old one. Paul calls the Sinai covenant bondage. Paul was an EMPIRE CITIZEN who also served Christ with no contradictions.
quote:
Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt. – Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
Can you please post the complete definition of 'redemption' from Zondervan’s? There is a consistent pattern on this thread of quoting only bits and pieces of verses and definitions. Where's the rest of the definitions?
quote:
We do not choose to serve, i.e. we do not consent to be governed, by an oppressor who will not allow men and women, those men and women who have accepted the conditions attached to the redemption price, the liberty to return to Him who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. So be it.
I can't see how you can take this ultra-hard line position yet find no problem to wilfully consent to enjoy the benefits of the FRN SCHEME which is run by the same GOVT. According to your theory, I don't see how one can accept and use one part of the FICTION while declaring the other part unacceptable. I guess we will never get to the bottom of this item but I am willing to have a deep discussion on it. Really - for the sake of the readers - this item should be discussed at length if we really want to advance the topic.
quote:
Endnotes:
[1] M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater. The word then signifies a chief director. See Minister] 1. A man who rules, governs... Nations that want protectors, will have masters. Ames (See 1Shama'el 8:20) 3. The owner; proprietor; with the idea of governing. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Aside from the fact that this not even a Greek Bible dictionary you are quoting from, how about posting the rest of the definition choices offered so we can look beyond just #1.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 15 Aug 2006 15:29:39 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 07:25:31
|
<quote>
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! So simple a child can understand it. <end quote>
You seem to be of the opinion that one may indeed serve two Masters, providing one of them is not mammon. This verse cannot "be taken at face value" and obviously is not "so simple a child can understand it." Ye cannot serve Yahuwah and mammon is but a wee aspect of a much larger concept.
Once again, for your edification, here is Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon's complete defintion of kurios, the Greek word which was translated masters in that verse.
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
And here is the complete definition of that same word from Strong's Greek Dictionary.
G2962
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.
As everyone concerned should know, we are to pay special attention to the italicized words in James' definitions, i.e. supreme, controller and Mr. These are what he believes to be the closest synonyms in the English language to the Greek, Hebrew, or Chaldee words he is defining.
We also see from Strong's Greek Dictionary that the Greek word kurios was translated as God, Lord, master, Sir and from this we should be able to deduce that no man can serve two Gods, that no man can serve two Lords, that no man can serve to Masters and that no man can serve to Sires. (sir [is[ a variant of sire [father].)
Thus we can see that a master is one who is supreme, a controller. (Mr. ...[is] the abbreviation for master and mister is [the] unaccented variant of master.) And although mammon, or the personification of wealth, may be some men's supreme contoller, i.e. master, so can the Roman emperor (commander in chief).
You also seem to be of the opinion that gods other than Yahuwah Himself are only inanimate objects. If that is the case we refer you to these words of the Set Apart Scripture.
Yahushua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of Yahuwah came, and the scripture cannot be broken
Where did our Wonderful Counsellor get such a concept; at Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
If we are the children of the King, begotten or adopted, we are the princes (sar) of 'El, as in Y'sar'el, and if princes then gods, according to the Set Apart Scripture, just as Noah Webster has stated in his definition of the word GOD.
3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel [embassador]. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
Some men who have understood this fact say...
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars [the children] of 'El: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
So simple a child could understand it, that is of course unless we believe we can take it verbatim.
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables [fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral)? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Yahuwah, but to them it is not given.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 16 Aug 2006 07:50:39 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 18:04:22
|
quote:
You seem to be of the opinion that one may indeed serve two Masters, providing one of them is not mammon. This verse cannot "be taken at face value" and obviously is not "so simple a child can understand it." Ye cannot serve Yahuwah and mammon is but a wee aspect of a much larger concept.
You misunderstand and misrepresent my statement. I am not saying one can serve two masters providing one is not mammon. That's you implying that is what I am saying while putting your own spin upon my words.
What I was originally pointing out is that you failed to post the last part of the verse which explains the first part. Why did you do this? The verse cannot be taken at face value according to your theory but when read in context to the whole chapter it clearly tells us what the meaning is.
quote:
Once again, for your edification, here is Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon's complete defintion of kurios, the Greek word which was translated masters in that verse.
