Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
85 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

mizrae
If you believe all this to be true...
Who is the Lord, God?
Who is your Father, who art in heaven?

You are already free, ye of little faith!
I predict the word of God.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
I agree with much of what you say, it really comes down to the means by which the objective is achieved.

And perhaps it’s useful to try different approaches concurrently. The proof is in the pudding, and at least we now know there are various proposed courses to consider if need be.

The first 4 chapters of the doc we put up cover safe ground i think, and they are the key message. On this we seem to have little to debate, not surprising since a good chunk of the thinking originated with you guys….

1- world system built on bible blue print, and implemented via a military/commercial construct
2 –Times up
3 – Jesus gave us a set of instructions
4 – Show Peter’s earthly bindings are real

Perhaps there is some debate on instructions versus our heart. I don’t see it as either/or. Yes turn your heart to God. And then observe the commandments Jesus gave accordingly. Only following our heart instead of observing instructions is not acceptable in my opinion. John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Those 4 elements are the warnings.

Then to implement the instructions in light of today’s world construct. This is the tricky bit. Just reading the bible is not enough, it is written largely in figurative terms, and does not explain explicitly how that relates to the world system today. So we look to both the nature of the world construct, and in light of the instructions. That requires reason, not emotion. Help from the comforter also applies, though I don’t consider that “heart”. I suppose I’ve interpreted “heart” as emotion, and maybe that is not the proper full meaning.

We seem to be agreed that all worldly property interest must go back to Caesar, and we need to separate from the legal personality.

So for me any proposed course back is first weighed against the instructions of Jesus.
Then by evidence of the earthly bindings falling away.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps. I’ve not yet achieved the wordly freedom I seek. And if this were not so desperately time critical, I would not have presumed to float this notion that a competence status change might tick all the boxes.

The comment on personage in your last point is interesting and agreed. This appears to be the second element of the legal person estate, the first being all the property of the estate.

If I may digress for a moment to movies, like movies… In Labyrinth we see Sarah has to both ditch property interest (“this is all junk!”), as well as get out of the masquerade Ball (persona, mask of the actor), before she can go back to the Father with her baby brother (soul) (“Are you home Sarah? Yes Father, I’m home”). David Bowie basically begs her not to go, using the third testing of Christ story. And we recall that Sarah got herself in the cactus when “she willed” (“I wish”), contrary to her Father’s will. As insightful as this movie is in general terms, it really does not help much on specifics. Although it does indicate early on that there may be various “roads to Rome”. When the worm says “if she’d a gone that way – she’d ave gone straight to that castle”. Also in the opening of the 3rd POTC, we see Becket sitting on a spinning coin (in doubt), right up until the pirates sing "where WE WILL we'll roam"). Bang automatic, just like Sarahs baby brother was automatically in the care of Jared when she said I WISH.

The Pirates of the Carribean movies are some of the most expensive productions ever. No expense spared to deliver the warning and point to the remedy…of course these guys know there is no money, so what the hell.

We see again that Jack is fixated on both his “effects”, and his “hat”. In Bouviers “effects” are all property comprising an estate. Presumably the “hat” is the mask of the actor, the legal persona we hide behind. These 2 elements we see also in the empty tomb of Jesus, grave clothes left behind, and the napkin covering the face set aside separately.
Jack does not want to leave without his effects and hat, and so he is still a pirate at the end of the 4th movie.

So let’s focus on the differences in approach. The incompetence angle (NOT mental or medical incapacity), seems to me to be a built construct providing the way out. Without our “effects” and “hat”. Not destroying the estate, simply a status change in relation to it. Similar to what we see at the end of City of Ember, there the exit is in little coffin boats, that thing has a purpose. This approach also leaves us with no “enforceable” remedy, an unconditional surrender for peace. This aligns with the end of the sermon on the mount, where Jesus acknowledges we will have no recourse to the worldly, and he says “have faith”.
Coming as a child is no problem for me, Jesus called his apostles, after 3 years of teaching them; Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. John 13:33-35

I’m not really seeing why this is adverse to the end objective you are talking about?

You seem to be proposing essentially (correct me if I’m wrong) to; do a declaration saying “put all the property in the storehouse”, and “delete the BC registration as it is in error”. Then wait for the blessings.

In NZ we have a specific process for getting property into the treasury. S 68 of the administration act 1969 provides a remedy for bondsmen and sureties. That leads to s 77 of the trustee act 1956, and a pro forma for transferring all property and money to the treasury. Has not worked – call them up to see how its progressing “we will do nothing with this, don’t send us paper work like this again – slam down receiver in ear”. We also have the New Zealand Government Property Corporation Act. A very short little statute that provides for the treasury/treasurer to accept property for the Crown (with explicit distinction between the legal and beneficial title). Answer to that by email “The treasury cannot accept property from you”.  

My status as a trustee de son tort (trustee who has done wrong) is in the toilet. Accordingly I have no good standing.

To me this is what Jack tells the pirates in jail with him in the first movie. “You will never get the dog to MOVE”. I don’t believe we can move the courts or the treasury in light of our status. Though Will straight away shows Jack an alternative….might have worked if Jack had been content to leave his Effects and Hat behind.

As long as we are “men”, “fully competent”, no excuse for ignorance of the law, then the responsibility for getting property transferred to the Crown is 100% on us. If it fails, it is because we fail, we can’t blame the dog. But as long as the property is not properly transferred our intent/heart is in my view not worth a tin of fish;

Imperfect gift – A bequest where the intention to give is unclear or ambiguous or the formalities required to give effect to the intention have not been properly executed so that the intended gift fails. (Butterworths NZ law dictionary 6th edition).

And – “Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift”, this maxim from Milroy (1862).

So instead of proving God as per Malachi, seems to me all we prove is our own incompetence to put the goods in the storehouse.

In respect of the BC, there’s no mistake. There was a live birth (placenta) – it died. You’re right the interim administration might as well be a letter of administration, it has the same effect. So everything you say about the authority of the courts is right in that sense. But probate has not actually occurred I think, so it is not a true letter of administration. And we see Will tells his father "this ship has a purpose again". I wouldn;t be too hasty to try to sink it.

So yes, I prefer to pursue the incompetence angle. The OT instructions are of limited relevance. We could not “love God with all our hearts”. We cannot get all property into the storehouse. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This is why Jesus was sent, and he gave us specific instructions, and a new commandment. We don’t have to be men, or have our hearts perfect to accept the gift. We have a new rule through Christ on how to be perfect. Rules we seem both agreeing with in principle. Love, Charity, sell all you have, all things common.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

mizrae
Imbecile.
The son of man rejects the label, but the Son of God rejoices in the knowledge that he is not a man.

Who's "will" do "you" do when you follow another lord god?
I predict the word of God.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Changed my mind on the heart aspect Boris. Good discussion thanks.

