Acceptance for Value:

[iamfreeru2]

Although I do not agree with the writer below, I thought I would post his view to entertain discussion from those that are involved in AFV methodology and those that are not.

We hear of "redemption" of our alleged "equity" and often this term is spoken of in conjunction with the concepts of "Acceptance for Value" utilizing the notion of "Bills of Exchange". Support for the various manners in which this information is commonly presented is often spuriously and erroneously attributed to certain Biblical events and writings. To believe that this "financial redemption" is in any way Biblically supported, one must by all accounts either not believe the Bible or not know what it says.

Simply put, Christ did not die on the cross to redeem us of our financial obligations or any of our other earthly responsibilities. On the contrary, He evidenced that we must carry out our obligations just like He did. He accepted His obligation, His "charge" to sacrifice Himself on behalf of each of us. He did not merely accept His charge "for value", He accepted His charge, in fact. He PAID in full His obligation; He paid His Credit with substance, not with fiction. He then claimed His eternal life as His Equity, because He had paid for it by meeting His obligation; by making His "sacrifice".

To claim anything, one must have sacrificed or "paid" something. If we expect to claim our eternal life, we must also expect to pay for it. Christ sacrificed His sinless Self, in order that we might graciously receive God's gift of forgiveness of our sins, not forgiveness of our earthly obligations to one another. We are commanded to "pay taxes where taxes are due" and to be a "doer of the word, not a hearer only".

In other words, we are to accept our charges and perform the respective and substantive obligation that comes with each of them. For example, if we have a debt obligation in the "fiction" world, such as an outstanding credit card loan, car loan, mortgage, etc., we cannot simply utilize a Bill of Exchange or any other fiction paperwork to "claim our exemption", nor can we "accept for value" the obligation presented to us by the fiction creditor. The obligation HAS NO VALUE until we actually and factually pay for it - until we perform our sacrifice!

We are not meant to simply accept them (our charges) and endorse them back "for value". Such a manner of "Acceptance for Value" is fiction, in that we are attributing fictitious, or un-paid value to the obligation. Otherwise Christ might just as well have accepted His charge to die on the cross by endorsing it back as "accepted for value". He knew His charge; His obligation had no inherent value in and of itself, therefore He could not pretend to accept it for value. The value; the Redemption of our sins had to be "paid" for by His performance. Thank God, He was not deceived!

[babacar]

My two cents,
Is he not comparing apples to oranges?
Our sins that the Messiah died for are real. I know that at least mine are.
So He gave something of substance to redeem us from the penalty of sins.
On the other hand, a credit card or mortgage debt (or sin) is not real, it is merely an illusion, or a scam if you prefer. Why give something of substance for something that's not real.
As you can see I am just waking up, but at least I am not sleeping anymore.
Babacar

[chuckhs12]

Isn't it funny how people use the Bible and other do***ents to benefit thier perspective.

Any person can take anything written (including the Bible) and amke it seem thier point has validity.

That is what I am getting from this qoute. I continually search for the truth and take writings at face value. I may not always be successful at it, but I continue to work at it.

The most common theme that I see arise in writings like this is not a full understanding (Not "Stand Under" in law) of the context of the writings.

That is my 2 cents worth.
Peace be with you.

[wirlwind]

I agree with y'all. There is no comparison between what Jesus did for us and what banks and debt collectors are trying to do to us. Is this writer trying to put banks and debt collectors on the same level as Jesus? His whole way of thinking is absurd. Even if he was trying to do that his thinking process still doesn't match up, because we can't pay Jesus back for what He did for us on the cross- we can only accept it. He is entitled to his own opinion about the redemptive process (meaning redeeming our sovereignty), but to compare that to the redemption that Christ performed is ludicrous.

[test]

I wonder what is the author's opinion about everybody providing their time and energy in exchange for worthless pieces of colored paper?

So that part is fine according to him?

Should not we consider that question as well before saying "yes I will pay what I owe"?

Who is paying for our labor?

What are we being payed for our time and energy?

If there is no "real" money nobody can pay anything at all.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by test

I wonder what is the author's opinion about everybody providing their time and energy in exchange for worthless pieces of colored paper?

So that part is fine according to him?

Should not we consider that question as well before saying "yes I will pay what I owe"?

Who is paying for our labor?

What are we being payed for our time and energy?

If there is no "real" money nobody can pay anything at all.

