| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Oct 2006 : 07:41:27
|
And, we would like to add that it appears that Luis’ attack on Eric and “his political jurisdiction arguments” may also be, we perceive, an attack on Thomas Paine (arguably the primary author of the Declaration of Independence) and “his political jurisdiction arguments”.
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…
Thomas did not say …“deriving their just powers from the consent of the MAJORITY of the governed…” for as Eric himself might say, the majority cannot consent for a “sovereign” man to be governed by their creation, any more than that “sovereign” man can consent for the majority to be governed by his creation. And, as Eric has said, “…my political jurisdiction arguments are based on simple logic and reason”.
Here is one of the places where Eric and we may not be in agreement. We believe, as Thomas (Paine/Jefferson) evidently did, that Nature is indeed governed, its Creator governs it[1], and therefore “A government does exist in Nature”. Government is control[2] and “there is a basic principle of law, ‘what one creates, one controls’.” All lawfully ordained governments must be, therefore, in conformity with the Law of its Ultimate Creator [Nature’s God], otherwise they are contrary to the Law of Nature.
Let every soul be subject to the Supreme Authority...
We believe that man is not supremely sovereign; notwithstanding that he is, when he remains in, or returns to, his original state (estate), sovereign as pertains to his fellow man, he is only semi-sovereign in his relationship to Him who made him sovereign; to Him he is ultimately answerable.
"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.’" - Excerpt from Little Town on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Pretty good logic[3], for a fourteen-year-old girl!!
Footnotes:
[1] “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” All entitlements to true authority must stem from the Supreme Magistrate (Master), the Creator, or from the consent of the creature, who must first have the permission of its Creator. The Creator must give His creature the free will to consent, and it seems He evidently has.
And Shemu’el heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of Yahuwah. And Yahuwah said to Shemu’el, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
Note, however, that they chose to lose their “semi-sovereignty” (they needed Yah’s permission) with virtually full knowledge of what it would mean to them in the end. (See 1Shemu’el [Samuel] 8:17) We must read 1Shemu’el [Samuel] 8: 11-18, very carefully, to understand the consequences of rejecting Yahuwah (Verse 7) as our Supreme Sovereign and consenting to lose our own “semi-sovereignty” (unalienable Rights) by agreeing to be controlled by a government of men.
[2] GOV'ERNMENT, n. …1. Control; restraint. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
[3] LOG'IC, n. [L. id; Gr. from reason, to speak.] The art of thinking and reasoning justly. (Ibid.)
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Oct 2006 08:21:49 |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2006 : 09:25:01
|
Oh, and by the way, we do not believe these are "my political jursidiction arguments", or "our political jurisdiction arguments"; nor do we believe that they are Eric WhoRU's "political jurisdiction arguments"...
Man over man he made not lord. - John Milton [Dec. 9, 1608-Nov. 8, 1674]
...nor do we believe that they are John Milton's "political jurisdiction arguments"...
"The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes." - George H. Sandison, PH.D.
...nor do we believe that they are the "political jurisdiction arguments" of the Galileans.
"No lord but Yahuwah..." - The first four words of the Watchword of the Zealots of Yahuwah
...nor do we believe that they are the "political jurisdiction arguments" of the "nationalistic party" known as the Zealots.
All things Lawful are mine, but all things are not expedient: all things Lawful are mine, but I will not be brought under the power of any. - Shaul/Paul, of Tarsus
...nor do we believe that they are the "political jurisdiction agruments" of Shaul/Paul, of Tarsus, a leader of the party of the Nazarenes.
We believe that these "political jurisdiction arguments" are inspired by a much Higher Power.
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 19 Oct 2006 11:42:58 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2006 : 07:08:07
|
Greetings and salutations on yet another beautiful Yahuwah day!
Eric WhoRU (pronounced whoroo)
We think, brother Eric, you should pronounce your name like the question, "Who are you?" Imagine the dialogue in the Beast's COURT should you ever be dragged there in chains.
JUDGE: Please state your name for the COURT.
Eric: I am Eric: WhoRU? (To the ears of the man acting[1] the part of a JUDGE this would sound like, "I am Eric, who are you?")
JUDGE: I'm the JUDGE.
Eric: You're not my Judge, I don't even know you.
JUDGE: Next case please?
1Shemu'el 2:25 (bRV) "If one man sins against another man, the 'elohiym (magistrate) will judge him. But if a man sins against Yahuwah, who will judge?"
