| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 18:27:16
|
Oh ,
and once again,
Thank Youthis was helpfull |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2006 : 07:08:26
|
We thank you, brother Kevin, for your kind words, and pass on All Praise and Thanks to Yahuwah. HalleluYah!!
We wrote: …the Fourteenth Amendment says that they can be taken away "with due process of law", which Yahuwah willing, we will get back to…
With these unalienable rights comes an unalienable duty, the duty to respect and protect these same rights for our brothers and sisters. This is the only “just power” that any government can have, the power to protect the unalienable rights of each man and woman within that society.
(25) Yahu’shua said, “Love your brother like your soul (breath), guard him like the pupil of your eye.”
To put it simply, it is our duty to respect and protect our brother’s (and sister’s) unalienable rights as if they were our own, because they are! If he loses his, we lose ours, and if we take his, we take our own.
An Offender's Just Punishment
9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. –
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html
Note: The only “just laws” that men may make are those which prohibit and punish any man or any group of men who violate the equal and unalienable rights of another man or men (these terms, "man" and "men" include their counterparts, "woman" and "women" respectively).
Laura Ingalls Wilder relays this same concept thusly…
The crowd was scattering away then, but Laura stood stock-still. Suddenly she had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind, and she thought: God is America's king. She thought: Americans won't obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own conscience[1]. No king bosses Pa; he has to boss himself. Why (she thought), when I am a little older, Pa and Ma will stop telling me what to do, and there isn't anyone else who has a right to give me orders. I will have to make myself be good.
Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means, you have to be good. 'Our father's God, author of liberty’ – The laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow you with a right to life and liberty. Then you have to keep the laws of God[2], for God's law is the only thing that gives you a right to be free.’
Endnotes:
[1] …this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Yisra’el: After those days, declares Yahuwah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, I will write it on their hearts (centre)…
These "inward parts", this "centre", for those who have one, is many times referred to as our "conscience".
[2] This Law spoken of as "conscience" in sister Laura's first paragraph here, and "God's law" in the second, we believe, pertains to the Words of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments of Yahuwah, the Eternal Moral Law.
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.
When anything is "written in stone", it is an idiom which means that that particular thing is Eternal.
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 07:40:53 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2006 : 13:06:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
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?
Sorry I have taken so long to reply.
I would sharpen that claim with the statement that the only Divine Right is that of God. I have given you many scriptures which support this time and again.
quote:
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... [, 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[/blue]
No, they are not mistranslations if you order the principles correctly. Respectfully, I have been explaining this over and over to you for years now and once you see this - really see this - you will see there is no contradiction with the verses you quote and the one I quote. Sure, it does not square up with your particular selections 'from the buffett' however the Bible is full of scriptures which give us the clear understanding that God is the only Soveriegn. PERIOD. Even when appointing those who work againt Him. The mystery is that those appoinments are serving His purpose. Believe this! "For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" Matt 18:7
Isaiah 45:6-7 - That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Proverbs 16:4 - The Lord hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (compare this to Matt 18:7)
etc, etc, etc, etc . . . . .
Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way "seven times shall pass over you; until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will![/b]"
quote:
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
Again, as repectfully as I can, I have already explained this years ago on more than one occasion! LOOK AT THE CONTEXT!!
Who was this written to? The Northern Kingdom.
Why? Because they did not follow the laws for government structure spelled out in the Israelite contract! Hence "not by Me".
There is no contradiction when you look to the context and understand the correct ordering of principle. The first being that one should believe that God is the only Sovereign in all things (Yes, even concerning the GOVT's of man). This point alone bring us to another mystery concerning the Deity of Christ and what the Old Covenant says about Who the savior of Israel is. Boy, how I wrestled with unlodging the falsehood taught to me by a certain in-law on this very point. Another topic.
Wish I had more time but really all I am doing at this point is just reposting answers I have already given you through out the years.
The bottom line after all of these years boils down to you are ultimately saying that my position is incorrect because the verses I continue to quote are invalid due to the alleged corruption of the scriptures. You assert you are guided by 'the Spirit' to the buffett approach to repair these errors and so are actually restoring YHWH's original message with redacting and rewording. Nevermind that you do this by putting a 180 on what the NT actually says about the Jews. You consistently quote for Truth what the Gospels say are lies perpitrated by the same Jews to frame Christ!
I will admit that you have 'the right' to free speech. And agreeing with your theory and methods of exegesis is not required of me in trying to fulfill the commandment of Love.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 31 Oct 2006 11:34:34 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2006 : 14:13:50
|
quote:
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".
What you are doing here is adding your own theory to what it means to “be ye separate”. As I have said many times by your private interpretation above you make many important people the Bible says are righteous actually unrighteous!
quote:
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 only becomes clearer when we understand that the Father IS really and truly the only ruler or chief. As one poster said here once, "We get the government we deserve". Exactly. This is why it is essential for us to be cured of the flaws we inherited from the first Adam by Christ, the second Adam. Then Christ will give us on earth what is in Heaven.
quote:
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.
There is no such thing as a “man-made government” because there is no power but that which is of God. "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" (Col. 1:16)
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,
quote:
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.
Here is a perfect example where you take one item from history pertaining to a certain people in a certain situation and import it into your theory which you apply to today. This statement you quote was made by Joshua upon entering into the Middle East to set up an earthly kingdom pertaining to the Sinai Covenant. This kingdom which was to be the context of the Israelites serving YHWH was destroyed by YHWH because the Israelites breached the contract. They also killed the One sent to help them so the Kingdom was taken from them. By you trying to tack the context of this statement into the Glad Tidings of the Gospel you make key figures such as Paul, Joseph, Mary, Silas, etc, etc as those who did not serve YHWH when the NT is quite clear they did!
quote:
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.
And you never quote the part which shows that the Israelites were expected to still serve YHWH! According to your theory this is impossible yet what did Samuel instruct?
Edited from my response to brother Robert April 2004.
2. Samuel, the righteous and respected Judge of Israel
By now we are very familiar with 1 Sam 8 wherein the Israelites agree to a King "like the nations". Samuel gives them a detailed
list of burdens this KING will heap on them. Never the less, the Israelites agree and once YHWH ruins their crops in anger they realize their error. After they see this they cry to Samuel for advice on how to get out of this mess.