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
And here is the complete definition of that same word from Strong's Greek Dictionary.
G2962
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.
As everyone concerned should know, we are to pay special attention to the italicized words in James' definitions, i.e. supreme, controller and Mr. These are what he believes to be the closest synonyms in the English language to the Greek, Hebrew, or Chaldee words he is defining.
We also see from Strong's Greek Dictionary that the Greek word kurios was translated as God, Lord, master, Sir and from this we should be able to deduce that no man can serve two Gods, that no man can serve two Lords, that no man can serve to Masters and that no man can serve to Sires. (sir [is[ a variant of sire [father].)
Thus we can see that a master is one who is supreme, a controller. (Mr. ...[is] the abbreviation for master and mister is [the] unaccented variant of master.) And although mammon, or the personification of wealth, may be some men's supreme contoller, i.e. master, so can the Roman emperor (commander in chief).
The definitions you post do not contradict my position in the least bit - however - you hit the nail on the head with your statement "supreme controller".
That's the bottom line. As long as God is the supreme controller there is no conflict with whatever Citizenship or CITIZENSHIP one maintains. Daniel proves this. 'Righteous' Joseph and 'Blessed' Mary prove this. Paul proves this. Cornelius proves this.
No conflict of loyalties with these folks!
quote:
You also seem to be of the opinion that gods other than Yahuwah Himself are only inanimate objects. If that is the case we refer you to these words of the Set Apart Scripture.
Not do fast! Don't you remember us going over this already? We had pages on this item alone. I already provided every instance where 'elohim' H430 was used in context to a flesh and blood human in the Tanakh on the "concepts 101" thread. . Then I also challenged you to provide ONE INSTANCE in the scripture where the word "elohim" was contextually being used to describe a flesh and blood human who was not an Israelite. You never did meet that challenge. During that original exchange I also detailed the word 'elohim' where it is contextually used for the 'creator' deities of the non-Israelites. Don't twist that last sentence to mean 'GOVT rulers' because that is not what I am implying.
quote:
Yahushua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of Yahuwah came, and the scripture cannot be broken
Where did our Wonderful Counsellor get such a concept; at Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
That's right. What is the context? Israelite rulers who were falling down on the job. Same as in the time of the Psalms and in the times when Christ quoted this statement to the errant "elohim" of His day. Contextually the word "elohim" - when dealing with flesh and blood humans in the Hebrew Tanakh - is used only to address Israelites who are judicating Torah. There are other words used in the Tanakh to describe the non-Israelite rulers (hint: it ain't H430).
quote:
If we are the children of the King, begotten or adopted, we are the princes (sar) of 'El, as in Y'sar'el, and if princes then gods, according to the Set Apart Scripture, just as Noah Webster has stated in his definition of the word GOD.
3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel [embassador]. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
Where is the rest of the definitions for God in the Webster dictionary? You only seem interested in listing the one which suits your theory. Why not list them all?
Some men who have understood this fact say...
quote:
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars [the children] of 'El: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
So simple a child could understand it, that is of course unless we believe we can take it verbatim.
LOL. Verbatim? You are not quoting verbatim. Once again you leave out the first and last parts of the verse to make your case!
Here's the whole section from which you lifted your section quoted above:
Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
What it is about you that drives you to only quote snippets of verses out of context? Not only that you like to redefine words to further suit your theory when needed. In this one you cut out the first and last verses - quite important to context - and then turn "stars" into "children". With such practices, don't you think you are being a bit hard on the Massoretic scribes?
quote:
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables [fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral)? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Yahuwah, but to them it is not given.
Most of those parables are about the Israelites loosing their kingdom when they rejected Christ!
What's more is the NT explains these mysteries, especially Paul.
Just so you don't forget. You claimed:
quote:
Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt. – Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
Second request: Can you please post the complete definition of 'redemption' from Zondervan’s? There is a consistent pattern on this thread of quoting only bits and pieces of verses and definitions. Where's the rest of the definitions?