(Rhomaios 14 RNV) {4} Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Yahuwah is able to make him stand.
for Yahuwah is our Judge!
Yahuwah is our Lawgiver!
Yahuwah is our King!
He will save us!
(Yasha'Yahuw 33:22 RNV)
Endnote:
[1] http://www.artmakers.com/conreyn/lgstage.html
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 20 Oct 2006 07:48:57 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2006 : 06:02:07
|
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely Players;
They have their Exits and their Entrances,
And one man in his time playes many parts…
-- Shakespeare, As You Like It
"One thing that we’ve been told through the ages is that we have free will. We have the power to make our own choices. And, if the world’s a stage, then we have free will in choosing our roles and how to play them. No one is forcing us to play the bully, the "poor-me" victim, the downtrodden, etc. These are roles we’ve adopted. True, our environment and our upbringing may have encouraged us to take certain roles, but we always have the choice of saying no. We always have a choice of saying to the director of the play (that’s us), hey, I’ve had it with this role. I don’t want to play this part anymore. I’m going to play the part of the hero, not the victim. I’m going to play the part of the person who’s in charge of their life. I don’t like this role I’ve been playing. I’m rewriting the script and changing roles." - Mary T. Russell, author of All the World's a Stage
And be not conformed to this world:
but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind...
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 22 Oct 2006 06:13:51 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2006 : 09:20:20
|
Here is an excerpt from Robert Menard's Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception. Aside from language differences, some of you may recognize this concept from the Scripture.
Bubble #23 - Child of God
WHO IS NUMBER 2 IN THAT HEIRARCHY?
What if I told you that you have the legal right to claim that number two position and that if you did, no one would have authority over you, except God. Would you believe me? If you do claim your status as a Child of God, who has the right to say it isn't so? Who will dispute it? ...
WARNING: do not take this step unless you truly believe in God and that you are in fact a Child of God. If you get caught as an imposter the punishment can be very large. Not just from the Judiciary, but from God too. A Child of God enjoys Grace and acts with honour and the moment you start to act contrary to what is acceptable Child of God behaviour, you will be ejected from the 'party' and your claim will be lost.
It is our understanding that we are to emulate the Anointed One, Yahushua.
(Yahuchanan [John] 5 RNV)
{18} Therefore the Yahudiym sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the shabbath, but also said that Yahuwah was His Father, making Himself equal with Yahuwah.
Making himself equal with Yahuwah? This is not what the spirit of Yahuwah has led us to believe.
(MattithYahuw [Matthew] 19 RNV)
{17} So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One. Yahuwah! But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." (See Footnote)
(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 [One] is Yahuwah.
(1 Korinthios 15 RNS)
{27} For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
Thus, we believe, Yahushua is but "number two in that hierarchy".
Footnote: Deuteronomy 4:13 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.
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 23 Oct 2006 07:24:17 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2006 : 08:32:46
|
Let us now begin to, hopefully, "rightly divide" Robert Menard's warning.
WARNING: do not take this step unless you truly believe in God and that you are in fact a Child of God. If you get caught as an imposter the punishment can be very large. Not just from the Judiciary, but from God too. A Child of God enjoys Grace and acts with honour and the moment you start to act contrary to what is acceptable Child of God behaviour, you will be ejected from the 'party' and your claim will be lost.
"Do not take this step unless you truly believe in God"
There may be some here who might say (or not say) that they don't believe that there is any such thing as a god, and many more, with little doubt, that will say that there is only one god. The word god (there was no capitalization or punctuation in the Ancient Ibriy [Hebrew]) was generally translated from the Ibriy [Hebrew] word 'elohiym. The very first definition (English synonym[1]) for this word that Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon gives us is this 1a) rulers, judges. And Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary tells us that a Judge (Heb. shophet, pl. shophetim), properly a magistrate[2] or ruler, rather than one who judges in the sense of trying a cause.
If the foregoing is true, we repeat, if this is true, then it would be utterly foolish of me to say that I do not believe that there is any such thing as a god, for what I would be saying, out of my ignorance, is "I don't believe in rulers".
Again, if this is true, then perhaps we can understand better why Shauwl/Paul is reported to have written these words {5}...(as there are many 'elohiym and many masters)...followed by, {6} yet for us there is one 'Eloah, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Master, Yahushua the Anointed, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
Again, if this is true, then when the ancient citizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el wanted a man as their Ruler, Yahuwah might have said something like, “Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”.