This brings us to 1 Samuel 12:19-25
All the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to Yahweh your God, that we not die; for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask us a king. Samuel said to the people, "Don't be afraid. You have indeed done all this evil; yet don't turn aside from following Yahweh, but serve Yahweh with all your heart. Don't turn aside; for then you would go after vain things which can't profit nor deliver, for they are vain. For Yahweh will not forsake his people for his great name's sake, because it has pleased Yahweh to make you a people to himself. Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against Yahweh in ceasing to pray for you: but I will instruct you in the good and the right way. Only fear Yahweh, and serve him in truth with all your heart; for consider how great things he has done for you. But if you shall still do wickedly, you shall be consumed, both you and your king.
brother Robert, how can Samuel tell the Israelites to still serve YHWH while at the same time being under a 1 Sam 8 king according to your theory? Why didn't Samuel instruct them, "You cannot continue with your current system if you want to serve YHWH"? If serving two masters is as you say it is, then why did Samuel, who is a respected Judge of the Law and one who 'shall instruct the Israelites on the good and proper path', NOT know your version of the first commandment? IF you are correct in your theory, then Samuel would have been in grave error to tell them to continue to serve YHWH after choosing a king 'like the nations'. According to you this is impossible to serve YHWH while participating in a 1 Sam 8 GOVT yet this is exactly what Samuel instructs the Israelites to do! Samuel is dead wrong in his claim that he shall instruct the Israelites on the good and proper path if your theory is correct.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 31 Oct 2006 11:26:38 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 12:27:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by kevin
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,
quote:
Originally posted by broether Robert:
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
Kevin and brother Robert, if you think 'appoints' may not be the correct word but that YHWH rather 'allows' govenments then what do you do with these? Are all these passages "added in" by the corruptors?
Dan 2:20-21: Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
Dan 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and 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.
Dan 5:21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling [was] with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and [that] he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Psa 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.
Rom 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
I Timothy 6:15 ...Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords
Prov 16:4 - The LORD hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 31 Oct 2006 12:48:04 |
|
|
|
stefree
Regular Member
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 17:49:03
|
Gentle men,
I am enclosing an article written by F.Tupper Saussy relevant to your discussion...may it be a blessing to you.
“We are naturally drawn to things Italian.”
— E.M. Forster
A grant from the trickster Mercury, “the Trickster,” Roman god of commerce and evildoers, hands a bag of gold to Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris, highest government official under the Articles of Confederation. This remarkable transaction was painted into the U.S. Capitol Rotunda by Vatican artist Constantino Brumidi in 1866. It lucidly visualizes the well-known Golden Rule of political economies, “He who holds the gold . . .rules.” Rulers of Evil demonstrates how Brumidi actually depicted historic truth about Roman influence over the formation of United States government.
Roman to the Core
by F. Tupper Saussy
Many Americans are legally forced, beyond their desire or ability, to work for powerful foreign operators.
Consider the American farmer whose crop prices in his own country are permitted by Congress to be undercut by imported grain that must be sold here to keep a foreign bank’s debtor from defaulting.
Or the American taxpayer whose home is seized by the IRS, its value going to compensate the International Monetary Fund for some middle-eastern loan that went bad.
Could it be that the coercion of American citizens into an international economic agenda is the logical outworking of a religious manifesto?
The problem
A manifesto known as “Vatican II” — the Roman Catholic “Constitution On The Church” propounded by the Second Vatican Council in 1964 — summons Roman Catholics who hold office in secular government to “vigorously contribute their effort so that the goods of this world may be more equitably distributed among all men.”
Many Americans who know little and care less about Roman Catholicism elect to important public offices men and women subject to Vatican II. In so doing they place their fortunes at the disposal of Vatican internationalism.
The truth is, American secular authority clings to a Catholic infrastructure which the celebrity newscasters give us only occasional glimpses of.
We caught a fleeting glance eight years ago in Carl Bernstein’s remarkable Time Magazine article on how the President of the United States “conspired” — Bernstein’s word, not mine— with Pope John Paul II to bring about the demise of the Soviet Union. (Two weeks later, Time published the shocked response of a University of Massachusetts sociology professor:
Last week I taught my students about the separation of church and state. This week I learned that the Pope is running U.S. foreign policy. No wonder our young people are cynical about American ideals.)
Bernstein noted that the leading American players behind the secret Reagan/Holiness conspiracy were all “devout Roman Catholics”— namely CIA Director William Casey, National Security Advisors Richard Allen and Judge William Clark, Secretary of State Alexander Haig, Ambassador-at-Large Vernon Walters, and Ambassador to the Vatican State William Wilson.
But he failed to mention that the entire Senate Foreign Relations committee was governed by Roman Catholics as well — specifically, Senators John Kerry (Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Communications), Daniel P. Moynihan (Near Easter and South Asian Affairs), Paul Sarbanes (International Economic Policy, Trade, Oceans & Environment), and Christopher Dodd (Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs); not to mention that American domesticpolicy was under the leadership of Roman Catholics George Mitchell (Senate Majority Leader) and Tom Foley (Speaker of the House of Representatives)
Indeed, when Bernstein’s story hit the stands, there was virtually no arena of federal legislative activity that was not directly controlled by a Roman Catholic senator or representative.
Each and every one of these legislators was a Roman Catholic layperson subject to Vatican II’s instructions to use his or her secular offices to advance the cause of Roman Catholicism. Vatican II calls upon Catholic politicians, “whoever they are...to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification” so as “to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth” (IV, 33).
Catholic politicians having secular monetary and taxing authority (“by their competence in secular disciplines and by their activity”) are called upon to redistribute worldly goods according to the Church’s design -- “[to] vigorously contribute their effort so that...the goods of this world may be more equitably distributed among all men, and may in their own way be conducive to universal progress in human and Christian freedom” (IV, 36).
Nothing in American law forbids this from happening. The “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a religious establishment’s right to encourage its believers not only to ensconce themselves in secular government, but also to use any legitimate means to subject otherwise uncooperative fellow-citizens to its agenda of internationalizing private American wealth.
When legislators, executives, and judges seem to put the welfare of other nations ahead of their own, it may not be treason they are committing. They may well be freely exercising the Roman Catholic religion of Vatican II.
The remedy
But what of those millions of Americans who do not believe they are looking to Roman Catholicism for their moral guidance? Is there some legal or theological premise that requires non-Catholics to part with large portions of their income annually in order to underwrite Vatican II’s international agenda?
I can’t speak for all moral disciplines, but I know that the Bible urges the followers of Christ not to pay self-assessed taxes. When Jesus and Peter arrived at Capernaum, the customs agents asked Peter “Doth not your master pay tribute?” To which Peter replied, “Yes.” Although the New International Version distorts the context of Matthew 17:24-27 to Rome’s advantage by rendering Peter’s crucial reply as “Yes, He does,” the fact remains that Peter was affirming a negative. “Yes, He doth not” is the grammatically correct inference. Jesus was not a taxpayer.