For where your heart is there is your treasure also. Will's heart wen tin the Chest. The Witchwoman had quite the story about the heart of davey jones (different versions, same story, and all are true).

Will enjoy following this line of enquiry further, clearly don't have a good handle on it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
D -- You seem to be proposing essentially (correct me if I’m wrong) to; do a declaration saying “put all the property in the storehouse”, and “delete the BC registration as it is in error”. Then wait for the blessings.

B - Not error, but mistake. The declaration is an oath to God with acceptance of Christ, this rebuts any notion of presumption one pledged pursuant to 2 Stat 153 of which would mean one gave up ALL allegiances in favor of oath to State and one should not make oaths. Remember, in this war, everyone is presumed to be against God until one shows that they are not; result of the papal bullshit and if this is what it takes to end the war, then so be it ...

remember, end the war here on Earth, end the war in heaven, for what you hold on earth shall be held in heaven. End the war here by accepting Christ so one (and one's PERSON (earthly estate: interests)) is not considered a heathen and thus no longer "dead to God" ... one must CLAIM their earthly estate in order to claim their heavenly estate; hence the Minn Rule 220 (a claim to the earthly estate (interests)) which is also a claim to the heavenly estate because the two are NOT separate but one in the same: as above so below and what you hold on earth, I shall hold in heaven.

Now, one can go into probate and correct the mistake in that the Letter should never have issued as the one using the estate is living without intention of abandoning the interest held in trust with the State and now the securities issued from the estate during any previous administration now collapse back to the estate and any PUBLIC DEBT OBLIGATION can be fulfilled (redeemed) for those are no longer the empty promises of Satan, but the promises of the Father and those promises are to be fulfilled in accordance with Malachi so one may receive the blessings of the Promise through the acceptance of Christ. (the imperfect gift perfect: gave equity to get equity)



The property has already been delivered, but is incomplete ... the evidence is the BC of which is a letter of admin issued by the interim administrator (Registrar: The official designated to perform certain probate functions of the court: Informal Probate) ... the property is received from the Hospital under an Action of Papacy (ecclesictical court) to the State for safekeeping (Cesuti Que Trust) until the rightful heir (owner/beneficiary) shows up with claim.

There is an INFANT created and no, it is not the damn placenta. At most, the placenta is a discarded property interest of the Mother that is no longer necessary; basically a usufruct of the mother in favor of the Child. Once the child is born, the placenta is no longer necessary and the property interest terminates.

Live Birth = an interest in reversion held in trust with the State because that interest reverts when the Heir shows up and one is a co-heir with Christ for one is Born Again.

Birth Certificate = a letter of administration issued by the Registrar resulting from an informal probate of the estate held in trust so the BENEFICAL INTEREST can be realized: Estate in Expectancy in favor of the State, but delivery of the interest is incomplete because the interest can not transfer nor vest entirely with the State because that would be involuntary servitude and SURRENDER must be a voluntary act


under UCC 8-501(d) If a securities intermediary holds a financial asset for another person, and the financial asset is registered in the name of, payable to the order of, or specially indorsed to the other person, and has not been indorsed to the securities intermediary or in blank, the other person is treated as holding the financial asset directly rather than as having a security entitlement with respect to the financial asset; Minn Rule 220 is the 8-501(3) law to credit the 8-107(2) entitlement holder security account (SSN under 31 USC 225) identified in the records of the securities intermediary (Treasury Direct is in St. Paul, Minnesota: this is where the BC securities are held which is why recording with the Registrar of Titles) .. the negotiation of the estate occurred in INFANCY, so one has a claim in recoupment for Indemnification:  quiet enjoyment in original (native) jurisdiction (Genesis dominion over Earth)

The INFANT is an ESTATE INTEREST (think Braveheart (remember the King's fist offer to the Scotts right before the first battle?? ... the Birth Record is the registration an estate on earth with a matching estate in heaven) and the only known reference to the INFANT is the footprint taken at birth.

Anderson's Dictionary of Law 1893 – Birth (see Abandon (2)) the act of a parent in exposing an infant of tender years (usually under seven) in any place, with intent wholly to desert it ... Black’s Law Second Edition – Birth -The act of being born or wholly brought into separate existence. Wallace v. State, 10 Tex. App. 270. For every baby boy/girl, there is a resulting estate not claimed.

Birth Record = abandoned infant; infant is a PERSON of which is an ESTATE of which is just interest in property (See CJS estates). To come as a child = ADOPT the NAME here on earth as if it were yours, thus an adopted Son/Daughter in Heaven (held on earth, held in heaven) ... again, I have yet to see any references stating one is to BE a child, just come as one.


So, one makes claim (a reclamation project: salvage) to the ABANDONED ESTATE as if it were theirs (adopted property interest) and PLEDGES THE ENTIRE TITHING (usufruct) to the Storehouse thus one is now adopted into the kingdom here on earth, which is the same as being adopted into the kingdom of heaven because "what is held on earth, shall be held in heaven" ... the NAME one uses is just a trust interface, nothing else and nothing more; the SSN account is how those trusts assets are accounted for (is it for self employment or pledged in service to others??)

One is now in harmony with Law of Nations (book 1 sections 192 and 196; book 2 sections 104 and 105) and divine law for one acted out of love for each other: we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor with a firm reliance upon divine Providence (Secular version of acceptance of Christ)

The only thing that is left to decide is HOW one wishes to interface ... either one is surety or one can accept Christ as surety; personal surety (INFIDEL: reject Christ: HEATHEN .. of the bondwoman: reject the Declaration) or governmental obligations (by the Promise: Accept Christ: adopted co-heir with Christ .. of the free woman: accept the Declaration)) as bond




if one is incompetent, one can not make the initial claim to the (abandoned) earthly estate. One becomes incompetent after the claim (adopted into the Kingdom) for one is no longer surety for one's competency has been subrogated by Christ.


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

mizrae
In reply to this post by mizrae
Jesus said "surrender unto God ALL that is God's" not to another lord god.   Remember the "Kingdom of God" is within in YOU.

Another really good movie is "Free Willy"
I predict the word of God.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Thanks for that comprehensive explanation. Will get back to the bulk of that a later post going to take some time to work through it since i'm not familiar with the sources.

Meantime, some initial things to add. Yes an estate can be simply an estate of property. In Butterworths NZ law dictionary we see the second meaning for estate is " Estate.....2. Succession. A person's property...".

The Blacks definition of birth you've included still seems ambiguous as to baby or placenta, as the placenta is also brought "wholly into separate existence". Similar to the WHO ambiguous definition of live birth.