Again, if what we are saying regarding the word 'elohiym is true, then we might read something like this in our Book of the Scripture, 1Shemu'el 2:25 "If one man sins against another man, the 'elohiym will judge him. But if a man sins against Yahuwah, who will judge?"
And, yet again, if the foregoing is true, then what Shauwl/Paul wrote in verse six might have been correctly translated, "yet for us there is one Ruler, the Father...and one Master, Yahushua the Anointed".
For Yahuwah is our Judge,
Yahuwah is our Lawgiver,
Yahuwah is our King,
He will free us.
amein and amein
Endnotes:
[1] SYN'ONYM, n. [Gr. with, and name.] A name, noun or other word having the same signification as another, is its synonym. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
SIGNIFICA'TION, n. [L. significatio. See Signify.] 1. The act of making known, or of communicating ideas to another by signs or by words, by any thing that is understood, particularly by words. (Ibid.)
[2] MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States. (Ibid.)
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Oct 2006 20:45:06 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2006 : 09:33:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
brother Steven: Yes… Yes. Everything receives power from Christ as all are subject to Him.
We respond: It is good that thou believest!! Thou doest well!! We are coming closer, I feel. It may only be a matter of semantics now. Though we would have to disagree with the statement that “everything receives power from Christ”.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve Yahuwah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Ask any Minister (an agent appointed to transact or manage business under the authority of another[1]) of the STATE, "in whose name, by what authority do you do these things?", and see if they are acting in the authority of our anointed Prime Minister, Yahushua [the Christ, JESUS].
Greetings to you all as well. Peace to your house also. It does not matter what the AGENT replies or if he knows where power comes from. What did Christ tell Pilate when Pilate spoke about his power?
"You have NO power except that which my Father gives you."
What Christ says is in line completely with the verses I quoted in support of the same earlier.
quote:
brother Steven continued: …but I would not limit Christ's Kingship to the "commonwealth of Yisra'el"…
We respond: Here is where some of those semantics we speak of enter in. The spirit leads us to believe that the commonwealth of Yisra’el is not a tiny little place in the so-called Middle East, but rather it is “a state”, that is to say, a condition. A commonwealth is “properly a free state[2]”, “then are the children free”. It is the commonwealth of the princes/princesses (sovereigns) of ‘el. (See 1Peter 2:9; Revelations 1:6 and 5:10) It is, at this time, still a state within a STATE.
My point was simply that Christ's power - and ALL power and authority is given unto Him - is not limited in any way. When Christ says ALL I don't stipulate that statement. Nor does Paul.
"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by Him and for Him."
These - and many other clear statements - all amount to the same thing. They are impossible to get around with out coming up with something to explain why they can't be taken for what they say.
You have explained how you explain them away and we thank you for being clear.
quote:
brother Steven continues: …(which is no longer administered by the Sinai Covenant nor is it limited only to the offspring of Jacob).
We respond: And, I think you already know that we, you and we, are in agreement that there is a new covenant, and, that citizenship is no longer [if it ever was] limited to “only the offspring of Jacob”, i.e. the literal offspring of Ya’acob: Yisra’el (a prince of ‘el).
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ...
For they are not all Yisra’el (princes of ‘el) , which are of Yisra’el (descendants of Ya’acob: Yisra’el)…
Agreed.
quote:
As to the rest: Anyone is free to believe, if they so desire, that his or her preferred version (a change or transformation[3]) of the Scripture is the inerrant one, that is to say, it is without any errors, and may, if they so choose, criticize those who use, what is left of it, buffet-style, just as Thomas Jefferson reportedly did.
Here is the issue at hand. Forget versions or translations. Why not the Greek source texts? With a little effort - and CONTEXT - one can see exactly what was written and meant in the original. As for the pick and choose, it is exactly this willy-nilly buffet-style theology that has caused 1,000's of varying denominations and contentions. The early ecclesia was being attacked in this exact same mannor and Paul spent much time warning against this. Now - on this thread - we are presented with the same problem Paul warned about.
quote:
Study to shew thyself approved unto Yahuwah, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing (to make a straight cut, that is, (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message)) the word of truth.