Tribute, in law, is a sum paid to a superior potentate to secure his friendship or protection. Since the potentate for whom the Capernaum agents were soliciting— Tiberias Caesar— was not superior to Jesus, our Lord took Peter aside and lectured him briefly on why the children of God are not required to pay tribute.
Having excluded himself and Peter from taxation, Jesus then defined the law of tribute: “However, lest we offend them,...give unto them.” If excluding ourselves offends the potentate, we give to him. And if the potentate is not offended by our exclusion, we are free to dedicate our resources to the family of God.
The American potentate, which the facts identify as Roman to the core, demands tribute through uniform excise taxes on a wide range of objects — petroleum, chemicals, alcohol, hazardous waste, insurance, tires, etc. We secure its friendship and protection by paying these taxes without flinching.
But the potentate makes no such demand on income earned by United States citizens from sources derived within the nation’s borders. It is as though Internal Revenue law was written by biblical scholars impeccably well-versed in Matthew 17! For the law denies the potentate the right to be offended by the exclusion of the children of God from income taxation. Indeed, just as Jesus declared, “the children are free.”
However, many U.S. citizens, among whom are huge numbers of nominal Christians, have empowered the potentate to demand tribute. They have done this by making themselves liable for taxation on domestically-sourced income by that process the IRS calls “voluntary self-assessment.”
Since the assessment does not arise from the potentate but from the citizenry, the potentate rightly takes offense when a citizen attempts to renege on his self-assessment.
There is important Christian scripture on self-assessed tribute, the ignorance of which I believe has robbed American Christianity (as opposed to the Body of Christ) of the power of God.
The precept, given at II Kings 20:12-18, is that if sanctified resources are voluntarily disclosed to a potentate, God authorizes the potentate to capture those resources and dispose of them at its pleasure.
Until those who profess Christianity begin examining and exercising the U.S. citizen’s miraculous exclusion from income taxation, America will continue suffering under the divine curse that attends voluntary self-assessment.
American Christianity will continue, as Paul put it, “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof...”
TOP
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 08:07:55
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
We thank you for submitting your reply so "respectfully". We shall endeavour to do the same.
ecclesia n. 1 in ancient Greek states, a political assembly of citizens - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 426
Then Shemu'el told the people the manner of the Kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Yahuwah. And Shemu'el sent all the people away, every man to his house.
Perhaps some of our misunderstandings stem from the fact that we haven't been clear enough regarding our understanding of the First Commandment of Yahuwah.
The 1611 King James Version translated the latter part of the First Commandment of Yahuwah thusly.
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me.
The word before, as it is used in that verse, should be understood this way.
BEFO'RE, prep. [be and fore, that is by fore, near the fore part.] ...9. Superior; preceding in dignity. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Today, in order that more people understand it, it might be better translated, ...Thou shalt have no other God above [H5921] me, and best translated You shall have no other Ruler(s) superior to Me.
The Ibriy [Hebrew] word 'al, which was translated “before”, in the latter part of the First Commandment of Yahuwah, can have these English synonyms, above, over, upon, or against . It is “properly the same as H5920”, which means, “properly the top; specifically the Highest". Whenever a government deems itself to be "above”, i.e. “superior" to, Yahuwah we are called to come out of her. And who is idolized as the highest or first master (magistrate) of the corporation known, amongst other things, as UNITED STATES?
We also perceive that you appear to believe that those instructions of Shemu’el, which you have repeated so many times, were only for the people and not their governor/government. This, in our humble opinion, would be a grave error.
1 Shemu'el 13:13 And Shemu'el said to Sha'uwl, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the Commandments of Yahuwah your 'Elohiym, that He commanded you. For now Yahuwah would have established your dominion with Yisra'el forever. 14 But now your dominion shall not continue. Yahuwah has sought for Himself a man after His own heart (mind) and Yahuwah has commanded him to be commander (chief) over His people because you have not kept what Yahuwah commanded you."
King …The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel (1Sa_10:1). - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Well, it was certainly not intended that they rule in their own right (authority), nor in the name (authority) of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Yahuwah, the true King of the Princes/princesses of ‘El (Yisra’el), [the sovereigns of God], but that, unfortunately, is not what came to pass.
Our love to you and the family.
P.S. "King of Y'sar'el" is sometimes re-stated in the Scripture as "King of kings". What it actually means, in todays vernacular, is Sovereign of sovereigns and indicates that Yahuwah is the Absolute Sovereign over semi-sovereigns. And men are semi-sovereign, according to Black's Sixth, "when in any respect or respects [they] are liable to be controlled by a paramount government". When is the last time you heard your government refer to itself as semi-sovereign? 
(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.
Man over man he made not lord. - John Milton [Dec. 9, 1608-Nov. 8, 1674]
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 - 01 Nov 2006 : 08:49:43
|
Greetings and salutations, sister Stefanie:
Peace be unto you and yours.
Ran out of time to respond in full this morning, Yah willing, we shall endeavour to do so soon. We thank you for your input; it is good to hear from a sister.
You wrote: It lucidly visualizes the well-known Golden Rule of political economies, “He who holds the gold . . .rules.”
We respond: We too use that well-known Golden Rule…
Haggai 2:8 'The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,' says Yahuwah of hosts.
Thus He Rules!! Hallelu'Yah!!
May Yahuwah bless and keep you and yours.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 02 Nov 2006 05:37:05 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 06:53:22
|
Greetings and salutations, sister Stefanie:
Peace be unto the house.
Tupper Saussy wrote: If excluding ourselves offends the potentate, we give to him.
We respond: Tupper may not have known that the word "offend" was translated from the Greek word scandalizo, which is the Greek root of our English word scandalize.
SCAN'DALIZE, v.t. [Gr. L. scandalizo.] 1. To offend by some action supposed criminal. 2. To reproach; to disgrace; to defame; as a scandalizing libeler. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
It was not, as we perceive it, the potentate that Yahushua was concerned about scandalizing, he was concerned about "disgracing" its AGENTS after Peter had ignorantly answered "Yes" to their question.
Even today most people suppose, i.e. imagine, that not paying tribute to the modern-day Roman empire is criminal.
TRIB'UTE, n. [L. tributum, from tribuo, to give, bestow or divide.] 1. An annual or stated sum of money or other valuable thing, paid by one prince or nation to another, either as an acknowledgment of submission, or as the price of peace and protection, or by virtue of some treaty. The Romans made all their conquered countries pay tribute...and in some countries the tribute is paid in children.
"In some countries the tribute is paid in children..."?
