The screen shot of Deuteronomy 6:16 and Malachi 3:14 3:10 did not format here but are in the PDF link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Ahi7Mw7ha_Rk1udzc5aHR6UWs/view?usp=sharingB--- I read this and it is exactly what has been shown within the site.
D--- Yes agreed on the end objective of the beneficial title being returned to the Crown. The way, not so much.
B--- Everything is already set-up ... HOWEVER, in am led to believe, there is one thing missing from the writing offered: reference to Malachi 3:10, for the New Testament states "the whole of the law must be fulfilled" for in taking out inheritance before the time appointed by the Father, we actually become circumcised from the Father. Galatians states this very clearly.
D--- Thanks for pointing this out, these last few pages of the old testatment are relevant, especially 3:8-10
B--- Now that Christ died for our sins, we can now go back to the ORIGINAL sin: the doubt we had that both the word and world of our Father was not perfect, of which culminates in the eating of the forbidden fruit of which results in the Genesis 3 curse upon man: judging self and others.
B--- The fruit as not offered by the Father, but by the serpent: a test of the ego as EVE = EGO.
Malachi 3:10 states one is to place ALL of the tithing into the storehouse ... in Moses day, it was the "gleaning of the fields" (usufruct) and since we are circumcised for claiming our inheritance before that appointed time,
D--- Could be you’re right, I don’t really follow this? How is it that claiming inheritance =circumcision? The uncircumcised gentiles are also under the law. Our problem is that we are not yet free, and Paul is talking here to those who are. Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
B--- then Galatians reminds us in 5:3 that "If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses."
D--- While it is true that looking to justify ourselves under law in this way is mistaken, it makes no difference whether we are circumcised or not .
Galatians 6:14-15 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
B--- So, the solution is to surrender what we took from our Father in the Garden (the usufruct of the forbidden tree)
B--- and then, as Malachi instructs, CHALLENGE OUR FATHER and this is the ONLY place in the bible wherein our Father ASKS us to CHALLENGE HIM for the blessings of the NEW COVENANT.
D--- Don’t agree with this. Not sure what bible version this comes from, but it is inconsistent. The second testing of Jesus he says do not tempt the Lord your God (from Deuteronomy). And in Malachi 3:10, a different word is used. Similar, but not the same. Compare;
Deuteronomy 6:16 Ye shall not tempt 5254 8762 the LORD 3068 your God
Malachi 3:14 3:10 Bring 935 8685 ye all the tithes 4643 into the storehouse 214, that there may be meat 2964 in mine house 1004, and prove 974 8798 me now herewith 2063, saith 559 8804 the LORD 3068 of hosts 6635, if I will not open 6605 8799 you the windows 699 of heaven 8064, and pour you out 7324 8689 a blessing 1293, that [there shall] not [be room] enough 1767 [to receive it].(pour...: Heb. empty out)
D--- And the construction of 3:10 is also clear enough. He tells the people to do something “bring ye all tithes”, that the is the first action. The next action is God opening the windows and pouring out blessings. “Prove me now herewith”, I would read as , “when you have done what I tell you, have faith, watch and see if I don’t respond as I promise”. He’s not telling us we have to take any other steps. This is quite different from challenging or tempting God. The second testing of Jesus makes it clear we should not presume to force God’ hand.
B--- And for what exactly are we challenging our Father??
STATUS CHECK ... in United States is would be the NATIONALLITY as a NATIVE of the State of the union in which you were born ... see Government Printing Manual 5.23. Remember, Treaty of Paris of 1783 RECOGNIZES the original 13 colonies as Nations, Florida is done by way of Adams - Onis Treaty (a land grant from the Pope to United States of the Union), the rest emanate out of the Northwest Territory (a trust created from the excess lands (estates: territories) acquired by the colonies after their formation), which is why one must do the Minnesota Rule 220 affidavit (show age of majority and establish an "ownership interest" so you have something to surrender)
D--- We have all been given an estate interest to surrender already, I’ve never encountered any official denying that the beneficial interest in the legal person is “mine”....despite best efforts!
B--- Now, one should be able to CHALLENGE for the nationality by initiating a SURRENDER to the TREASURY then moving to court to issue a DECLATORY JUDGMENT recognizing one as a NATIONAL and the SSN bonding you as surety should just dissolve away from inception. The TRANSFER and ASSIGNMENT of the usufruct (beneficial ownership) is the "payment" to release one from military service: remember: Seisin in law: "Livery" (or delivery) by "seisin in law" occurred when the parties to the transaction went within sight of the land to be conveyed and the transferor declared to the recipient that possession had been granted. This constituted however only an incomplete conveyance.
AND 'to sue one's livery' refers to the formal recognition of a noble's majority, in exchange of payment, for conferring the powers attached to his title, and thereby freeing him from dependence as a ward.
D--- This approach is not humbling yourself as a little child. We are still bond. I have tried this transfer and assignment, it did not work, and I can see why. Children do not execute their own conveyances, children are not in military service. Children are not under the law.
The property order (for those partially incompetent like children) stops all proceedings dead in their tracks;
57 Proceedings, execution, etc, not to proceed without leave of court
Competent lawyers are appointed by the court for the best interest of the incompetent S67 explicitly provides for beneficial interest to be assigned away. This is what you are trying to do. Check the equivalent rules in your jurisdiction, you may find it fits your philosophy perfectly.
B--- "to sue one's livery" would be to initiate a suit wherein one is FORECLOSING upon one's INTEREST (Minnesota rule 220) so that INTEREST can be delivered to the STOREHOUSE (Treasury) and then on can CHALLENGE GOD of which is to correct the record and change the STATUS of the PERSON (estate) so one can finally enter the kingdom of heaven here on earth by taking residence within the house of the LORD(Psalm 91): the LORD being the Crown/State wherein the INTEREST was put into the STOREHOUSE (Treasury) so both the Crown/State LEGAL and one's EQUITABLE title are in the Treasury and now the PUBLIC is no longer INEQUITABLE become one GAVE EQUITY in order to RECEIVE EQUITY.
D--- Under the property order for partial incompetents, the status of the living is changed. From being the liable sureties, to liability for managing the estate being shifted to the Crown. From “deemed fully competent – like EGO=EVE as you rightly point out. To “not fully competent” – like children.
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:2-5
Hi Boris, thanks very much for your feed back, Diederik has responded and i have put a link to it in PDF below and also attempted to set it out here in readable conversation, i will give him the login for this from now, cheers, Richard.