But this teaching you put forth is nothing close to a strait line concerning the word of truth. Many of the foundational concepts you are using are direct quotes from statements made from the Jews used to frame Christ and apostles. You move forward with re-casting their frame up as truth! Add to that many verses subject to heavy editing so far out of context that we are left with wondering how in the heck you can call this "rightly dividing"?
quote:
But, by that same token, we are also free to believe that we are led by the spirit (the rational mental disposition Yahuwah has bestowed upon [breathed into] us)…
…we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of Yahuwah…
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Th 5:21)
When I test this teaching that you put forth we can see exactly how you are putting it together. Jews claims against Christ - which the Bible says were concocted to frame Christ - are actually true. All of the clear verses which argue against your teaching are actually added in via tampering. Anything that only appears once in scripture should be viewed with skeptisism - except when those one time mentions are employed in the 'kingdom' teaching put together from the buffet.
We have eyewittness acounts preserved from the Apostles, why should I follow Jefferson's example of the buffett? Why believe the Jews' lies about Christ and the Apostles?
quote:
…to believe that the fox was left guarding the hen house, and that the written versions of Yahuwah’s Word have been tampered with, i.e. that things have been added to it, things have been taken away from it, and that it has been changed/transformed, both intentionally (to suit the purposes of the plunderers), and unintentionally (out of pure and simple ignorance).
I will never forget the saying you use often. When you point your finger at someone you have three pointing back at you. You point the finger at a "fox" saying he tampered with YHWH's word, adding and taking away things. You justify this by quoting a verse about the lying pen of the scribes in the OT about the law and then take it out of context and apply that to the letters and writings of the Apostles! Don't you realize that YOU are the one tampering with the word and doing what you accuse the "fox" of??
Who changed the truth of Yahuwah into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
More half quoting and editing! Dear brother I beg you to think this through. What is the context of this verse? Are you aware that the NT was not even in existence when Paul wrote this!!!???!!!
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Some things? What about the point blank things that are so clear?
We can't just write them off as "add in's" because they go against the buffet-style theology of private interpretation.
quote:
We are also free to believe that Yahuwah has seen fit to leave hidden within His Book the keys to freedom, and that one of the purposes of The Book is to teach us how to make the exodus out of bondage.
All things hidden have been revealed. No need for private interpretations from the Buffet. The bondage is what ALL have inheritated after the fall of Adam. Paul explains this mystery in detail. Why treat a broken leg with pain medicine when the leg needs mending. FRN's, FOOD CORPS, etc. etc. etc. etc. are all just symptoms of the illness, this side of the fall.
Yes, we are free to do whatever but scripture is clear that the ecclesia is all to believe the same thing. To achieve this everything has been spelled out in the NT. No need to go willy nilly to the buffet believing the Jews are correct in their lies about Christ and the Apostles. In fact, we are warned against the buffet!
I would comment more on the other points you list but I am pressed for time these days.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2006 : 09:36:39
|
| Real quick. Why believe Eric WhoRU over Paul and the other Apostles? |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2006 : 07:11:46
|
Posted - Oct 23 2006 : 09:36:39 AM by Batkol
quote:
Real quick. Why believe Eric WhoRU over Paul and the other Apostles?
"Real quick", who said we did? This is a very poor attempt at discrediting the messenger, we feel, far below your true capabilities, brother Steven.
Posted - Oct 19 2006 : 09:25:01 AM
Oh, and by the way, we do not believe these are "my political jursidiction arguments", or "our political jurisdiction arguments"; nor do we believe that they are Eric WhoRU's "political jurisdiction arguments"... [Emphasis added]
...nor do we believe that they are the "political jurisdiction agruments" of Shaul/Paul, of Tarsus, a leader of the party of the Nazarenes.
We believe that these "political jurisdiction arguments" are inspired by a much Higher Power.
Posted - Oct 15 2006 : 08:48:00 AM
And you, of course, are just as free to disagree with any, or all, of what we have been given.
Our love to you and the family.
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 24 Oct 2006 07:28:59 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2006 : 07:49:08
|
Greetings to you all as well. Peace to your house also. It does not matter what the AGENT replies or if he knows where power comes from. What did Christ tell Pilate when Pilate spoke about his power?
"You have NO power except that which my Father gives you."
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. - Declaration of Independence
Therefore, neither Pontius Pilate nor any other would-be-oppressor has the right to govern you unless you consent to be "of their world".
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
We could venture a guess as to where Thomas (Whoever) got his wild-eyed concept, and we would have to say, it was not from Eric WhoRU. LOL
Our love to you and yours, brother Steven.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2006 : 07:27:48
|
You wrote: "You have NO power except that which my Father gives you." [Emphasis added]
Brother Steven, we are curious, if you can spare the time and feel inclined to answer, what version did you get that translation from?