Hm-m-m-m-m-m-m-m? Could this have anything to do with the fact that the so-called authorities "in some countries" try to make their citizens believe that it is mandatory that they get a BIRTH CERTIFICATE and a chattel number (SSN) for their babies as soon as they are born?
Although it may be "suicidal" in some countries not to, we do not consider it "criminal" to refuse to pay tribute to any conqueror (...one who subdues and brings into subjection or possession, by force or by influence) any more than we would deem it "criminal" not to pay protection money to any other bully in the schoolyard.
We would ask the members of this ecclesia (political assembly of citizens) a question, if we may, if Yahushua [JESUS] is Yahuwah's [JEHOVAH's] only begotten child[1], who are the other "children" he refers to as eleutheros, i.e. 1) freeborn; 1a) in a civil sense, one who is not a slave; 1b) of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted; 2) free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation[2] at Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 17:26?
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever these Good Tidings shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
(MattithYahuw 26 RNV) {6} And when Yahushua was in Bayith Any at the house of Shim'own the leper, {7} a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat. {8} But when His disciples saw they were indignant saying, "Why this waste? {9} For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor." {10} But when Yahushua was aware He said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. {11} For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. {12} For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial.
Endnotes:
[1] Yahuhanan [John] 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1Yahuhanan [John] 4:9
[2] Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 02 Nov 2006 08:23:51 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 08:56:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
We extend the same to your house as well.
quote:
We thank you for submitting your reply so "respectfully". We shall endeavour to do the same.
Well I am trying as hard as I can to be respectful but it is hard when you will not give us a strait and simple answer to direct questions. Your latest offering plainly ignores the original question as I will show below.
quote:
ecclesia n. 1 in ancient Greek states, a political assembly of citizens - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 426
We are not speaking about 'ancient Greek states' so I think we might want to consider the other definitions offered seeing as words have many different meanings and applications. Can you post the others?
quote:
Then Shemu'el told the people the manner of the Kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Yahuwah. And Shemu'el sent all the people away, every man to his house.
This verse does not touch the original question you were challenged with and quoting this certainly worsens your position because the verses I asked you to address come after this! I'll explain.
You offer 1 Samuel 10:25 but what about the rest of the story where - even after Samuel tells the Israelites the manner of the Kingdom and writes it in a book - they STILL ignore him? Well, we see that after Samuel gives his speech in 1 Samuel 12 YHWH destroys their crops the Israelites finally see their error and ask Samuel what to do? Like I have already stated Samuel tells them in 12:19-25 even though they have sinned to keep serving YHWH. To not turn away from YHWH. This brings us to my unanswered question you still have not addressed. Let me ask it again in the most simple way I can so that you can give us a simple, strait forward answer.
How can Samuel tell the Israelites to continue to serve and not turn away from YHWH in 1 Samuel 12 when your teaching states that the Israelites already turned away from YHWH by choosing a 1 Sam 8 king?
Don't you think that Samuel should have given your teaching to the chastened Israelites when they asked him what they had to do to save themselves? If we apply your theory Samuel is instructing the Israelites in an impossibility. If your theory is correct then Samuel made a huge mistake by not giving your teaching to the Israelites when they asked what they were to do!
quote:
Perhaps some of our misunderstandings stem from the fact that we haven't been clear enough regarding our understanding of the First Commandment of Yahuwah.
The 1611 King James Version translated the latter part of the First Commandment of Yahuwah thusly.
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me.
The word before, as it is used in that verse, should be understood this way.
BEFO'RE, prep. [be and fore, that is by fore, near the fore part.] ...9. Superior; preceding in dignity. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Today, in order that more people understand it, it might be better translated, ...Thou shalt have no other God above [H5921] me, and best translated You shall have no other Ruler(s) superior to Me.
The Ibriy [Hebrew] word 'al, which was translated “before”, in the latter part of the First Commandment of Yahuwah, can have these English synonyms, above, over, upon, or against . It is “properly the same as H5920”, which means, “properly the top; specifically the Highest". Whenever a government deems itself to be "above”, i.e. “superior" to, Yahuwah we are called to come out of her. And who is idolized as the highest or first master (magistrate) of the corporation known, amongst other things, as UNITED STATES?
The problem is you are trying to fit certain scriptures into your theory but in doing so are springing many, many major theological leaks in other areas. When I bring up these leaks you simply write them off as 'corruption of scripture' added in by 'lying pens of scribes'. I have given you many scriptures - all which agree with each other with no contradiction - that refutes this theory you are trying to insert.
quote:
We also perceive that you appear to believe that those instructions of Shemu’el, which you have repeated so many times, were only for the people and not their governor/government. This, in our humble opinion, would be a grave error.
That's not what I believe so your perception is off. I am simply asking you to explain how Samuel can instruct the people to keep serving YHWH after they rejected two prior warnings and had their crops destroyed for it. According to what you are teaching here what Samuel tells them is impossible because the Israelites have already turned away from YHWH and quite serving Him. For them to continue on with their current goverment structure would be like 'serving two masters' according to your theory. Samuel fails to relay your teaching in the perfect place for him to do so.
quote:
1 Shemu'el 13:13 And Shemu'el said to Sha'uwl, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the Commandments of Yahuwah your 'Elohiym, that He commanded you. For now Yahuwah would have established your dominion with Yisra'el forever. 14 But now your dominion shall not continue. Yahuwah has sought for Himself a man after His own heart (mind) and Yahuwah has commanded him to be commander (chief) over His people because you have not kept what Yahuwah commanded you."
King …The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel (1Sa_10:1). - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Well, it was certainly not intended that they rule in their own right (authority), nor in the name (authority) of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Yahuwah, the true King of the Princes/princesses of ‘El (Yisra’el), [the sovereigns of God], but that, unfortunately, is not what came to pass.
What you offer here still does not address the question that was put to you so many times. One that you still refuse to give us a strait, clear answer on. Saul doing a bad job does not change the matter at hand. The Israelites contuining in a goverment structure that was not intended according to the rules makes the question even more burning. Much of your theory is built on how it is an impossibility to serve a 1 Sam 8 king and still serve YHWH - yet - this is exactly what Samuel instructs the Israelites to do in 1 Sam 12! Don't you think if your theory was correct we would be hearing a much different speech from Samuel that what he gives after the Israelites reject at least two warnings?
quote:
Our love to you and the family.
Our love to you all as well.
quote:
P.S. "King of Y'sar'el" is sometimes re-stated in the Scripture as "King of kings". What it actually means, in todays vernacular, is Sovereign of sovereigns and indicates that Yahuwah is the Absolute Sovereign over semi-sovereigns. And men are semi-sovereign, according to Black's Sixth, "when in any respect or respects [they] are liable to be controlled by a paramount government". When is the last time you heard your government refer to itself as semi-sovereign?