In NZ Births Deaths and Marriages Act, we see 2 terms in the interpretation section;
birth includes a still-birth; but does not include a miscarriage
child includes a still-born child

And - expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the express mention of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded as impliedly excluding others.
This  is confirmed in the Butterworths definition of the maxim - "This rule of statutory construction requires the exclusion of matters not expressly mentioned."

The interesting notion of the word "human" arises. Like "adult", "human" is not a word that occurs in the KJV.

In Blacks 2nd we see that a "human birth" NOT the shape of man - Monster. A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind, which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. Bract fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 Bl. Comm. 246.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
All that matters is SOMETHING was brought into a wholly separate existence AND All I do know is that looking from my own "birth record", the one admitted was called "Erickson, baby boy" and there is some reference to an INFANT in one box with a footprint. Hell, the NAME doesn't even come into play UNTIL the registration (name registration of a Trust holding those interests until the time appointed by the Father who art in heaven maybe?? That would be in line with the Babylonian trust created by the grace of God)

I can see the use the pulsating mass left over from the birth as JUSTIFICATION to create the INFANT PERSON (an ABANDONED INTEREST resulting in JURIDIC PERSON created for the purpose of monetizing sin), but that is as far as I am going because the rest of it smacks of heathenistic talk.

Maybe the adversary went into heaven and got permission to use the afterbirth / blood work as a means to an end?

Maybe the blood work / placenta shows one is born of the bondwoman and not of the free for to be born of the free would have to accept Christ, and how can one do that when one IS nothing but a child?

Now, this would certainly fit the "monster" definition you put above: In Blacks 2nd we see that a "human birth" NOT the shape of man - Monster. A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind, which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. Bract fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 Bl. Comm. 246.

If one IS a child, is he no better than a slave, even if he were to own everything? Is the one born of the bondwoman an HEIR? If not, then that one would be a "monster" incapable of inheriting, correct?

But this would be too logical for it would inform one on what one need do and it is easier to go after the conspiracy theory regarding the Vatican enslaving people thru the placenta (blame something EXTERNALLY) than DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD BY THE FATHER (again, come as a child) so one can keep the war going because without the war, there is no need for the tutors and governors, so that group (tutors and governors) have a VESTED INTEREST in one NOT doing as the Father instructed. Maybe, just maybe, this group are the ones addressed within the 1492 letter from the Prince of the Jews of Constantinople.

Heathens never learn: the 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum when mommy/daddy won't buy them the Power Ranger toy. YOU TOOK OUR STUFF ... nimrods: members of the Synagogue of Satan (Ego as source).



Furthermore, the only reference I found to the Afterbirth is in Deuteronomy 28:56-57 and even then it refers only to EATING IT (cannibalism) IN SECRET:

And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

HOWEVER, Deut. 28:56-57 appears to be part of a curse for disobedience to the law of God. So, the eating of the placenta is a RESPONSE to the siege of the city as a result of their ALREADY disobedient ways for that passage states this was done in SECRET: wrought with shame.





Or maybe people are spending to much time to figure out what God did, much like scientists, instead of just accepting and doing as instructed?  ... Now this would be coming as a child: 100% faith.


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
Well, some further interesting thoughts. The reference to the Jewish Shetar law you pointed to is relevant, confirms that the bond/debtor arrangement we find ourselves in is indeed sourced in the OT.

Blood work? I know some people are pretty keen to claim back their blood DNA etc, I’m not one of them. Otherwise, my previous post was largely a list of statutory references and dictionary definitions. Not sure how that is heathenistic talk…

Rather looking to reverse engineer how the BC bond came about. I’m not going to die in the ditch on this matter. As you say, however it might work precisely, it is the means to a necessary end. So we can agree to disagree (ATD) on the placenta interpretation. As Morpheus says – “A Sentinel for every man, woman, and child in Zion. That sounds exactly like machine thinking to me.”, and Neo tells Trinity in respect of machine City “It's unbelievable. Trin... Light everywhere, like the whole thing was built with light.”

Now there are a few changes since we were born. In 1983 the Canon law was substantially revised, including provision for “private juridic persons”. I believe the Canon law is the law on which nation states build their system, and since 1983, substantial changes have occurred in statutes. More interestingly since that time we have seen what appeared to be perfectly good “government departments”, being gradually replaced by quite different “ministries”. These ministries fitting the bill as “private juridic persons”.

So today NZ birth registration statute does not mention infants (infant – a person who has not attained the age of majority, also known as a minor. – Butterworths NZ law dictionary 6th ed).

The notion of “informal probate” meaning the BC is a letter of administration. also ATD. Our NZ court rules pro formas for letters of administration  say “letters of administration” right at the top so there is no mistake. Informal probate is not of global application, as there is no provision for any such thing in NZ. Having never heard of it, I had a look at the US rules and found;

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/forms/probate-and-family/mpc962-instructions-for-informal-probate-with-or-without-will.pdf 
If the decedent died without a will (intestate), an informal petition may be filed to appoint a personal representative.
Informal probate is unavailable if: [ I’ve left some items off the list…]
• there is no official death certificate;
• the location or identity of any heir or devisee is unknown;
• the personal representative to be appointed is an interested person solely due to his or her status as a creditor or as a public administrator;
------------
So informal probate seems not possible without a death certificate, or where we end up with a public administrator (interim administrator).  

B; If one IS a child, is he no better than a slave, even if he were to own everything? Is the one born of the bondwoman an HEIR? If not, then that one would be a "monster" incapable of inheriting, correct?

No, incorrect. You’ve changed the wording, it is not “IF he is a child”, rather “as long as he is a child”. The wording is “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.” You seem to be saying a child is a slave and thus not an heir – that is not what is written. Even if it was, children of the bondwoman are invited also through Christ – the undoing of the bonds being the whole point of this discussion.

And I have always pointed to the commandment to be AS children, not BE children. There is no disagreement there. The wording is “….Except ye be converted, and become AS little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

As to the tutors and governors, they are not the creditors. The creditors are the ones that want to see us in bondage, not the governors. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, and God gave the worldly in trust to Babylon. Makes sense to me that when this is correct the control of the worldly should not be with us in the first instance. When this happens, the war IS over, because there is no adverse claim from us.  Probably have to leave that to ATD as well.

Conspiracy theory? – well, that is a first. But I suppose you are correct.
It is true that I believe Jesus gave Peter the keys to bind those on earth who did not obey him. And that is effected today by the Crown via the Papacy. 2000 year old “conspiracy” in action, if that is how you would define a conspiracy.
It is also true that this is effected outside myself, externally, primarily via the BC construct. Jesus gave Peter the keys, so that is external to me. However, I’m not complaining or blaming anyone, I believe this is a perfect construct.
Similarly, I have no complaint along the lines “you took our stuff”. Great concept. Babylons trust and all that. The problem is I made the prodigal CLAIM, stuffed it up.