The Zondervan Parallel New Testament In Greek and English reads:
John 19:11 Answered Jesus: Thou hadest no authority against me no (any) unless it was having been given the from above: therefore the [one] having delivered me to thee a greater sin has.
The King James Versions we have read thusly:
John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Our 1611 King James Version translated it thusly:
John 19:11 Iesus answered, Thou couldest haue no power at all against me, except it were giuen thee from aboue: therfore he that deliuered me vnto thee, hath the greater sinne.
The Sacred Scripture of Yahuwah, Restored Names Version reads this way:
(Yahuchanan 19 RNS) {11} Yahushua answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."
And, Jay P Green Sr’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible translates it thusly:
John 19:11 Jesus answered, You would have no authority against Me, not any, if it were not given to you from above. Because of this, the one delivering Me to you has a greater sin.
ano seems to mean above, while othen seems to indicate from
It also appears that the word anothen could be said to mean "from the first, from the beginning, from the very first. Thus, closer to what you have given us, it might have been translated: if it were not given to you from the first, which could indicate "from the founder". And, as you no doubt know, "founder" is many times translated "father" in the Scripture, since the two words can be synonymous.
What are your thoughts on this?
We thank you for you time, should you choose to answer our query.
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 25 Oct 2006 07:47:16 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2006 : 15:49:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
quote:
Greetings to you all as well. Peace to your house also. It does not matter what the AGENT replies or if he knows where power comes from. What did Christ tell Pilate when Pilate spoke about his power?
"You have NO power except that which my Father gives you."
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. - Declaration of Independence
Therefore, neither Pontius Pilate nor any other would-be-oppressor has the right to govern you unless you consent to be "of their world".
Hello again,
I know we might disagree on this but, repectfully, the Bible is clear in many places that the only consent needed for whatever GOVT happens to be in charge is from God who appoints all GOVT's. If they are in charge it is because God allows it. The collective spiritual condition of those living in the country probably has some bearing upon God's decision. Perhaps if the civil war went the other way we would have a different government then the one who operates on the Liber code. Perhaps if the native Americans did not get defeated their story would be different as well, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Here's the bottom line: If the spiritual sickness of the people can be cured then logically the goverment would be healed simply because our leaders would be chosen from the same "cured" people who do not suffer from those ailments which are "of the world".
As for the NT concept concerning "of the world" one can easily see it speaks of a spiritual state not limited to one's political status.
1 John 2:16 - For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is "of the world".
quote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[/red]...
We could venture a guess as to where Thomas (Whoever) got his wild-eyed concept, and we would have to say, it was not from Eric WhoRU. LOL
Our love to you and yours, brother Steven.
This contradicts what the Bible clearly says time and again. Governments are instituted by God. He is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone He wishes.
As for the scripture verse I quoted which you asked about it was from memory. I did not get the exact word right but "from above" and "my Father" amounts to the same thing in context to what the Bible says about where authority comes from:
anothen {an'-o-then}
1) from above, from a higher place
a) of things which come from heaven or God[/b]
2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3) anew, over again
Hope this finds you all warm. Our love to you all as well!
|
Edited by - BatKol on 31 Oct 2006 11:31:45 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 08:12:56
|
And hello to you as well.
You wrote: I know we might disagree on this but, repectfully, the Bible is clear in many places that the only consent needed for whatever GOVT happens to be in charge is from God who appoints all GOVT's.
We respond: Okay, so in a nutshell, your statement boldly proclaims that you are a firm believer in the “Divine Right of Kings Doctrine”. Is that a correct presumption on our part?
Are these two witnesses which appear to be contrary to that doctrine, in your humble opinion, mistranslations?
Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves (Ibriy yatsab = station oneself), and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahuwah, and against his anointed...
STATION, v.t. To place; to set; or to appoint to the occupation of a post, place or office... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings (ascended the throne), but not by me: they have made princes [H8323], and I knew it not (recognize it not)...
H8323
sarar
BDB Definition:
1) to be or act as prince, rule, contend, have power, prevail over, reign, govern
1a) (Qal) to rule over, govern
1b) (Hithpael) to lord it over
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 27 Oct 2006 09:24:21 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 20:31:24
|
hello
I think you guys are just barley skimming past one another.
You are bolth on target and i see a convergence coming.