Christ is not limited to just the King of Israel. King of kings means exactly what it says. King of kings also backs up the many verses I quoted which shows YHWH is in total control of everthing.
Verses like these:
Dan 2:20-21: Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
Dan 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and 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.
Dan 5:21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling [was] with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and [that] he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Psa 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.
Rom 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
I Timothy 6:15 ...Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords
Prov 16:4 - The LORD hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 02 Nov 2006 09:12:02 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 20:59:58
|
Now Im getting the picture,
So we have the law and we have us all disobeying that law,
even on my best day if there is such a thing) I miss it , alot.
I find it a constant battle not with the "beast' or the "system" but my own decietfull heart, it is very easy to delude myself.
Yes the law does guide me only becuase the eyes of my spirit are dim.
So I have the internal witness given to my to guide me into all truth.
the written word is helpfull and good to help me with my faulty vision.
but to live by external written codes and rules is missing what Yehasua gave.
He gave himself for us so that we can be like him, not worrying about anything but only continually walking according the His inner voice , I do have external confirmations like written words and words of other brothers and sisters to keep me balanced cuz I can get off easiy .
Im not saying not to follow the law or that the law is dead but the law does not give me life only the living word of the Christ gives life
if we all had to research and study and learn all ancient language just so we can understand what Yahuwah wants , its too subjective too dependeant on who interpets what version and who thinks what belongs in the "holy writ" and what does not.
if I was blind deaf and dumb (which is not far from the truth) hehehehe I could still know Him and be like Him because the spirit do not depend on physical senses.
I can see ho great it is to be free and not burdened down with number codes and rules.
but everyone aint in the same status be we all are in the same kingdom. bond and free if you can be free , great if you cant the great.
whatever is done let it not be done for vain glory but edification of the whole body,
what Im gettin here is that yeah the kingdom is a wide place and spread out over all the earth and ultimately everuthing else is under its jurisdiction no matter what any king or ruler thinks, Like Jesus said no one has amything unless our Father allows it.
yeah man I sin greatly daily but we have a re deemer who is bringing it all together.
I can read ones writing and say Yes , I can read Batkols writing and say yesI can accept bolth views because they are two sides of a many sided jewel infinetly sided even, sides we dont even know exsist.
He will bring it together.
there is no shame in what label man tries to put on me,
I am a good slave I pay in and dont take out, they take my shirt I givem my underwear,
it aint no big thing.
As long as I continue to endeaver to show myself approved by living not for my self but living for others who ever they may be.
heck I used to say love my nieghbor as myself but now it is love my enemies, them that despitfully use me whoa man not soe easy that is but doable.
all in all He is All in All.
there is only one species called flower but many forms of flowers exsist they dont try to change eachother they celebrate thier own unique diversity and look at each other and say wow how beautiful are you, man you are so different from me but still such a beauty, wow a portion of out evelasting self exsisting Father displays himself in you.
cool aye?
peace brothers , and love from my tribe to yours
kevin
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2006 : 05:56:54
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
We find it interesting that you think that you are the only one who is frustrated.
We feel that you are not being, to put it “respectfully”, entirely truthful, when you continually use contentious phrases like “oneisraelite’s private interpretations”, or “own 'private interpretations'”, or just “private interpretation” or “private interpretations”, to name a few, but we too do our best to remain calm and “respectful”.
Ever hear of the party of the Galileans? “The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Josephus with causing much sedition…The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes”
"This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians."
Ever hear of the party of the Zealots? “…the Zealots emphasized and broadened these principles [of the Galileans]…they were famed for their undying love of liberty…They resisted the Roman power to the utmost, and opposed the census…they refused to pay tribute and defied the Roman governors. They refused to recognize any human authority, and adopted as a watchword, “No Lord but Jehovah [Yahuwah]; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots.”
Whether or not you like them is irrelevant, the question is, was their understanding of the First Commandment of Yahuwah at all similar to our own? (A clue to the answer is bolded and underlined above.)
Ever hear of brother Randy Lee?
Ever hear of brother Richard Anthony?
If not, please go to the Homepage Portal here at ecclesia.org and click your left mouse button on numbers 1 Christ’s Lawful Assembly and 3 Devoted to Truth under the heading, Top 5 Rated Links by Vote Score. You may just find that their beliefs are very similar to our own.
Ever hear of Paul Revere, of the Embassy of Heaven?
Our government is not of this world, for we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Government of God, which was handed to the Apostles by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper (Luke 22:29), and we expect to be held accountable to the laws from which we come.
Our code of conduct is the Sermon on the Mount, and we fulfill the great Commission by traveling from place to place using old and modern conveyances, sharing the good news. (Matthew 5-7). The ancient scriptures predicted the Kingdom of Heaven. The new testament proclaims that it has arrived! Jesus didn't bring us a RELIGION. He brought us a NATIONALITY. - http://www.kingdomofheaven.info/ Sound familiar?
Ever hear of Letters to Jessica by brother Robert Bissett?
http://letterstojessica.embassyofheaven.com/
But, quite frankly, friend, we are all but certain that you have heard of all these, and perhaps even a few more. That being the truth of the matter, would you care to tell the fine men and women of this forum why you continue to use all those "less than respectful” phrases listed above when you know, unequivocally, that they are simply not true?
Thank you for your time and attention.
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 03 Nov 2006 08:02:15 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2006 : 21:48:04
|
"It is almost fruitless to discuss how the Constitution itself is the very source of tyranny that has beset the nation. It is an "any god" document and has been used by every religion in this nation and been successful. The Constitution is like water poured into a cavern. It levels itself with current religious thought, including atheism, homosexuality and the murder of the unborn." - Excerpt from :
Who Inspired the Constitution?
By John Spencer
http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/whoinspiredconstitution.htm
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 03 Nov 2006 21:51:44 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2006 : 08:02:04
|
Batkol wrote: We are not speaking about 'ancient Greek states' so I think we might want to consider the other definitions offered seeing as words have many different meanings and applications. Can you post the others?
oneisraelite responds: We can, but we will not. Believe it or not, brother Steven, it is our understanding that Yahushua lived in, but was part not of, an “ancient Greek state”. These “ancient Greek states” came in a variety of forms, one of which was that of “a Roman emperor and an imperial aristocracy”. So what we were looking for, and hopefully found and posted, was the eighteen hundred year old understanding[1] of the paleo-Greek word ekklesia.