Also:
quote:
Endnotes:
[1] M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater. The word then signifies a chief director. See Minister] 1. A man who rules, governs... Nations that want protectors, will have masters. Ames (See 1Shama'el 8:20) 3. The owner; proprietor; with the idea of governing. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
second request: Aside from the fact that this not even a Greek Bible dictionary you are quoting from, how about posting the rest of the definition choices offered so we can look beyond just #1.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 16 Aug 2006 18:39:16 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 11:14:38
|
Greetings oneisraelite, and all those who care to read and understand.
Thinking In His Kingdom, I am re-minded of His teachings.
He re-minded that our wars are against powers and pricipalities,
and spiritual in nature. Further, He also says that, specially
when He was being harrased, that if His Will was to call out
entire armies and man-made weapons that that would happen if
He Willed.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 11:29:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Manuel
Greetings oneisraelite, and all those who care to read and understand.
Thinking In His Kingdom, I am re-minded of His teachings.
He re-minded that our wars are against powers and pricipalities,
and spiritual in nature. Further, He also says that, specially
when He was being harrased, that if His Will was to call out
entire armies and man-made weapons that that would happen if
He Willed.
I am,
Manuel
Good points Manuel. You comments bring to mind other pictures from the NT. Imagine how the Jews - who were trying to frame Christ with false claims of 'sedition' against ROME - felt when Christ
exposed them. Imagine how the same Jews must have felt when Pilate found their claims against Christ of sedition to be baseless. Or how the Jews felt when ROME found Paul not guilty of their false sedition charges. Harrased would be putting it lightly. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 07:44:51
|
It is very important to note that Yahushua did not try to, nor does he teach us to, defame, overthrow or attempt to reform[1] the government of the day. We simply have "another king", hail Yahuwah.
For Yahuwah most high is reverend;
he is a great King over all the earth.
Psalm 47:2
As princes and princesses of 'El (Yisar'el), we simply "choose..this day" not to be a part of their body politic [their body of anointed ones], i.e. we simply choose to "come out from among them and be...separate" (Nazarites = "ones separated").
Our Prime Minister, Yahushua, is "holy [consecrated], harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" and we are instructed to be "harmless as doves"...that we "may be [found] blameless and harmless, the children [subjects[2]] of Yahuwah, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world...".
Endnotes:
[1] Defame, overthrow and attempt to reform are key words in Black's Sixth Edition's definition of sedition.
[2] It is important to note that "children" in the Old Testament is translated from the Ibriy [Hebrew] word ben and that James [Strong] found these words to be the closest English synonyms: son, builder, grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc. [Emphasis added]
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 18 Aug 2006 23:14:30 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 13:27:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
It is very important to note that Yahushua did not try to, nor does he teach us to, defame, overthrow or attempt to reform[1] the government of the day. We simply have "another king", hail Yahuwah.
For Yahuwah most high is reverend;
he is a great King over all the earth.
Psalm 47:2
As princes and princesses of 'El (Yisar'el), we simply "choose..this day" not to be a part of their body politic [their body of anointed ones], i.e. we simply choose to "come out from among them and be...separate" (Nazarites = "ones separated").
Our Prime Minister, Yahushua, is "holy [consecrated], harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" and we are instructed to be "harmless as doves"...that we "may be [found] blameless and harmless, the children [subjects[2]] of Yahuwah, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world...".
Endnotes:
[1] Defame, overthrow and attempt to reform are key words in Black's Sixth Edition's definition of sedition.
[2] It is important to note that "children" in the Old Testament is translated from the Ibriy [Hebrew] word ben and that James [Strong] found these words to be the closest English synonyms: son, builder, grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc. [Emphasis added]
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Now add all of the above to the fact that Paul - who wrote over half of the New Testament - was both a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE as well as a Citizen of Heaven and one can see that there is no conflict of serving two masters.
Just to keep these unanswered requests up front for those studying along:
quote:
Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt. – Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
Third request: Can you please post the complete definition of 'redemption' from Zondervan’s? There is a consistent pattern on this thread of quoting only bits and pieces of verses and definitions. Where's the rest of the definitions?