I think where you say God 'appoints "governments may be not the correct word,
allow makes more sense, yes the people ste up kings thinking they will have a man in thier corner and the kings sell the people on their (our) own vsnity,
of the people , for the people and by the people as oposed to of Him, by Him, through Him and to Him. Yes even our own so called consitution was made up by us for us and of us it is flawed from the git go,
But we made our bed and now we lay in it,
but Yes thanks be to our God Yahuwah Hes made a way where there is no way,
the way of the cross, lay down our life, stretch out our hands and fight like a Son
the beast so enjoys fighting and the best way to fight that thing is to lay down and die,
don't force the will it will have its own effect
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 09:35:17
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers Kevin and Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
We agree, we are getting closer. We believe in the "Divine Right of the King (Yahuwah)" as opposed to the "Divine Right of Kings" (men). The rulers of the earth are being advised and forewarned in the following verses, but not commanded.
Psalm 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve Yahuwah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son [H1248], lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
H1248 bar (pronounced bar) …the heir (apparent to the throne)
He is instructing them to be prudent in their actions, strongly indicating that they (and we) have a choice in these matters.
But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir (apparent to the throne); come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance [the Kingdom].
brother Steven wrote: This contradicts what the Bible clearly says time and again. Governments are instituted by God. He is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone He wishes.
We respond: Albeit Yahuwah is the Rightful Supreme Suveran over every part of His creation, He does evidently allow, as brother Kevin has pointed out, men to reject His rulership and to establish their own goverors/governments[1].
...they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this one to reign over us.
brother Kevin wrote: But we made our bed and now we lay in it, but Yes thanks be to our God Yahuwah Hes made a way where there is no way...
We respond: Yes, brother, He did!!
I will be their God (Supreme Magistrate), and they shall be my people[2]. Wherefore (for which reason) come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahuwah, and touch not (attach not yourself to) the unclean; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith Yahuwah Almighty.
Again, the foregoing demonstrates, we believe quite clearly, that we do have a choice. That is a conditional statement, i.e. that if we come out from among them...He will receive us and will be a Father unto us and we shall be His sons and daughters. Unfortunately, it also leads us to believe that if we opt not to come out from among them He will not receive us nor be a Father unto us and we shall not be His sons and daughters, i.e. princes and princesses (sovereigns) of 'El, which in the Ibriy is yisra'el. It points to the fact that we have a choice as to who will be our "Father".
When we stop equating the word father only with daddy and begin to think of it also as in the Ibriy [Hebrew] ab, which means, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon, ...9) ruler or chief (specifically)], it becomes much clearer. It is obvious to most that He is the father/founder of us all, but what is evidently not so obvious, is that He gives us the choice to reject Him as our Father/ruler or chief (specifically), and allows us the option of electing a man, or man-made government, to preside over us. Because He "suffers" (allows, but not without pain) us to do so, it is sometimes interpreted to mean that He "creates" all the governments of men. He suffers them to exist; they are the rod of correction that will cause some of us to return unto Him. (See Malachi 3:7)
And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yahuwah, choose[3] you this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahuwah.
Endnotes:
[1] ...they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. ... And Shemu'el heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of Yahuwah. And Yahuwah said to Shemu'el, Hearken [H8085] unto their voice, and make them a king.
H8085 shama ...to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.
[2] PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.] 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
[3] H977 bachar BDB Definition: 1) to choose, elect, decide for
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el[/b],
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 28 Oct 2006 10:25:39 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 12:22:33
|
Yes brothers He has called us out and we do respond, allthough in the day of Moses there was a mass exodus, in these days that does not seem to be happening, This does not mean we arent on the way,Some are free some are bond, but all are In Him,
I read somewhere about a guy wo has no license and likes to drive by the policy officers at high rates of speed to "rub their noses in it" as the saying goes.
I dont see how rubbing any ones nose in anything exceeds the rightousness of the Sinigoge of satan, that beast loves to draw saints into that fleshly battle but our weapons are not carnal but Mighty through Yahuwah ,
getting the babble on outa me is much more work than getting me out out of the babble on,
I walk in the valley under the shadow of death but I fear no Evil.
The path I see unfolding before me is not filing forms and making claims but giving up self will for The Fathers will and yes I do hear what you say equating the word Father with Daddy only, I have felt His gentle touch of healing and Mercy as also His strong hand or Rod of correction, He is pleased to bruise His Sons.