If you can find the time in your busy schedule, would you please enlighten the members of this group approximately what year the word ekklesia came to refer to anything other that what we have posted?
Thank you in advance for your time and efforts in this matter.
Endnotes:
[1] The New Testament was, according to our source, written “after c. 45 AD and before c. 140 AD”, making the oldest extant Greek writings, at the least, eighteen hundred years old, and at the most, about nineteen hundred years old, if our math and source are correct.
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 05 Nov 2006 08:54:21 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2006 : 21:56:48
|
just wonderin....
I pasted this from a previous message.
If you can find the time in your busy schedule, would you please enlighten the members of this group approximately what year the word ekklesia came to mean anything other that what we have posted?
what im womderin about is where ya say if you can find time in your busy schedule.
sounds like a concern but then is it more of a backdoor iside joke kinda insult?
or I could be readin into it something that aint there , I do have an imagination ,
oh yes and can be quite a vain one at that!!
Hehehehe....
kevin
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2006 : 08:42:27
|
Greetings brother Kevin:
Peace be unto the house.
Your private question, has been answered privately (PM).
But, if you will recall, brother Steven made mention that he is taking quite some time to respond because he is so busy these days. 'Nuff said.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2006 : 09:25:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
And to yours.
quote:
We find it interesting that you think that you are the only one who is frustrated.
Here you are again making false assumptions. I never said I think I am the only one who is frustrated. I felt it only proper to speak for myself. I notice that you have yet again dodged my simple and direct question concerning 1 Sam 12. I don't doubt that you find me reminding you of this frustrating. We are very interested in your answer so I will kindly keep asking for it.
quote:
We feel that you are not being, to put it “respectfully”, entirely truthful, when you continually use contentious phrases like “oneisraelite’s private interpretations”, or “own 'private interpretations'”, or just “private interpretation” or “private interpretations”, to name a few, but we too do our best to remain calm and “respectful”.
How dare I say that your personal selections from 'the buffett' are private interpretations! How dare I actually assert that one should look to the context of scriptures you quote because you regularly take them out of their original setting - rewrite them - and conscript them into your theory! The few times you do try to refute the items I present you come up with things like "the scriptures are corrupt" as a catch all. Forget Joseph. Forget Paul, etc.
quote:
Ever hear of the party of the Galileans? “The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Josephus with causing much sedition…The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes”
Firstly, not all Galileans were Zealots. This is obvious because we see Joseph and Mary going to register for the TAX. Not very Zealot. Secondly, Christ was not a Zealot. No Zealot would question paying the Temple Tax as Christ did. No Zealot would carry a Roman's pack an extra mile. No Zealot would teach turn the other cheek or to love your enemies. Sure, the conniving Jews did assert Christ was a Zealot because they could find nothing in His teachings from which they could frame Him. As I have shown you, that is what the NT says. Again, your catch all rebuttal to such items are "corrupted scripture". So it's back to the buffett to redact the Gospel and Epistles to line up with the claims of the Jews.
quote:
"This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians."
"One of the names of reproach". Why believe insulting names given to Christians? Why believe the Jews who made this exact claim to get Christ and the Apostles in trouble with Rome - especially when the NT shows that when examined by Rome all the charges of the Jews concerning the Christ and the Apostles were false! Sorry, just to write off most items in the Bible that argue against your theory is 'corrupt scripture' is ... well ..... just plain kooky and irresponsible. Not to mention bad exegesical method.
quote:
Ever hear of the party of the Zealots? “…the Zealots emphasized and broadened these principles [of the Galileans]…they were famed for their undying love of liberty…They resisted the Roman power to the utmost, and opposed the census…they refused to pay tribute and defied the Roman governors. They refused to recognize any human authority, and adopted as a watchword, “No Lord but Jehovah [Yahuwah]; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots.”
And what happened to these Jews of which you are so fond of? Their temple got destroyed and they got defeated. Their precious levitical temple got raised replaced by the Melchizedek. The Gospels and the Epistles do not show the earlist Apostles and Christians - or Christ for that matter - to be Zealot... but we do find warnings about the Judiasers coming in and teaching false doctrines.
quote:
Whether or not you like them is irrelevant, the question is, was their understanding of the First Commandment of Yahuwah at all similar to our own? (A clue to the answer is bolded and underlined above.)
You are assuming that the Zealots had the same rendering of first commandment as you do. You have not proven this. The only thing you have done is stated the well known fact that the Zealots were opposed to Gentile rule. This need not stem from your assertion concerning the first commandment. We should open up a thread just on the first commandment. I have many unanswered challenges you never addressed last time we discussed that item.
quote:
Ever hear of brother Randy Lee?
So? Randy Lee is not my High Priest. Randy Lee did not write the Greek NT. Randy Lee was not there when Christ visited Paul. Why should I trust Randy Lee in place of Paul?
quote:
Ever hear of brother Richard Anthony?
Why do I need Richard Anthony when I have the Gospels and Epistles which spell everything out. Mystery solved. All that is left to do is to start curing ourselves of the curse we inherited from the first Adam via the second Adam; Christ.
quote:
If not, please go to the Homepage Portal here at ecclesia.org and click your left mouse button on numbers 1 Christ’s Lawful Assembly and 3 Devoted to Truth under the heading, Top 5 Rated Links by Vote Score. You may just find that their beliefs are very similar to our own.
So? I can find over 1,000 different denominations claiming that their spin is 'correct'. I am here challenging you and - even though the few answers you have given were like pulling teeth to get - you have at least explained your methods of exegesis. Namely that items I point out that are contrary to your 'selections from the buffett' are 'corrupted scripture' and that Jewish claims made to frame Christ are actually truth. Other past rebuttals include "Daniel worshipped a false god and not YHWH" and that "the first commandment was suspended" to account for the problems that book gives your theory.
quote:
Ever hear of Paul Revere, of the Embassy of Heaven?
Our government is not of this world, for we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Government of God, which was handed to the Apostles by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper (Luke 22:29), and we expect to be held accountable to the laws from which we come.
Paul Revere, huh? I give you the Apostle of the Gentiles Paul of Tarsus who was a Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven yet also a CITIZEN of ROME.
quote:
Our code of conduct is the Sermon on the Mount, and we fulfill the great Commission by traveling from place to place using old and modern conveyances, sharing the good news. (Matthew 5-7). The ancient scriptures predicted the Kingdom of Heaven. The new testament proclaims that it has arrived! Jesus didn't bring us a RELIGION. He brought us a NATIONALITY.[/red] - http://www.kingdomofheaven.info/ Sound familiar?
