Is the END of things as we have known them in this country imminent?!!

[2tim215]

To All,

As I believe I had suggested earlier, maybe some of this discussion can be moved to another thread, say in "the Religion " section?

It seems that there are now two directions, one discussing the laws of "America" and the other the laws of God.

Although I don't necessarily totally agree with what David's said, I do agree that one does not have to be "born again" or necessarily even be a believer to be protected under the constitution.

Although yes, the founding fathers were influenced a great deal by Christianity and more importantly the King James Bible (there were no NIVs or the like at that time), we know from previous discussions here that all of the Founding Fathers were not "born again" or even really Christians for that matter (as pointed out by Heidi many of them considered themselves to be "Deists"). This is pretty evident by the way the constituion was constructed, that is to protect the "rights of all", regardless of race, color, creed or for that matter religion. Surprised? Thomas Jefferson for example, completely denied the deity of Christ and believed that His miracles were all myths so much so that he wrote his own Bible which is referred to as the Jefferson Bible(http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/). He certainly had a huge influence in our constitution (learned this from the forum).

Therfore allthough greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian culture, the constitution is not soley based on it, otherwise they would have adopted the Bible as their constitution.

Maybe one of the problems here is the original title to this thread "Is the end of things as we know them imminent in this country?" could easily be construed to be relating to "end time" prophecy in scripture (from a Christian perspective that is). Maybe however, that was not the original intention. Nonetheless it would seem to be (based on the direction in which this thread seems to be heading) that it would be practical to (once again) suggest that the religious aspects be moved elsewhere. It seems that there is certainly enough interest in discussing this (I know I would be interested) so once again I wll ask for it to be moved.

Also, from my perspective, and I believe this to be what the Bible teaches (and I base my authority on the King James Bible as the Word of God) the definition of a Christian can be found.:

There are only three places in the Bible where the word "Christian" or "Christians is used, twice in the Book of Acts and once in 1 Peter. In each place that it is used, it uses the same word in the Greek, which is "Christianos" and in Acts 11:26, we are given the definition:

Acts 11:26(KJV) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Here we are told what the Christians did, where they were and that they were disciples. Thus according the Bibles definition, to be a true Christian, you would have had to have been a disciple. Disciple is the word "mathetes" in the Greek which simply means a "learner" or a "student" or "pupil" Therefore all I can conclued is that they were students of the scriptures. In addition, since the Epistles were actually being written (actually it would be years later that they would become part of "canon") and therefore could not have been reading them (as we do today) that they would have been sitting under the tutelage of one of the Apostles.

Needless to say, my understanding is that there are as many as 80% or even more in this country who profess to be Christians. In terms of who's saved and who isn't, that's not for me to decide, that's something that is strictly reserved for the Lord Himself. It is not for me to determine where a person is at with the Lord, it's between them and the Lord Himself which is fitting since they will not have to answer to me (nor I to them) at Judgment Day. The Bible even tells us (Paul in Phillipians 2:12) that we are to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling". Having said that, I would caution those however who do not take this stuff seriously. That is why need to study (as this forum constantly tells us to) not just the law, but more importantly we need to learn who our creator is which may (depending on what you believe) utlitmately effect our eternity. I personally think that should be pretty important.

I get what you say David regarding salvation, and although there are few things you said in your post that I might want to challenge (at the very least question), I think I more or less agree with you on that point (providing I'm interpreting it correctly). I also believe I recognize your motivation for it (which I believe to be good). I say one additonal thing regarding salvation (and this is for believers) , I believe that we are in an endurance race for our salvation and if we don't survive, we won't make it. Just because you may be "born again" or in a "saved state" so to speak (and I don't intend to argue whether or not such a state exists, at least not at present), it does not necessarily mean you are going to remain in that "state" since I don't believe that Jesus would have said (both in Matthew 24:13 and Mark 13:13) that "you must endure to the end" to be saved. Also study the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4 (particularly note verse 17 where Jesus talks about those whose seed is sowed on "stony ground").

Anyways, blessings be to all.

If anyone else agrees that this should be moved elsewhere and is interested in pursuing, please let it be known.