The stone is growing, the revealing continues.
and We Will all attain, so we best make room for eachother.
The end result ? Our God and Father Yahuwah Reigns over all, what ever you do, do it unto Him
Love you guys!
Kevin |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 20:17:30
|
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These "unalienable Rights" that all men are endowed with by their Creator might also be properly be called the "Divine Rights of Men". These are contradistinct to the so-called "Divine Right of Kings", in which some men claim that "God" ordains them to "exercise dominion" over other men, thus depriving their fellow man of his "unalienable Rights".
Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is sold and transferred. - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1057 [Emphasis added]
Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1057 (Ibid.)
Unalienable is evidently synonymous with inalienable, as shown in Black's definition of Unalienable [See emphasis]. But why on earth would this law dictionary define the phrase "Inalienable rights", which is not used in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States, while making no mention of the phrase "unlienable Rights" which is?
Do you smell a rat?
Stranger yet, either Black's Law Dictionary or The 2000 American Heritage Dictionary appear to have completely swapped the definitions of unalienable and inalienble.
unalienable
ADJECTIVE: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable - The 2000 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition
inalienable
ADJECTIVE: That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights. (Ibid.)
While showing absolutely no synonyms for the word unalienable, Microsoft Word 2000 Thesaurus, on the other hand, does display these synonyms for the word inalienable: unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, not able to be forfeited, unassailable, incontrovertible, indisputable, undeniable.
And conspicuously absent from that list of synonyms is the word unalienable.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 04:10:11
|
I wasn't there so I don't know what those guys thought
but is is very interesting how words change quite handily
when everything is burnt what remains...
any maxims ? and consituations? any articles, codes, statchoots,regaliations, I could heat my shack for years with all that paper.
I can heat my heart with Faith, Hope and Love and that is everlasting.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 06:15:39
|
We believe that the problem with understanding the differences between unalienable and inalienable may be attributable to their root words[1].
For example, one of these words appears to be saying that something cannot be aliened (a-leened), i.e. transferred...
inalienable
ADJECTIVE: That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights. - The 2000 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition
...while the other seems to be saying that they cannot be made alien (a-lee-an), i.e. they cannot be estranged, that is to say, they should not be withdrawn or withheld from you...
unalienable
ADJECTIVE: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable. (Ibid.)
(Note that this does not say "not able to be", but rather "not to be".)
But something happened on the way to the forum, the Fourteenth Amendment says that they can be taken away "with due process of law", which Yahuwah willing, we will get back to, and Black's says that "inalienable rights" are cabable of being surrendered but only with the consent of the one possessing such rights. This, according to our Law Book, is apparently correct.
1Shemu'el 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. ... 17b ...and ye shall be his servants. 22a And Yahuwah said to Shemu'el, Hearken unto their voice...
Yahuwah said tell them what will happen to them, how they will be taxed to death, how all their possessions will become the possessions of their new master (the government), and in the end they will lose their status as yisraelites (princes/princesses of 'El), or in the vulgar vernacular of the day, they will no longer be sovereigns of (created by and thus belonging to) God, and they will become the servants of men, but if they still consent to this thing, give it to them ("Hearken unto their voice").
And now, we come to the summit of this matter.
Can the majority consent to take my un-alien-able rights, that is to say those rights which are "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away", away from me? Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 521, seems to say otherwise.
Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights... [Emphasis added]
The words "of the one" are pivotal to this matter.
This brothers and sisters is the "birthright", i.e. the right to be a suveran [sovereign] of 'El, that Esau disesteemed and sold for a mess of lentil soup, just as virtually every one of us has done!!
For the record:
We do not consent!! We do not consent!! We do not consent!! We do not consent!! We do not consent!! We do not consent!! We do not consent!!
Yahuwah is our Judge, Yahuwah is our Lawgiver, Yahuwah is our King
Endnotes:
[1] Or, is it possible that in both cases there are two different words, with different meanings, spelled exactly alike; un-a-lien-able (un-a'-leen-able), that which cannot be transferred and un-alien-able (un-alien-able), that which should not be separated, given away, or taken away, and in-a-lien-able (in-a'-leen-able), that which cannot be transferred, and in-alien-able (in-alien-able), that which should not be separated, given away, or taken away? We think that this answer is not only possible, but it is, in fact, highly probable. "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..."
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 30 Oct 2006 05:28:45 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 17:00:31
|
| That seems rational to me |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