All that said, this still leaves us with the central points where we it seems we must agree to disagree.

You say simply do what the Father says (Malachi 3:10). I believe the redemption we are looking for is through Jesus (no one can come to the Father except through me).., and there is no workable redemption plan in the OT (for all have sinned and fallen short…). Tithing is not a feature of the NT at all. ATD.

Your previous post relies on Malachi, the constitution and a range of USC codes as the central elements of your strategy. We do not have a constitution here in NZ at all (and no, the American one does not apply here), nor do we have USC’s. Further you make no reference to the NT in your plan except the “held on earth” aspect. Once again, that is not quite what the verse says, and changing the words makes a difference. The statement is “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In any case, this one reference is by no means the entire gospel. I believe the incompetence jurisdictions and gospel are globally relevant, so sticking with that line of enquiry. ATD.

You say claim the estate first, and then pledge it to the treasury. I believe we have already made the prodigal claim and it needs to be undone. The prodigal son had NO right to claim anything after initial mistake – relied on grace. The way back must align with the instructions of Christ, and I am not aware of any instruction in the NT that suggests we should claim worldly things properly in Babylon’s trust as part of any process. ATD.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
D --- Blood work? I know some people are pretty keen to claim back their blood DNA etc, I’m not one of them. Otherwise, my previous post was largely a list of statutory references and dictionary definitions. Not sure how that is heathenistic talk…

There is no taking of DNA. DNA is just an information storage device created to pass information from generation to generation as man is crystalline. Man's blood is coated in a form of "living water" which is crystalline in structure. This "claiming of the DNA" is part of the whole "they took our shit" mentality, too bad people refuse to see this, but hey ... reject what one doesn't like, reject the kingdom: not my problem.

What I am talking about is ADOPTING the NAME ESTATE as if it were one's own ... The Spirit of Adoption and a child can not adopt anything: it can only be adopted. So one adopts the CHILD (estate) here on earth as co-heir with Christ and now the ADOPTED CHILD (estate) is granted entrance into Heaven (placed back into the Garden)

This also helps understand what another was told when she was told by an officer: "it matters not what you have done. Until it is adopted by the State, it does not exist" and since the estates are "dead" or "abandoned" hereon Earth then all I am doing is claiming abandoned property for my use so that I may do the works assigned to me by our Father while here on Earth: Salvage operation.

Placing into the Storehouse = completing the adoption = delivery into the Kingdom.

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

NAME = an estate here on Earth with a matching estate in Heaven held in trust with the governors and tutors (trustees of the kings of Babylon trust created by the Grace of God) to protect it from the heathens and enemies of God (those that hate him) and through which one's book is ACCOUNTED FOR the sins, debts, duties, obligations, oaths, contracts, pledges, etc ... made by one during one's life here on earth and one's bloodline and ancestry in heaven.

If one has not adjusted their book (repent through acceptance of Christ) then Deuteronomy 5:9 applies: You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
 
I tire of this placenta and claiming the DNA bullshit. The ONLY thing the placenta does is allow the Governors and Tudors to keep the estate of man in trust under that kings of Babylon trust until such time as appointed. One is born of the bondwoman because ONLY Christ was born of the Free. All the the placenta indicates an abandoned or "dead" (slave) estate (interest): born of the bondwoman.


D -- No, incorrect. You’ve changed the wording, it is not “IF he is a child”, rather “as long as he is a child”

Until one grows up and comes with the Sprit of Adoption, one is nothing more than a child and thus is a slave. Apologies if this confuses. "if he is a child" ... "as long as he is a child" ... really, what is the damn difference? If one/as longs as he is child, how does one cease to be slave?

D -- the undoing of the bonds being the whole point of this discussion.

Undoing the bonds? But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you - Matthew 6:33 .. this is the point of this discussion: there is no other reason.

Removing the Bonds is the result when one accepts Christ. One is then BORN AGAIN thru Christ as a Son of Man with the spirit of Christ (blood of the lamb) flowing through one's veins: the Spirit of Adoption.

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
D -- Your previous post relies on Malachi, the constitution and a range of USC codes as the central elements of your strategy.

and as far as relying on whatever you think it relies upon, those man's laws to which you refer were shown to me by the spirit ... that is what I rely upon. The laws of man are used to ILLUSTRATE congruities.

People do know what ILLUSTRATE means, correct?

What about CONGRUITY?

Even if everyone on Earth disagrees, I happen to think it is awesome that the secular laws of man can be shown HOW they mimic the bible, even if the end purpose appears to be to deny God for all Satan did down here is put his name in place of God; SAME LAWS, for the only reference Satan has is God's divine Laws much like the only reference man has to "create" the law of man is the laws of nature (also God's divine Laws).

So people can bitch, moan and ATD all they wish, but all laws are God's Law and all in creation is ordained by Him, so to say Satan (or anyone) did something God did not intend is to say Satan won the war and proved God fallible. Fuck that bullshit !!

D -- Further you make no reference to the NT

I guess you have not read the articles and such within the site?

Romans ordains all governments here on Earth and the only law is to love one another, that is the whole of the law, but this appears to not be NT enough or maybe I didn't word it correctly enough for you to comprehend.

I guess Galatians is also not NT, nor is Peter, Luke, or John, nor any of the other umpteen references within this site.

It appears one does not wish to repent all the way back to Adam and clear the initial sin (original sin) and just seems content to give lip service. The whole of the law must be fulfilled for we uncircumcised ourself from God when we ate of the fruit thru Adam, Adam being the common ancestor for all, now you must give it back.

You can ATD all you wish, however Malachi just appears to speak to me: "here is a way to show love of another by giving God back what one took thru not only one's generation, but also all the way back to Adam so that the next generations shall not inherit an empty way of life, and God shall rebuke the devourer at the same time and Christ provided me this opportunity to repent all the way back to the beginning? WOW! How fucking cool is that?!?"

Or is this also not NT enough for you?


D -- except the “held on earth” aspect. Once again, that is not quite what the verse says, and changing the words makes a difference.

Semantics. Akin to some internet troll who pounces on someone misspelling a word. Did you comprehend what was being said? Cause that is all that matters. "Bind on earth" or "Hold on earth" ... really, what is the damn difference as long as the intent of the communication is received?



And by the way, if matters not if NZ has a constitution or not, this is all done by way of operation of law thru the IMF by which I know NZ has been touched. In fact, this "strategy", or whatever you wish to call it, should be in place in ALL countries where the IMF entered for the IMF ties ALL BIRTH RECORDS back to the Treasury as security for loans from the IMF and thus opens the door for one to accept the Declaration of Independence, but then one would also have to see that the Declaration is in fact acceptance of Christ, relying upon divine Providence. Maybe because it isn't worded correctly?