Also:
quote:
Endnotes:
[1] M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater. The word then signifies a chief director. See Minister] 1. A man who rules, governs... Nations that want protectors, will have masters. Ames (See 1Shama'el 8:20) 3. The owner; proprietor; with the idea of governing. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Third request: Aside from the fact that this not even a Greek Bible dictionary you are quoting from, how about posting the rest of the definition choices offered so we can look beyond just #1.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 09:13:55
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Manuel:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We thank you for your thought provoking contribution.
Let us take a look at what you have brought forth by looking at the verse preceding what you have so graciously given us.
Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of Yahuwah, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles [H3180] of the devil [H1228].
What are the wiles [H3180] of the devil [H1228]?
G3180
methodeia
Thayer Definition:
1) cunning arts, deceit, craft, trickery...
WILE, n. A trick or stratagem practiced for ensnaring or deception; a sly, insidious artifice. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
INSID'IOUS, a. [L. insidiosus, from insideo, to lie in wait; in and sedeo, to sit.] 1. Properly, lying in wait; hence, watching an opportunity to insnare or entrap; deceitful; sly; treacherous; used of persons. 2. Intended to entrap; as insidious arts. (Ibid.)
Who, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say, WHAT, uses the cunning arts, deceit, craft, and trickery as a stratagem for ensnaring us? Is it not that which creates, by way of the cunning arts, artificial persons, persons created and devised by human laws, i.e. cunning arts, deceit, craft, trickery, for the purposes of society and government?
Who or WHAT generally uses the modus operandi of "discredit [slander] and destroy"? And, who or WHAT is the devil [H1228] that uses the cunning arts, deceit, craft, and trickery as a stratagem for ensnaring us?
G1228
diabolos
Thayer Definition:
1) prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely
1a) a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer...
Who or WHAT is generally the accuser of the brethren? Is it some ghost that falsely accuses us of sedition because we have chosen another king, or is it the AGENTS created by human laws, i.e. by cunning arts, deceit, craft, trickery?
…for the accuser [G2725] of our brethren is cast down, which accused [G2723] them before our 'elohiym day and night.
G2725
kategoros
kat-ay'-gor-os
From G2596 and G58; against one in the assembly, that is, a complainant at law
G2723
kategoreo
kat-ay-gor-eh'-o
From G2725; to be a plaintiff, that is, to charge with some offence
Who or WHAT is the complainant at law, who or WHAT is the plaintiff that bring brings a charge of some offence against the citizens of another jurisdiction (See Romans 14:4), who or WHAT will falsely accuse the brethren of the Messiah of sedition simply because they have chosen another king? Is it some red-coloured spook with horns and a tail carrying a pitchfork we contend with or do we wrestle...against principalities [the supreme powers], and against powers [authorities], against the...rulers of this world who are destitute of light[1], and against spiritual [religious] wickedness in high places?
ACCU'SER, n. One who accuses or blames; an officer [an AGENT] who prefers an accusation against another for some offense, in the name [8. Authority] of the government... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Endnotes:
[1] ...we proclaim to you: Yahuwah is light [15. ...the source of knowledge]...
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Aug 2006 10:46:24 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 11:15:36
|
quote:
Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of Yahuwah, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles [H3180] of the devil [H1228].
What are the wiles [H3180] of the devil [H1228]?
Is our 'teacher' now finally preaching context amidst his absolute abandonment of such a forumula on this thread?
Ladies and Gentleman, here is the key to understanding this whole thread. Not only now, but always look at preceding verses EVERYTIME scripture is being quoted. Answer the questions, "who, what, where and when". This has been demonstrated through out this whole thread when examining the claims made here that one cannot be both a Citizen of Heaven as well as a CITIZEN of an GOVT.
Has it occured to anyone that the one who actually wrote the verse above is Paul, a man who was both a Citizen of Heaven as well as a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE?
Could this current word study apply to the teaching methods used by those who make the claim that dual citizenship is a breach of first commandment? Let’s examine this possibility.
quote:
G3180
methodeia
Thayer Definition:
1) cunning arts, deceit, craft, trickery...
WILE, n. A trick or stratagem practiced for ensnaring or deception; a sly, insidious artifice. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Who, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say, WHAT, uses the cunning arts, deceit, craft, and trickery as a stratagem for ensnaring us?