Thanks,

2tim215

2 Tim 2:15(KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

BOBT12,
I am on a mission from God and I am convinced that your support is duly noted by Him. Are we not a congregation here of like minded individuals? Only souls that believe in God can be sui juris.

Dear Admin;

I understand how explosive the issue can get and admit I did not read what led up to Rottweiler's statement. I was waiting for someone to offer Jerry something behind the Declaration of Independence, that document being proven by the history books to be nothing more than an internal memorandum of the Crown Templar Society and its principal the Priory of Sion. [For information on that read the Epistle Dedicatory for the 1611 KJV.]

So I decided to add my take on the Christian take.

It is highly subjective to say:

You condemn yourself to hell by not obeying God's Word. All of the statements I have made concern what is simply stated in the Bible.

I will not be pursuing it any further because in my opinion, any believer that Jesus was Ressurrected from the grave has not considered it in light of rules of evidence - but is looking to interprete the Bible in terms of faith.

The only reason I feel it is important is that some people feel that only certain people are entitled to the benefits of law, according to their belief in God. When people of different religious beliefs began to approach me to draft remedy for them I had to consider this carefully. The Libel of Review flies Genesis 1:26-7 and Exodus 13:16 law of the flag. That does not mean that the signer has to believe in God for it to be effective. That simply means that being born of a Creator, that image of the Creator is the sole source of all authority. Which only flies because the law of the flag flies according to the gold fringe and the diversity of citizenship needs to be struck up.


Consider me unwilling to press the matter now and in the future. If people enjoy faith who am I to contest that? After all they may be correct; I am going to rot in hell for understanding the Bible like I do. I just wish somebody would show me where in the Old Covenant there is any prophecy that the Messiah would possess any extraordinary abilities about bringing the dead back to life. Since my posts were based on misquotes and misunderstandings from before Rottweiler's statement, consider the question rhetorical. Do not answer please - it usually gets way too heated way too quickly.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[RevokeTheTrust]

Greetings and blessings brothers and sisters.

I hope all could be better. The moment I had pawned upon the emissions in this forum, I thought upon a good report that can be made better. What of all the presumptions pasted upon one-another's humble key entered upon this chamber's Door? The key inside us all, is it mon (Scottish, man) -- is it a monkey, free energy moved out of the animal kingdom to be the footstool for the Kingdom of Heaven; a kingdom of concious behaviour? There is a flood risen above the bar and it carries no soil in the accounted receptactle in this forum. It is either debt or credit; capacity to the report of a person. Everyone is too quick to impersonate one-another that I may just assume to break the false door and bring the Garden Hose into the Bed to watter the pansies.

Brothers, the bank is the people; degraded from prior stores and reserved to Time. While your Time is in the Stocks, prepayed, gather those timely hands to mineral and content that is not lawful but Good Consideration; dedicate its use to a cause in return for a Bill, attach that to a Special Trust (You, not that you). Security interest determines right, so remember that Albertsons Inc has no different standing than Wells Fargo, with exception that Albertsons is the corporate food Bank that has good substance for Barter. The curse of an evil man is livened upon his target, given without remedy and Day; criticism is good, but that criticism that is without recourse is ill will. The curse in man is forgiveness of adultery, by repentance in handling dirty diapers of the newborn oldman. Consider the first deposits of the bank to credit Federal Reserve System: dirty diapers on account. In a world composed of unlawful consideration, good consideration is better than the average. Collect aluminum or glass and deposit to the nearest bank to be held in trust. A somewhat insecure box can be rented from a foreigner, and a worthy cistern fitting inside that box is able to re-serve a coin for anyone to post a cheque of their bank; or we can always just sit on our bank, with it in our Chest.