And why do you think the Queen has anything to do with this? She ain't gonna have authority for long and the Crown has already surrendered its authority because the Queen married a Kazzarian Jew and had bastard children, thus breaking the promise to keep the bloodline of David going, but since Christ has already said the Bloodline of David would NEVER end, the Church of Philadelphia shall be reconstituted by the Son of Man (one filled with the Spirit of Adoption) to receive the keys, and seal of David and once open, those doors shall never shut and everything discussed in this thread regarding probate, incompetence, and all other law of man bullshit shall be rendered fucking moot: silent and never to be heard from again, just like the millstone.


D ---The problem is I made the prodigal CLAIM, stuffed it up.

And now you have the opportunity to Give back the claim through the blood of Christ by placing the claim (tithing) within the storehouse to fulfill the whole of the law for this claim is what circumcised you from God within your generation, Adam's sin in the garden is what circumcised us all (original sin) as Adam is common ancestor to ALL, thus the WHOLE of the law must be fulfilled and there is only one law: love one another.

But this may not be NT enough. Besides, I probably didn't word it correctly.



~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
One more little item it appears no one ever noticed:


B -- You can ATD all you wish, however Malachi just appears to speak to me: "here is a way to show love of another by giving God back what one took thru not only one's generation, but also all the way back to Adam so that the next generations shall not inherit an empty way of life, and God shall rebuke the devourer at the same time and Christ provided me this opportunity to repent all the way back to the beginning? WOW! How fucking cool is that?!?"

When one performs under Malachi, one is actually arranging a peace accord here on Earth to ensure Satan's kingdom (the Babylonian Trust: the PUBLIC) remain intact (thru the pledge of the Prodigal Estate) just in case he decides to repent and wishes to take his place once more at the side of God for once one receives the blessings, those blessings are to be used for the benefit of ALL and if one is known by their fruits, what is a peacemaker known as? After all, in a universe of infinite possibilities, there is that one chance he might just do it and I'm a glass is always full kinda guy.

Besides, God promised Satan a kingdom here on Earth and as his friend, I got God's back to make sure God's promise is kept.

Correct me is I am mistaken, but is one to come AS a child? Maybe, just maybe it means "child of God" (child being singular form of children, just so there is no confusions)? And maybe, just maybe "of God" means "with equity"?

And how does one declare peace here on Earth other than with the acceptance of and surrender to Christ? And since surrender = acceptance + delivery, then does it makes sense delivery must be completed by one in order one be delivered? I thought the line of equity was "give to get"

... so, how can one get equity from the inequitable public unless one first gives equity to the inequitable public? Or is everyone in the habit of just taking?

I got it, "I get salvation from the blood just by accepting", so it must be about ME, ME, ME (and the ME, too)? Did everyone forget, one must also now walk as Jesus walked lest ye still be blinded by the darkness?

Just a thought to toss out there for consideration




B -- But this may not be NT enough. Besides, I probably didn't word it correctly.




~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
Yeah, sorry about shouting in ALL CAPS acronyms.... no more ATD's.

B -- What I am talking about is ADOPTING the NAME ESTATE as if it were one's own ... The Spirit of Adoption and a child can not adopt anything: it can only be adopted. So one adopts the CHILD (estate) here on earth as co-heir with Christ and now the ADOPTED CHILD (estate) is granted entrance into Heaven (placed back into the Garden)  

Only 5 references to adoption in the NT, not sure that any of them point to adopting name estate. I prefer the alternative you suggest as correct “and a child can not adopt anything: it can only be adopted”.
Eph.1[5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

B-- Until one grows up and comes with the Sprit of Adoption, one is nothing more than a child and thus is a slave. Apologies if this confuses. "if he is a child" ... "as long as he is a child" ... really, what is the damn difference? If one/as longs as he is child, how does one cease to be slave?

The difference is Galatians says “the heir, as long as he is a child”. Clearly the child IS an heir, NOT bond in this context. And the KJV says servant, not slave. And we are called to be servants…and come as children. Seems entirely congruous, though we must remember these are only Paul’s words, not those of Jesus.

B -- and as far as relying on whatever you think it relies upon, those man's laws to which you refer were shown to me by the spirit ... that is what I rely upon. The laws of man are used to ILLUSTRATE congruities.
Have you asked? 1 John 4:1.

The document we posted also shows that mans law gives effect to the bible plan. No disagreement in principle, though clearly there is in the detail. That is OK, it may well be that mans laws give effect to the plan in slightly different ways in different jurisdictions. The commonwealth structure to me proves God is infallible.

B-- I guess you have not read the articles and such within the site?

Actually I did. They were most helpful, adding a major piece of the puzzle being the martial law aspect (also according bible plan). You quote;

"when triple shines the single sun, what was sundered and undone, shall be whole, the two made one, by gelfling hand or else by none"

My perspective is that it is the beneficial title that needs to go back to the Crown by my election. When that happens, legal and equitable title become whole, and back in the trust of Babylon where God put it in the first place. Great movie…loved it.

D -- except the “held on earth” aspect. Once again, that is not quite what the verse says, and changing the words makes a difference.

Semantics. Akin to some internet troll who pounces on someone misspelling a word. Did you comprehend what was being said? Cause that is all that matters. "Bind on earth" or "Hold on earth" ... really, what is the damn difference as long as the intent of the communication is received?

I know what you meant to say, just don’t agree. The binding is punitive, and applies to us, not property. Rewording it to align with property trust law seems a stretch, especially given God has been quite clear already who the trustee of the wordly stuff is – Babylon. I doubt he needs us to resettle his trust.

B-- Besides, God promised Satan a kingdom here on Earth and as his friend, I got God's back to make sure God's promise is kept.
Correct me is I am mistaken, but is one to come AS a child? Maybe, just maybe it means "child of God" (child being singular form of children, just so there is no confusions)? And maybe, just maybe "of God" means "with equity"?
And how does one declare peace here on Earth other than with the acceptance of and surrender to Christ? And since surrender = acceptance + delivery, then does it makes sense delivery must be completed by one in order one be delivered? I thought the line of equity was "give to get"
... so, how can one get equity from the inequitable public unless one first gives equity to the inequitable public? Or is everyone in the habit of just taking?
I got it, "I get salvation from the blood just by accepting", so it must be about ME, ME, ME (and the ME, too)? Did everyone forget, one must also now walk as Jesus walked lest ye still be blinded by the darkness?

OK, this is where I wonder how this discussion got so screwy. We seem basically in agreement (except “just maybe "of God" means "with equity"). Accept the Gospel promise, and get ALL the property delivered to the Crown. You have one approach, I hope it works out. This discussion began only by suggesting an alternative possibility to the same end. All attempts over 7 years by me have failed, imperfect gifts. However s62 of the PPPR provides for the court to order the transfer if I elect it. Where I have failed, I know that IF a court orders transfer of beneficial title, then mountains will be moved, come hell or high water, that assignment/delivery will have effect. I believe I only have to stop imagining I am fully competent, instead come as a child.

