Reply – Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Bound on the wrong side of the Gospel
— by Diederik Diederik
The end objective is agreed. Few thoughts in response;

 B -- That whole passage does not appear to be temptation of the Lord, but an offer from the Lord to "challenge" or have him "fulfill on his word" (prove me now herewith) ... this would be akin to taking the Birth Certificate (and Minn Rule 220 filing: acceptance) to the Probate Court of the County of Birth (head probate judge appears to be the trustee) and informing that court that you have not abandoned your claim (presumed dead or missing: spoliated owner has fled) to that beneficial interest and "Age of majority" (no longer a child) but that you wish that interest go into the storehouse (for safekeeping: delivery) as that is the will of our Father and his will is my will (surrender: rely on 100% faith AS would a child to any promise made by a Father) and the CHALLENGE is to release the hard lock or open the doors to the kingdom so that one may enter (blessings pour out) ...

D.. We are not really coming as the despoliated owner, we are coming as prodigals having despoliated ourselves. The only thing the estate has in my case is joint and several liability for the government debt...about 110 billion in NZ, I expect a lot more digits for you guys in the US. Like the prodigal son, we have nothing to "put back". There is nothing to claim. I look over my shoulder and see a train wreck, absolute carnage. The prodigal son came back and admitted he had no right to claim anything further after his (our) first stuff up, but still asked to be allowed to serve in his Father's estate.

Unconditional surrender to me means unconditional. I.e we can't be laying down the law as to where anything goes. Maybe something goes to the treasury, maybe not, we think it should, I do agree, but is it for us to say? It cannot be for us to dictate....otherwise our surrender would not be unconditional.

B --The Gettysburg Address places the government of the people, by the people, and for the people into TRUST and is modeled after the 2 examples of Trust in the bible: Psalm 23 and the Lord's Prayer.

D-- the earth and usufruct was placed in the trust of the kings of Babylon. Not the people. That is self will and ego. This is the problem with democracies and republics (res-public, property with public, not God's Trustee). We see Brueghel's depiction of the tower of babel is the exact model for the EU headquarters....against our maker.

The Birth Certificate is a receipt for indemnification issued to the spoliated owner provided that spoliated owner has not fled (abandoned the claim or presumed dead) ... This would mean that the people would have to first surrender their beneficial interest to the Treasury (in acceptance the New Constitution: surrender = acceptance + delivery), then challenge the State to recognize what has been done (prove me now herewith) so the blessing may pour out, because much like all these international treaties, none of this seems to be self executing.

D --  This approach is not humbling yourself as a little child ...

B -- sure it is ... relying on 100% faith.

B --That is the very essence of humbling yourself as a little child ... Correct me if I am mistaken as I have not read the whole of the Bible, but it appears one is to be as wise as serpent but as harmless as a dove and to come AS a child, but no where have I found that it states to BE a child.

D --  A child cannot swear an affidavit. We are looking at an approach to achieve the very same end without swearing anything. In NZ statute there are basically 2 pieces of legislation that provide for those not legally competent. The Care of Children Act. That applies to under 18 yo, and yes, we cannot be considered under 18 anymore. Secondly the PPPR Act 1988, which provides for those to be dealt with "as children". And the rules for dealing with both are really quite the same.

B -- And if Peter [Paul] is addressing those who are free in Galatians 5, then I can safely presume, one was not free before Galatians 5 and Galatians 4:1-7 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the owner of everything. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the date set by his father.

D -- yes.

B --So also, when we were children, we were enslaved under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son (Christ's Sacrifice for the Blood of Christ (life force: consciousness) now runs thru our veins) into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, you are also an heir through God.

D -- yes. But are we there yet?

B --It appears Galatians 5 is a WARNING: "You got your Mulligan; let's not do this shit again, OK?"

D -- Absolutely. Once we are free (not yet), then we must use our freedom to the intended purpose. Love/charity. Not the old selfish desires. This is what most of Paul's writings are about. But they are only relevant once we are redeemed, not before. And that is where we go back to the 3 synoptic gospels in the first instance.