Well given that much of what supports the teachings on this thread have been supported by the false claims of the Jews - coupled
with verses taken wildly out of context, edited and then selectively redefined for further support - we must ask, "do these teaching methods qualify as methodeia?". Does the excuse that Jeremiah 8:8 claims that the OT law has been altered by the "lying pen of the scribes" justify the wholesale editing and rewording of key NT verses
out of their original context? Does the excuse that a section of the Bible which only appears once justify that it is not valid because one wrongly applies the statue out of the OT which says all matters in court must be supported by more than one witness? What happens to all those many essential parts of the Bible that are only mentioned once? Note those who mis-apply the 'two or more witness' verse as an excuse to dodge scripture which argues against their theory ignore their own rule when quoting other sections they need for their theory which only appear once! Does that arbitary method qualify as 'methodeia'?
quote:
Who or WHAT generally uses the modus operandi of "discredit [slander] and destroy"? And, who or WHAT is the devil [H1228] that uses the cunning arts, deceit, craft, and trickery as a stratagem for ensnaring us?
G1228
diabolos
Thayer Definition:
1) prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely
1a) a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer
Now that we are back to the Bible dictionary let’s see how this above definition fits in the verses quoted from the Jews earlier. When the Jews concocted their false accusations against Christ - and against the apostles - was this the work of diabolos? When one wrongly states that “serving two masters” means that one cannot have dual citizenship of both Heaven and GOVT - aside from the many cold, hard evidences in the Bible proving otherwise - is this the work of diabolos? When presented with such hard evidences that can’t be soundly refuted and excuses are offered up such as “Paul was a liar” or “lying pen of the scribes”, is this the work of diabolos?
quote:
Who or WHAT is generally the accuser of the brethren? Is it some ghost that falsely accuses us of sedition because we have chosen another king, or is it the AGENTS created by human laws?
…for the accuser [G2725] of our brethren is cast down, which accused [G2723] them before our 'elohiym day and night.
G2725
kategoros
kat-ay'-gor-os
From G2596 and G58; against one in the assembly, that is, a complainant at law
G2723
kategoreo
kat-ay-gor-eh'-o
From G2725; to be a plaintiff, that is, to charge with some offence
Who or WHAT is the complainant at law, who or WHAT is the plaintiff that bring brings a charge of some offence against the citizens of another jurisdiction (See Romans 14:4), who or WHAT will falsely accuse the brethren of the Messiah of sedition simply because they have chosen another king? Is it some red-coloured spook with horns and a tail carrying a pitchfork we contend with or do we wrestle...against principalities [the supreme powers], and against powers [authorities], against the...rulers of this world who are destitute of light, and against spiritual [religious] wickedness in high places?
ACCU'SER, n. One who accuses or blames; an officer [an AGENT] who prefers an accusation against another for some offense, in the name [8. Authority] of the government... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
From which direction does the original complaint at law which basically asserts 'dual citizenship is a breach of the first commandment' come from? From the accuser, of course! Could an accuser of the brethren be one who claims that having dual citizenship in Heaven and GOVT is a breach of God’s commandment when we have evidence of righteous people such as Paul, Joseph and Mary, Cornelius, Silas, and even Daniel which prove that one can follow both God’s Law and the GOVT?
Just to keep these unanswered requests up front for those studying along.
Could avoiding the simple requests to simply provide complete definitions of the words we are asked to study below be considered a style of methodeia?
quote:
Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt. – Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
Fourth request: Can you please post the complete definition of 'redemption' from Zondervan’s? There is a consistent pattern on this thread of quoting only bits and pieces of verses and definitions. Where's the rest of the definitions?
Also:
quote:
Endnotes:
[1] M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater. The word then signifies a chief director. See Minister] 1. A man who rules, governs... Nations that want protectors, will have masters. Ames (See 1Shama'el 8:20) 3. The owner; proprietor; with the idea of governing. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Fourth request: Aside from the fact that this not even a Greek Bible dictionary you are quoting from, how about posting the rest of the definition choices offered so we can look beyond just #1.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 19 Aug 2006 12:39:46 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