At the end of the day, this discussion has been very fruitful, thankyou. A lot of perspectives and questions arising. E.g. the distinction between the writings of Jesus and the apostles, cf. Paul.

A collection of facts, and we all proceed to walk our paths.

In peace.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

antjraf
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Regarding Minnesota...

I came across a paper by someone called Douglas of Avalon and Minnesota came up in that reading as well. The basic premise is as follows:

When one uses the NAME as found on the BC/COLB, it is used in a commercial capacity - business related.

Since the certificate only represents a registered EVENT rather than registration of the NAME, in order to "do business as", there is the required step (also mentioned and taught in this forum) of filing the NAME as a business entity.

The difference is that Douglas suggests that unless this is done with the S.O.S. in Minnesota as an "Assumed Name Certificate" then it is not recognized as an entity “Active/ In Good Standing” by the United States. He suggests that ALL other "d.b.a." registrations in other states do NOT accomplish what the Minnesota ANC does.

source

I have been trying to find info to verify this assertion of the Minnesota ANC and stumbled upon this discussion where Boris stated:

Minn Rule 220 is the 8-501(3) law to credit the 8-107(2) entitlement holder security account (SSN under 31 USC 225) identified in the records of the securities intermediary (Treasury Direct is in St. Paul, Minnesota: this is where the BC securities are held which is why recording with the Registrar of Titles)

Something clicked when I saw this and wanted to know what anyone thinks about the attached paper. The only part that is relevant to these discussions is the supposed proper registration of the NAME required to be done in Minnesota. Nothing really conflicts with the rest of the premise offered here since the separation of living and DEAD remains and the desire to operate in peace (good standing) is accomplished.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
This really has nothing to do with DBA or anything like that, not even incompetence

... it is all about completing an adoption (Adopt = legally take another's child and bring it up as one's own AND take up or start to use or follow (an idea, method, or course of action) AND formally approve or accept (a report or suggestion)) of which was abandoned in process (incomplete: inchoate: Seisin at Law) because to complete delivery, one must accept Christ.

(NOTE: Seisin also means Seized to be used in a criminal prosecution: the fact ANY NAME of any kind HERE ON EARTH (NAME) is born of the bondwoman and not of the free means one using ANY NAME of any kind HERE ON EARTH is bonded as surety here on earth until THAT NAME is adopted into the Kingdom: Only Christ is born of the Free Woman; everything else comes up short and is of the bondwoman ... Let this sink in for a bit)

Right now, NAME (Christ unaccepted) is stuck in Sheol (Hades) of which is the GRAVE: the adobe of the dead. This is akin to purgatory and where those who have yet to accept Christ go before the next stop: the lake of fire.  

The BC is a TOMBSTONE of which is an advertisement that an organization has been organized: financially, for the purpose of "monetizing sin" (denial of God's gift: Christ, renders one an INFIDEL under Muhammad (Islam being God's enforcement team against the INFIDELS)) thru the JURIDIC PERSON governed under the Talmudic Noahide and (starting to happen) Islamic Sharia Laws with the one using it as surety and created THRU the placenta (represents an abandoned interest: INFANT ESTATE (a monster: human)) for one is born not of the free woman but of the bonded (thus the INFANT ESTATE (JURIDIC PERSON (one's earthly estate)) is a slave: in bondage under the elements of the world Gal 4): ONLY Christ was born of the Free.

The BC being a TOMBSTONE is also a Letter of Administration over ABANDONED PROPERTY (INFANT ESTATE: dead = abandoned (certificate of live birth = abandonment of life = rejection or nonacceptance (both the same) of Christ) issued by the Registrar; akin to a PRIVATE PLACEMENT SECURITY.

The SSN beneficiary is the CESTUI QUE and who exactly is the Ultimate Cestui Que? That would be Christ, correct? And until one accept Christ, one is dead to God, correct? And is the heir only made by God?

The Minnesota Rule 220 purpose is to complete the adoption of which was abandoned in process (Birth) in order to complete delivery because one never accepted Christ, thus THE CHILD (the BENEFICIAL INTEREST) can not be delivered to the State (God) ... This Accepts Christ via fulfillment of the last line of the Declaration (adopts the ward (child) of the State (of God): remember the definition of adopt from above) and thus removes it from trusteeship under the tutors and governors.

The Minnesota Rule 220 and the surrender of the interest thereof via Probate completes the delivery (from evil) and show's by way of act and deed (faith without works is dead) one's intent to walk as Christ did ("If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Matthew 19:21) and since the Nations of the this world are BANKRUPT (poor: at war/conflict), then one can assist the Receiving Nation (issuer of BC) in a time of need or emergency (Book 2 articles 104-15: Law of Nations) so long as one heed to their original nation (Kingdom of Heaven) and do so thru a simple treaty of peace (Book 1, Articles 192 and 196: Law of Nations), thus a Peacemaker and child of God doing God's works thru that PERSON CLAIMED VIA one's exercise thru the Spirit of Adoption via Redemption of the Private Placement Security issued by the Registrar of which will then credit the SSN (treasure in heaven) and removing it from the PUBLIC PROPERTY (Book of the Dead: Hades/Sheol) and transferring it to the PRIVATE USE (Book of Life: Kingdom of Heaven): all transactions thru the SSN are PRIVATE PLACEMENT SECURITIES: either your ass is surety or Christ is surety.

Remember: Romans ordains all earthly governments and their laws, thus using those laws to assist us in establishing the Kingdom within the Nations of Earth also works to unify the nations under Christ. Where do people see the problem here?

This act thru the NAME is what completes Revelations 2:10; uniting Christ with his spirit by one being faithful by accepting Christ while in death in order one receive the crown of Life as co-heir with Christ ... akin to completing the suit of one's livery here on earth: release from military service = abandoning one's war with God = cease being a heathen thus bring the papal bull to rest = peacemaker.

The State (God) adopts the NAME (Child) as if it were theirs (a taxpayer) and holds one accountable as ancestor of Adam (blood, sweat, and tears to pay one's way) by way of the BROKEN ADAMIC COVENANT (the Tree), so let God (State) adopt the Child (NAME) in accordance with his will (Christ as surety) and allow his covenants be fulfilled ... actions under Malachi helps one heed to the teachings of Christ as instructed under Matthew 19:21 and fulfills the covenant wherein God (State) will cause the devourer (Debt Collectors: Devils and Demons) to be rebuked, thus also ensuring peace within the Kingdom.