God blessed Jerry to live on the land; consider the beauty of a Lion and his Teeth; neither exist apart for long. A magnificent read in the Spirit is waiting, and to know that a Dandelion is good to eat, why pull it in favor to labor after another weed domesticated by society? Let the Lettuce go, when it is proven a Dandelion is a Godly food that rises to the occasion without regard for its environmental conditions burdenned upon him/it. The soil, if allowed, will hold a man on Earth longer than he needs to be on the soil. A beautiful meal is a quick walk around the yard, none the like of any agent of ROUNDUP can prevent -- yet. http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/d/dandel08.html

I was studying this forum long before, and now see that brother David beat me to it, I can consider that his rebuke in this topic is less than his bite and still a pain to love. :-) Seeing those Avatar idols moving about, I was hindered to choose between a mix of Captain Hook and the Riddler, when all I needed is a Seat at a console of a station to broadcast with the authorized signature and remotely...
http://nradude.250free.com/img/cwire-transfer-usa.png[/url]

At least I'm half-Last, for the First cause of the Special trust in
Christ M. Gregory-Thomas (Mundt)

I thought here, at SUIJURIS.NET, the Head is Sui Juris; and them that are of the Father are with the Father; are Sui Juris by His Love conferred upon them, or Sui Juris by His Grace in Fear of Him. Consulting the Taxes I levy upon the animal kingdom, a certain primate moved by His will in the Temple, by Councel to various Hearing that have Ears, a Bishop revels over a said primate; A Bishop is a primate, but with that soil washed away by an unequal weight of water, there leaves only a sound mind to whisper among the herb and cultivate it. God is truth, God is love, God is self-existing; anything contrary is artifice.

Sui Juris under God or to the transmitter? By whose repentance is it to dissolve God from a man, when none can be separated but with hatred? Birth right is to whomever has the blood to enrich the soil, and I'm carrying 220 pounds of soil withall; that is the country I can speak for. Quite a dung processor I sit upon, here at the town of Westminster. Anyone that tries to deposit Lead in this bank, or anything other than Food for the mind, would hold me their debtor for death; and I do challenge that false father.

Keep the lawful consideration separate from the "Good Consideration"; one is determined by weight, while the other is by measure. Is the $nake with one strike greater than the honorable Snake with two stripes? I don't want anything to do with one's Earning six-feet under soil, and want to give-up my Seat to that creature's shoulders when the Lord redeems in His time.

with love,
the Christ, Gregory; Postman for Mundt, # Bishop of Westminster, & Provost of California

[charlesa6]

RevokeTheTrust, welcome to the forum.

[1tim610]

Admin, et al.

This thread was pursuing measures to aid against an economic collapse. I was following that as well.

Mr Merrill added to the record "his take", which was stated in his authoratative manner - as matter of fact. I cannot stand for misrepresentations of facts concerning the scriptures, so I spoke up - since silence is regarded as tacit agreement. I was rebutting presumptive evidence.

Mr Merrill stated:
"I will not be pursuing it any further because in my opinion, any believer that Jesus was Ressurrected from the grave has not considered it in light of rules of evidence - but is looking to interprete the Bible in terms of faith."

1) Acts 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

2) 2 Peter 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

If I am not mistaken, eyewitness testimony conforms to the rules of evidence.

Again, I am only rebutting presumptions.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by 1tim610

Admin, et al.

This thread was pursuing measures to aid against an economic collapse. I was following that as well.

Mr Merrill added to the record "his take", which was stated in his authoratative manner - as matter of fact. I cannot stand for misrepresentations of facts concerning the scriptures, so I spoke up - since silence is regarded as tacit agreement. I was rebutting presumptive evidence.

Mr Merrill stated:
"I will not be pursuing it any further because in my opinion, any believer that Jesus was Ressurrected from the grave has not considered it in light of rules of evidence - but is looking to interprete the Bible in terms of faith."

1) Acts 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

2) 2 Peter 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

If I am not mistaken, eyewitness testimony conforms to the rules of evidence.

Again, I am only rebutting presumptions.

It is just too easy to prove my case:

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

It is clear for Shaul to be hunting down Jesus seven years later, that Jesus survived the Crucifixion. One method (Michael Baigent - Holy Blood, Holy Grail) proposed is that Jesus' uncle Joseph (being that the name of his father "uncle" is probably an elder in the synagogue Jesus attended) of Arimathea used his wealth to bribe the executioners into faking Jesus' death on the Cross. The other is by Robert Graves - The Nazarene Gospel Restored who was laid with the corpses in a MASH unit for over a day, having survived similar battle wounds as Jesus and thought dead for over thirty-six hours. So he projects that upon the Gospel account of Jesus' survival.

Admin is correct. It serves people in truth not to shake people's faith. I was saying these posts to make my point about rules of evidence. And I am convinced that arguing this further, here or under a religious heading elsewhere is simply to rehash things in an unproductive way.