You can post all of the 'websites' you like but the fact remains that you cannot give me a strait answer to the latest challenge concerning why Samuel is telling the twice warned Israelites not to turn away or stop serving YHWH when your teaching says they already turned away and stopped serving YHWH. Why is Samuel wrong and you are right?
quote:
Ever hear of Letters to Jessica by brother Robert Bissett? http://letterstojessica.embassyofheaven.com/
So? Why should I listen to him rather than what the Bible clearly says?
quote:
But, quite frankly, friend, we are all but certain that you have heard of all these, and perhaps even a few more. That being the truth of the matter, would you care to tell the fine men and women of this forum why you continue to use all those "less than respectful” phrases listed above when you know, unequivocally, that they are simply not true?
LOL. You have the nerve to utter this above silly statement after admitting that your approach to the Bible is like that of a buffett wherein you - allegedly guided by the 'spirit' - pick and choose what you think is true and write off as 'corrupt' that which does not agree with your appetite? 'Friend' you are the one who is promoting as truth the claims made by the Jews to frame Christ. I am being respectful in that I am not resorting to Ad Hom when making my points. You are offended that I am questioning you but sorry, you need to get over that.
This is the perfect thread in which to bring up all of the unmet challenges you have been presented with in the last years. All here on one thread so people can see how you come to your conclusions. All here on one thread so people can see which items you dodge.
When - and if - you are able to accept the 1 Sam 12 challenge we can get on to that long list of other avoided items. I'd like to have a deep study of Acts 15 for the readers and let them see how you deal with that.
quote:
Thank you for your time and attention
You've got my full attention now. We will be waiting for you to explain why Samuel is telling the twice warned Israelites not to turn away or stop serving YHWH when your teaching says they already turned away and stopped serving YHWH. Why did not Samuel give the Israelites the teaching you are putting forth? That's a fair question.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 05 Nov 2006 12:02:57 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2006 : 09:55:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[br Batkol wrote: We are not speaking about 'ancient Greek states' so I think we might want to consider the other definitions offered seeing as words have many different meanings and applications. Can you post the others?
oneisraelite responds: We can, but we will not.
Of course you will not. The other definitions don't suit your teaching!
quote:
Believe it or not, brother Steven, it is our understanding that Yahushua lived in, but was part not of, an “ancient Greek state”. These “ancient Greek states” came in a variety of forms, one of which was that of “a Roman emperor and an imperial aristocracy”. So what we were looking for, and hopefully found and posted, was the eighteen hundred year old understanding of the paleo-Greek word ekklesia.
But the NT was not written during 'ancient Greece' times and words can develope many different meanings even in a very short span. Koine Greek is not "paleo-Greek" as you suggest but rather post-classical.
quote:
If you can find the time in your busy schedule, would you please enlighten the members of this group approximately what year the word ekklesia came to refer to anything other that what we have posted?
Thank you in advance for your time and efforts in this matter.
Well, Paul's letters were written around 50AD and what does he define the word 'ekklesia' as in the context he uses it in? He tells us point blank that the ecclesia is the Body of Christ (Col 1:18). We also see Roman Citizens and even Roman centurion and Procouncil being part of the Body of Christ. We see slave as well free equally being part of that Body. Sure, you can claim that these points should be filed under 'corrupt scripture' but if you have another rebuttal why we should not trust the NT on these items, we'd like to hear it.
quote:
[1][/red] The New Testament was, according to our source, written “after c. 45 AD and before c. 140 AD”, making the oldest extant Greek writings, at the least, eighteen hundred years old, and at the most, about nineteen hundred years old, if our math and source are correct.
So then when and where exactly did your alleged corruptions come in? Remember the verse about the 'lying pen of the scribes' is speaking about the OT law.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 05 Nov 2006 12:03:31 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2006 : 12:18:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by kevin
Now Im getting the picture,
So we have the law and we have us all disobeying that law,
even on my best day if there is such a thing) I miss it , alot.
Kevin, show me in the Bible where it says being a citizen of a country is a sin. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2006 : 07:04:31
|
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
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.
Thus, we can see by this that no man can serve supreme authorities. If one is a citizen of the UNITED STATES, who or what, according to its law, is the "supreme law of the land"[1]?
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
The general definition of the Greek word kurios is 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
The kurios/masters "1a2) in the state" are "the sovereign, prince, chief,' and/or 'the Roman emperor"
The kurios/masters in the commonwealth of Yisra'el are, the head of every man is the Anointed, the head of woman is man, and the head of the Anointed is Yahuwah. 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
Man over man he made not lord. - John Milton [Dec. 9, 1608-Nov. 8, 1674]
Head
HEAD, n. hed.
1. The uppermost part of the human body, or the foremost part of the body of prone and creeping animals. This part of the human body contains the organs of hearing, seeing, tasting and smelling; it contains also the brain, which is supposed to be the seat of the intellectual powers, and of sensation. Hence the head is the chief or more important part, and is used for the whole person, in the phrase, let the evil fall on my head.
2. An animal; an individual; as, the tax was raised by a certain rate per head. And we use the singular number to express many. The herd contains twenty head of oxen.
Thirty thousand head of swine.
3. A chief; a principal person; a leader; a commander; one who has the first rank or place, and to whom others are subordinate; as the head of an army; the head of a sect or party. Eph 5.
4. The first place; the place of honor, or of command. The lord mayor sat at the head of the table. The general marched at the head of his troops.
5. Countenance; presence; in the phrases, to hide the head, to show the head.
6. Understanding; faculties of the mind; sometimes in a ludicrous sense; as, a man has a good head, or a strong head. These men laid their heads together to form the scheme. Never trouble your head about this affair. So we say, to beat the head; to break the head; that is, to study hard, to exercise the understanding or mental faculties.
7. Face; front; forepart.
The ravishers turn head, the fight renews. [Unusual.]
8. Resistance; successful opposition; in the phrase, to make head against, that is, to advance, or resist with success.
9. Spontaneous will or resolution; in the phrases, of his own head, on their own head. But of is more usual than on.
10. State of a deer's horns by which his age is known. The buck is called, the fifth year, a buck of the first head.
11. The top of a thing, especially when larger than the rest of the thing; as the head of a spear; the head of a cabbage; the head of a nail; the head of a mast.
12. The forepart of a thing, as the head of a ship, which includes the bows on both sides; also,the ornamental figure or image erected on or before the stem of a ship.
13. The blade or cutting part of an ax, distinct from the helve.
14. That which rises on the top; as the head or yeast of beer.
15. The upper part of a bed, or bed-stead.
16. The brain.
They turn their heads to imitate the sun.
17. The dress of the head; as a laced head. [Unusual.]
18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.