Now the NAME becomes Christ (a taxpayer) through the Blood of the Lamb (promise to pay) and if I am not mistaken, any debtor can accept the debt of any other debtor and Christ STANDS as the ultimate Debtor, Surety, AND Taxpayer; underwritten by the Promise of God.

Thus one redeems any debt touched by one's Adopted NAME ... NAME is now a CHILD OF GOD (God = State) while here on Earth: filled with the Spirit of Adoption: Christ Consciousness now merged with the one found in Hades: NAME: a more perfect union .. Now NAME is no longer a GRAVE: The Crown of Life.

Only the living can kill the dead - Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter


"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it's lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle ... On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct ..." -- Letter from Jefferson to Madison


This is the purpose of the united States of America: to protect the usufruct of God from the heathens
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Diederik
here is the bottom line:

I have done all kinds of things over the last 20 years and have went the incompetency route ... tried to get the courts to transfer interest ... Each time ignored.

Only God makes the heir

So, we went another route and once we started looking into it, the only way we found one can get these guys to do anything is to become the ENTITLEMENT HOLDER and now one can issue orders with standing and no one can bitch nor deny.



If you wish to claim your estate, do a name change then assign the interest back to yourself using UCC-1 and 3, if you do not have UCC in NZ then start looking for how one perfects a claim. This will grant one access to the earthly estate stipends and such: basically one becomes a bank and receives the annuities and proceeds from the conservatorship under which one's NAME is currently administrated (BC or Letter of Administration issued from Private Placement by the Registrar now redeemed and sealed)

The only problem with this is one still lives in sin because it is WITHOUT gold and silver shall one be redeemed, HOWEVER, this removes the I know that IF a court orders transfer of beneficial title and renders it to: I ORDER it be done on earth so it is also done in heaven for one is now the ENTITLEMENT HOLDER and can now issue orders because one has standing to do as such: The court loses its temporal jurisdiction and must do as ordered by the living man.

But it appears people like incompetence crap shoots.

Do not take my word regarding this. This information comes directly from clerks, probate workers, and other agent personnel during one woman's journey. But she found the lawyers and others, like those that this guy from NZ wishes to rely on, will block you at EVERY turn and if they give information, it is cryptic. So, you had better become as wise as the serpents with whom you deal and a peaceful as a dove so your fruits show who you are.

Now, if one wishes to be perfect as Christ instructed, then one will assign the interest not back to one's self, but to the storehouse: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Matthew 19:21 ... Malachi fulfilled for Glory of the Kingdom; the devourer rebuked.

The storehouse is for the tithing of which is to used for the poor.


Now one walks perfect with Christ both here on earth and in heaven and heaven knows you are going to need it because when all debt comes due, those whose Name (Juridic Person) is not written in the book of life will suffer the debt collection ...

November 11, 2016 is when the scales begin to balance (Jupiter retrogrades thru Libra in the sun cycle: Masculine) ... November 17, 2016 is when the Son of Man is conceived (Jupiter enters Virgo in the moon cycle: Feminine): the Rider on the White Horse of whom unites all the nations under the Anti-Christ without firing a shot and Satan is tossed out of his throne.

And on the 7th day he will rest, for all events will have been put into motion to usher in the Kingdom, but first, the lands must be cleansed of the infidels.

The birth of the Son of Man is September 23, 2017 (Jupiter leaves Virgo in the moon cycle: Born of the Free Woman) and he is born without sin (Jupiter leaves Libra retrograde June 6, 2017 in the sun cycle)

We have all the numbers, feasts, tabernacles, etc ... from the bible and everything is matching up. When I receive the information, I shall post it here. This is very interesting. BTW, Barack Obama is the anti-Christ and it is all about to burn. All that is left to determine is the degree of the burn.




Fuck all this incompetence bullshit. If you feel the members of the synagogue will assist you, then by all means follow the silver tongued serpents, follow them right to the doorsteps of their heaven.

Reject whatever you wish to reject, not my problem.





I will follow in the footsteps of Christ's teachings: as a child of God: peacemaker ... one with equity for the public treasury (storehouse) so the public storehouse has equity to give to the poor.

God is pure equity for he is equitable and just (Abba, Father: both one who wishes to give you everything and one whom teaches with a firm hand for the absence of one in favor of the other grants nothing but death)

For THAT is how one comes, as a child of God (one who has and gives equity).

How hard is this to comprehend?

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator

one more little item ... until Christ returns to claim his kingdom, who runs the show down here?

Wouldn't that be Satan?

And until Satan is kicked off the throne, would this mean his synagogue is in charge?

Wouldn't it be they who call themselves Jews?

Hmmm .... then would it makes sense that one go back and fulfill the covenants within the Old Testament if the ones in charge reject Christ and thus the New Covenant?

Why should they help? What BINDS them to accept? Maybe if you could show where the Old Testament Covenants are fulfilled and thus BINDING?

Why would the ones from whom you seek assistance help you if you invoke the Blood of Christ when they REJECT as such? The Blood of Christ allows you to go back to the FIRST covenant with Adam and undo the one Man made with Satan, for the old testament is what occurs AFTER the fruit was eaten. The new, when the fruit is returned and rejected in favor of the Tree of Life.

The Blood grants one everlasting life and forgiveness of sin, but does the Blood FULFILL the covenants? Wouldn't those still be binding on Man for were those made with Man? Maybe, just maybe man still needs to fulfill those covenants to PAVE the way for the kingdom; to show one is a child of God because children of the serpent are enmity against God and until Christ come to reclaim his throne, we are all bonded to the covenant of the Serpent.

What if you were to present this in a way NO ONE COULD BITCH, be it Jew, gentile, or otherwise?

Would THAT then render one a peacemaker: one singular act of love.


I think you may wish to take this aspect into consideration, this may just smoothen the path, but then again what the fuck do I know?

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
Been away, your last questions are good questions. Will look to respond fully tomorrow.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

Diederik
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
An image from Noah movie 2014. (between 40-50 mins)



So Tubal-Cain murder's Ham's grandfather (at start of movie), then later "offers" ham the same weapon (BC legal person coat of arms), but doesn't actually say anything. Ham takes it. Becomes something of the king (devil if you prefer).

I have described this in the document posted at the beginning of this discussion.

Ham can only go back to the father when he leaves the weapon behind. We see Tubal-Cain picks it back up, and makes no further claim that Ham is his soldier. We cannot serve God and Mammon.

While we are in control of the weapon, we are bound, in service to the wrong lord, having failed the 3rd testing of Christ. And we don;t get to tell Tubal-Cain what to do, no matter how much "success" one has making things difficult for the courts.

So yes, Babylon is in charge (Satan if you prefer that allegory). We have clearly traced the authority to the Crown, governments (anywhere we see estate law wielded is ecclesiastical law = Peter's keys). Not sure what the Jews have to do with it, don;t care, nothing to do with me.