What the author does not realize is that paying an obligation with an obligation is impossible. Of course Christ used substance to redeem us, Himself. So we redeem our obligations with substance as well. Because we are not fictions we are the only ones that can redeem (extinguish) our debts and we do so by using our exemption under Public Law 73-10 House Joint Resolution 912. This is the only way the people (flesh and blood men/women) can extinguish it. FRN's are debt and cannot estinguish anything, but serve only to create more debt. Accepting for Value and discharging is an honorable way to extinguish debt, rather than argue it does not exist. What does it matter if one can extinguish it with AFV and discharge it.

When I tender a BoE is based on the fact that I am real and not a fiction. It is based on substance. Can a fiction produce anythiing of value? Can a fiction work the land, which is where all substance comes from? I was formed out of the ground according to YHWH's word. Genesis 2:7 "Then YHWH formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." If that does not mean I am substance, then I do not know what does. Only substance can get rid of fiction, because substance is real and fiction is not.

which is THE REAL REASON courts dont have jurisdiction over you, they are not substance, they are not real, its the people in the court who work against you, they have to be punished thru natural law and they will be. Jesus took up a good amount of words condemning lawyers in the New Testament. Thats one of the reasons they keep coming out with different VERSIONS of the Bible, to keep you under a spell.

[David Merrill]

The appearance by legal name (colorable fiction) is what brings one into the realm of colorable money.

Maybe I read the quote too hastily but the author is bashing the acceptance for value/redemption bill of exchange system;

We hear of "redemption" of our alleged "equity" and often this term is spoken of in conjunction with the concepts of "Acceptance for Value" utilizing the notion of "Bills of Exchange". Support for the various manners in which this information is commonly presented is often spuriously and erroneously attributed to certain Biblical events and writings. To believe that this "financial redemption" is in any way Biblically supported, one must by all accounts either not believe the Bible or not know what it says.

So it seems to me that you are all construing what he says opposite the way I construe it. Maybe it is the religious angle I don't get.

When the truth comes out, there is no obligation because the Bank and Fund is requiring to pay obligations with obligations. Jerome Daly was able to get that testimony out in the light in a common law jury in 1968;

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Credit River Money Decision

The bank could not take his land, even though Daly had never paid for it. It was already his land. The bank was forbidden to even appeal. The supreme court supported that. The bank was estopped from even filing for the appeal because the jury had determined they would have to pay the filing fee, not discharge it.

Same with emergency room health care;

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ovation_ER.jpg

The hospital is METRO owned! That means I have already paid for the health care. It is mine already as heir apparent. The nature of the colorability of money is a double-taxation scheme. Listen carefully to Leroy. When the man and wife came in with $15m and $5m they walked away with $30m and $10m comptroller warrants.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...y_on_bills.wmv

(3:00-4:00 minute mark.)


Regards,

David Merrill.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The appearance by legal name (colorable fiction) is what brings one into the realm of colorable money.

Maybe I read the quote too hastily but the author is bashing the acceptance for value/redemption bill of exchange system;



So it seems to me that you are all construing what he says opposite the way I construe it. Maybe it is the religious angle I don't get.

When the truth comes out, there is no obligation because the Bank and Fund is requiring to pay obligations with obligations. Jerome Daly was able to get that testimony out in the light in a common law jury in 1968;

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Credit River Money Decision

The bank could not take his land, even though Daly had never paid for it. It was already his land. The bank was forbidden to even appeal. The supreme court supported that. The bank was estopped from even filing for the appeal because the jury had determined they would have to pay the filing fee, not discharge it.

Same with emergency room health care;

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ovation_ER.jpg

The hospital is METRO owned! That means I have already paid for the health care. It is mine already as heir apparent. The nature of the colorability of money is a double-taxation scheme. Listen carefully to Leroy. When the man and wife came in with $15m and $5m they walked away with $30m and $10m comptroller warrants.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...y_on_bills.wmv

(3:00-4:00 minute mark.)


Regards,

David Merrill.

I am construing what the author said the same way you are. What I am saying is that by accepting for value and discharging with a BoE I am using substance to extinguish a ficticious debt, because substance is the only thing that can. Like I said using a debt to pay a debt is impossible. Accepting for value and using my substance is the honorable way to extigiush it. Liabilities cannot extinguish other liabilites can they? Of course not. Anyone that says FRNs are substance is off their rocker.

[KaosTheory]

Iamfree,

I am wondering where the "substance to pay a debt" that you speak of is coming from. Isn't the money in that trust just make believe also?