19. Altitude of water in ponds, as applicable to the driving of mill-wheels. The mill has a good head of water.
20. Topic of discourse; chief point or subject; a summary; as the heads of a discourse or treatise.
21. Crisis; pitch; highth. The disease has grown to such a head as to threaten life.
22. Influence; force; strength; pitch. The sedition got to such a head as not to be easily quelled.
23. Body; conflux.
24. Power; armed force.
My lord, my lord, the French have gathered head.
25. Liberty; freedom from restrain; as, to give a horse the head. Hence,
26. License; freedom from check, control or restraint.
Children should not have their heads.
He has too long given his unruly passions the head.
27. The hair of the head; as a head of hair.
28. The top of corn or other plant; the part on which the seed grows.
29. The end, or the boards that form the end; as the head of a cask.
30. The part most remote from the mouth or opening into the sea; as the head of a bay, gulf or creek.
31. The maturated part of an ulcer or boil; hence, to come to a head, is to suppurate.
Head and ears, a phrase denoting the whole person, especially when referring to immersion. He plunged head and ears into the water. He was head and ears in debt, that is, completely overwhelmed.
Head and shoulders, by force; violently; as, to drag one head and shoulders.
They bring in every figure of speech, head and shoulders.
Head or tail, or head nor tail, uncertain; not reducible to certainty.
Head, as an adj. or in composition, chief; principal; as a head workman.
By the head, in seamen's language, denotes the state of a ship laden too deeply at the fore-end.
HEAD, v.t. hed. To lead; to direct; to act as leader to; as, to head an army; to head an expedition; to head a riot.
1. To behead; to decapitate. [Unusual.]
2. To form a head to; to fit or furnish with a head; as, to head a nail.
3. To lop; as, to head trees.
4. To go in front of; to get into the front; as, to head a drove of cattle.
5. To set on the head; as, to head a cask.
6. To oppose; to veer round and blow in opposition to the course of a ship;as, the wind heads us.
HEAD, v.i. hed. To originate; to spring; to have its source, as a river.
A broad river that heads in the great Blue Ridge of mountains.
Master
M`ASTER, n. [L. magister, compounded of the root of magis, major, greater.]
1. A man who rules, governs or directs either men or business. A man who owns slaves is their master; he who has servants is their master; he who has apprentices is their master; he who has apprentices is their master, as he has the government and direction of them. The man who superintends and directs any business, is master, or master workman.
O thou my friend, my genius, come along,
Thou master of the poet and the song.
Nations that want protectors, will have masters.
2. A director, head, or chief manager; as the master of a feast.
3. The owner; proprietor; with the idea of governing. The master of a house may be the owner, or the occupant, who has a temporary right of governing it.
It would be believed that he rather took the horse for his subject, than his master.
4. A lord; a ruler; one who has supreme dominion.
Caesar, the world's great master and his own. Pope.
5. A chief; a principal; as the master root of a plant.
One master passion swallows up the rest.
6. One who has possession, and the power of controlling or using at pleasure.
When I have made myself master of a hundred thousand drachmas--
7. The commander of a merchant ship.
8. In ships of war, an officer who takes rank immediately after the lieutenants,and navigates the ship under the direction of the captain.
9. The director of a school; a teacher; an instructor.
In this sense the word is giving place to the more appropriate words teacher, instructor and preceptor; at least it is so in the United States.
10. One uncontrolled.
Let every man be master of his time.
11. An appellation of respect.
Master doctor, you have brought those drugs.
12. An appellation given to young men.
Where there are little masters and misses in a house--
13. A man eminently or perfectly skilled in any occupation, art or science. We say, a man is master of his business; a great master of music, of the flute or violin; a master of his subject, &c.
14. A title of dignity in colleges and universities; as Master of Arts.
15. The chief of a society; as the Grand Master of Malta, of free-masons, &c.
16. The director of ceremonies at public places, or on public occasions.
17. The president of a college.
Master in chancery, an assistant of the lord chancellor, chosen from among the barristers to sit in chancery, or at the rolls.
To be master of one's self, to have the command or control of one's own passions.
The word master has numerous applications, in all of which it has the sense of director, chief or superintendent.
As a title of respect given to adult persons, it is pronounced mister; a pronunciation which seems to have been derived from some of the northern dialects. [supra.]
M`ASTER, v.i. To conquer; to overpower; to subdue; to bring under control.
Obstinacy and willful neglect must be mastered, even though it costs blows.
Evil customs must be mastered by degrees.
1. To execute with skill.
I will not offer that which I cannot master.
2. To rule; to govern.
--And rather father thee than master thee. [Not used.]
M`ASTER, v.i. To be skillful; to excel.
Lord
LORD, n.
1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor.
Man over man he made not lord. Milton
But now I was the lord of this fair mansion.
2. A tyrant; an oppressive ruler.
3. A husband.
I oft in bitterness of soul deplores my absent daughter, and my dearer lord.
My lord also being old. Gen 18.
4. A baron; the proprietor of a manor; as the lord of the manor.
5. A nobleman; a title of honor in Great Britain given to those who are noble by birth or creation; a peer of the realm, including dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts and barons. Archbishops and bishops also, as members of the house of lords, are lords of parliament. Thus we say, lords temporal and spiritual. By courtesy also the title is given to the sons of dukes and marquises, and to the eldest sons of earls.
6. An honorary title bestowed on certain official characters; as lord advocate, lord chamberlain, lord chancellor, lord chief justice, &c.
7. In scripture, the Supreme Being; Jehovah. When Lord, in the Old Testament, is printed in capitals, it is the translation of JEHOVAH, and so might, with more propriety, be rendered. The word is applied to Christ, Psa 110. Col 3. and to the Holy Spirit, 2 Th 3. As a title of respect, it is applied to kings, Gen 40. 2 Sam 19. to princes and nobles, Gen 42. Dan 4. to a husband, Gen 18. to a prophet, 1 Ki 18. 2 Ki 2. and to a respectable person, Gen 24. Christ is called the Lord of glory, 1 Cor 2. and Lord of lords, Rev 19.
LORD, v.t. To invest with the dignity and privileges of a lord.
LORD, v.i. To domineer; to rule with arbitrary or despotic sway; sometimes followed by over, and sometimes by it, in the manner of a transitive verb.
The whiles she lordeth in licentious bliss.
I see them lording it in London streets.
They lorded over them whom now they serve.
Endnotes:
[1] You might try looking up the definitions for the phrase "Supreme law of the land" in your Black's Sixth to find who or what is your kurios, i.e. supreme authority, if you are a citizen of the STATE.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Nov 2006 07:23:11 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