Gregory Thomas said:

I was studying this forum long before, and now see that brother David beat me to it, I can consider that his rebuke in this topic is less than his bite and still a pain to love.

My interpretation of Gregory's prose is that in my mind I have already won this argument several times in different Internet forums on pragmatic and inductive reasoning of the Gospels in whole, while accounting for edits and according to the Pauline Heresy.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[1tim610]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

It is just too easy to prove my case:



It is clear for Shaul to be hunting down Jesus seven years later, that Jesus survived the Crucifixion. One method (Michael Baigent - Holy Blood, Holy Grail) proposed is that Jesus' uncle Joseph (being that the name of his father "uncle" is probably an elder in the synagogue Jesus attended) of Arimathea used his wealth to bribe the executioners into faking Jesus' death on the Cross. The other is by Robert Graves - The Nazarene Gospel Restored who was laid with the corpses in a MASH unit for over a day, having survived similar battle wounds as Jesus and thought dead for over thirty-six hours. So he projects that upon the Gospel account of Jesus' survival.

Admin is correct. It serves people in truth not to shake people's faith. I was saying these posts to make my point about rules of evidence. And I am convinced that arguing this further, here or under a religious heading elsewhere is simply to rehash things in an unproductive way.

Gregory Thomas said:



My interpretation of Gregory's prose is that in my mind I have already won this argument several times in different Internet forums on pragmatic and inductive reasoning of the Gospels in whole, while accounting for edits and according to the Pauline Heresy.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Your presumptive evidence is based upon two references: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Nazarene Gospel Restored". Both being the hope of the hopeless. I suppose you must believe something - even if it's unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, you bolstered my argument that Christ's resurrection was based upon eye witness testamony.

The idea of the "Pauline Heresy" is absolutely baseless and ignorant of the harmony of agreement between the writings contained in the New Testament and Old Testament.

You do not know the Bible Mr Merrill. You studied the writings of the unregenerent, and chose to side with their misunderstandings.

As always, let the record bear witness to my rebuttle.

[freeindeed]

Well, I must say that I never intended for this thread to mutate to where it has gotten. I am in agreement here, before my thread gets hijacked any more that this be taken to the religion secton. I must say that this is partly my fault for I, too, made reference to prophecy. Please let's get back on track here and take the religious discussion to the religion section.

Thank you,
freeindeed

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Well, I must say that I never intended for this thread to mutate to where it has gotten. I am in agreement here, before my thread gets hijacked any more that this be taken to the religion secton. I must say that this is partly my fault for I, too, made reference to prophecy. Please let's get back on track here and take the religious discussion to the religion section.

Thank you,
freeindeed

I concur.

My original statement at entry into this thread, was merely expressing my belief that the collection of gold and silver for whatever purpose and then calling it "yours" is bizarre. No-one on this forum, under the current set of political/legal/jurisprudential circumstances can validly prove that anything 'belongs' (indicating ownership) to them. The state has forced us into the position of subordinance, and have claimed "all property" as their own. Until such time as that belief on THEIR part can be nullified, it remains as fact. That nullification cannot be sought in THEIR courts as they will defend the status quo.

Jerry

[RevokeTheTrust]

I thought the market crashes when it is at peak; whoever owns the most stock will determine the artificial collapse.

There is not any religion being made in this forum. Whoever presumed such would give evidence of an open Door to adjust the feud they themselves brought. If ever there was a paradigm shift, it would be retro-competitive IDolatry at the post; looking for an employee to move their secondary FIRST CLASS mail to that side of the brain, and credit for their recumbence as a mere Note to commend. I thought this forum was discussing the revaluation of local money from ditching the interstate stock certificates?

If everyone appraised the value of good and lawful considerations by uconciously using FRN as though USD, then you always will have problems. It seems I discuss this all the time when someone wants to barter my USD $0.50 silver for 6 FRN. Let the agents of those recycling centers make their determinations as they can, just so long as the Creditor of the interest is known. Well it's raining outside, which means the 1 FRN bottles of water at the Gasoline debt houses should be a lost cause. Back to my drafting table.

Gregory-Thomas