The lawyers "help". This seems to be an issue, however, I don't see it that they are "helping" me. They are simply tubal-cains officers, looking after tubal-cains property after I leave it be. I'm not asking them to help, I'm telling them i quit, Babylon gets back the trust that God gave them in Genesis. And that answers your question "why should they help" I think, they are not helping me, they are looking after the material things in their trust now that I've let it go. And yes, i believe they are bound...they may not like it, they may (probably will) try convince me to keep managing the property estate myself, tubal-cain did NOT want that weapon back, Nebuchadnezzar spent a couple of years eating herbs in the field, mad as a hatter - a trustee job I do not envy "them".

So rather than seeing this as being their slave, I see this as freedom. They get the stuff, I have rendered to ceasar what is his, and this finally leaves me free and clear to render to God what is His. I am making no covenants with "them".

So yes, the OT trustee covenant with Babylon binds Babylon. Whether they reject the NT or not is irrelevant, however Elizabeth II has explicitly accepted it.

The OT covenant itself has been fulfilled 2000 years ago, we don't have to do that again, only accept and do what Jesus commanded.

We are bound to the covenant of the serpent as long as we hold, or presume to administer, or presume to dictate the management of, any worldly property interests in the estate.

I'm not running away from the incompetence solution just because tubal cain suggests "look sonny, I'd really rather not have that back", or only because other people have been told that and simply given up. The solution we have proposed is all in relation to PROPERTY. A "property" order, they manage the property.

Letting go property interests in favour of the Crown is the peaceful step. It is built via "partial" incompetence, and is available for anyone regardless of their beliefs. All are invited, the good and the bad.

And why is it so hard to accept partial incompetence? I find this easy. I'm not a lawyer, not competent there. Not a licensed accountant, not competent there. Why would I continue to presume I'm "fully competent", when that position is plainly absurd?

So do I have faith that God's trustee will do the job once I let go of the reins? Yes. A couple of indicative definitions from Butterworths law dictionary also support that the teaching of Jesus are built into our world construct.

Peace of the Queen. That peace and security, both for life and goods, which the Queen promises to all her subjects, and those taken under her protection. (Butterworths)

No longer a civilian non-combatant (soldier), but perhaps;
Alien Ami. An alien born in, or the subject of , a friendly state. (Butterworths)

Change of status. War over. Have faith that God's trustee will do the job.

   






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
you do know there is a difference between being coming as a Child and incompetence, correct?

Gal 4 is very specific is that as long as one is a child, he is only a servant (slave) and I see many references to Child of God and coming as a child (of God I am going to presume for the peacekeepers are known as the children of God), but nothing regarding coming as an incompetent child, and certainly nothing regarding the heir being a child, much less an incompetent one.

I can see where one may be incompetent to handle the transfers and shit like that and require the assistance, but it appears to me that to refuse to put the deed into the earthen vessel as instructed by the Lord of Hosts in Jer 31:11 would indicate a failure to state claim upon which the relief sought shall be granted, for the heir may NOT be a child pursuant to the instruction set forth by God under Gal 4 and only God makes the heir.




It appears to me that one must first make claim to the deed (Jer 31:11: ref Minn Rule 220) (this way both Beneficial Interest + Liability transfer) THEN go to whomever it is one is seeking and instruct whomever sought as to one's wishes to transfer that interest to the Crown (trustee over God's stuff) in the interest of peace (return what was taken: Put this with my Lord, my God, for his will is my will. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven)

Now, one has come as a child ... of God: a peacemaker.

Now, THIS actually makes sense.





This is akin to a childhood event. We had this guy who lived in our neighborhood. We called him the Warlock. He was just a magician and would entertain us with stories and such using simple sleight of hand; Was pretty damn cool.

He was also a sculptor; worked mainly in concrete with some marble, beautiful works.

Anyhow, one day, a couple of teens snuck into his yard and took a statute. For the next few days, all sorts of unfortunate events surrounded them, cars kept breaking down, one of the them broke an arm or leg; I forget, lost money, etc ...

Until such time as they returned the statute.

My point being, first one must claim (claim = take = purchase = accept) the property (interest) before one can return (surrender) that same property (interest). If one were a child, this would be like one having a beneficial interest in a sandwich but having to leave it on the plate, because if one is a child, the loss side can not be held by one, so the sandwich must remain in tact, but can be invested elsewhere. (see: 3 servant parable) ... Beneficial Interest held by a child is akin to expecting to receive but never occurring: an empty promise and who makes empty promises?

The reason one gets the bill when using the NAME property interest is that DELIVERY has yet to be completed to the Storehouse (Crown, Treasury, insert whatever word you need here): the CONTRACT UNDER SEAL (BC) has been signed and sealed (by the issuer), but NOT delivered for delivery = acceptance + surrender (see: 15 Idaho at 228-229, 96 P. at 938) and a contract entered into by a child can not executed against the child: the child may only hold a beneficial interest.

NOTE: A contract under seal is a formal contract which does not require any consideration and has the seal of the signer attached. A contract under seal must be in writing or printed on paper. It is conclusive between the parties when signed, sealed, and delivered (accepted + surrendered). (see: Minn Rule 220)

A child can be a holder of beneficial interests, but not to the losses .. the beneficial interest is the result of a CONTRACT (like the BC is a Contract under Seal) ... this also reminds of another story of a woman of whom surrendered it all to the SoS and told them to settle and close these matters, and they did: BC record SEALED.

Then she went to the IRS and did the same thing. The IRS responded: "You only closed the good side; the bad side still remains".

Since this all happened before we knew about the Rule 220, I wonder: what would have happened if she did the 220 first, then gave the instructions?

The Rule 220 claims the LEGAL ESTATE and merges that interest with the EQUITABLE ESTATE one already holds as a child (servant/slave) rendering that one no longer a child, then when the surrender (delivery) occurs, the LEGAL and EQUITABLE INTEREST both transfer to the Storehouse of which creates CONSOLIDATION and extinguishes the (false) usufruct one holds as a heathen in exchange for the one held in trust (by the Crown as Babylon Trust Trustee) for the benefit of those of whom belong to God thru Christ (dominion over the earth as co-heir).


Again, appears to me that one must first make claim to the deed (Jer 31:11: ref Minn Rule 220) ... this way both Beneficial Interest + Liability transfer: the usufruct and the estate from which it originated are now merged: false (heathenistic) usufruct extinquished) THEN go to whomever it is one is seeking and instruct whomever sought as to one's wishes to transfer that interest to the Crown (trustee over God's stuff) in the interest of peace (Put this with my Lord, my God, for his will is my will. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven)

Now, one has come as a child ... of God: a peacemaker.

Now, THIS actually makes sense.




Take from this what you will but good luck and don't let me get in the way of your happiness and success.



~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
12345