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
OK, yes this is an interesting discussion. A lot of common ground, especially on the surrender, and some differences. The document we put up does not go into a lot of detail about the surrender process via partial incompetence. I’ll expand on that in light of what you’ve said, and at least some of the perceived shortcomings should resolve themselves.  

The notion that there is no right or wrong, there just IS. In the beginning perhaps, but not by the time we get to Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And In Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

There is dichotomy. For every thesis there must be an antitheses. We see this for instance with the selection of the apostles, Jesus knew full well that Judas was a betrayer, but the nature of creation apparently demands the balance. Like we are told to expect to be deceived as to the true gospel. Would be difficult to deceive anyone if the NT only had the first 4 gospels. In The last 2 verses of Matthew, Jesus flat out tells his disciples to teach men to do his commandments. Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.  

Not that I’m suggesting Paul’s writings are wrong, but there is no “Gospel according to Paul”, and there is no full explanation of exactly what gospel Paul did preach written in the NT. He does tell the Corinthians that of FIRST IMPORTANCE (NOT the whole story) - Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Now this sounds like the sign of Jonah Jesus talked about - Matthew 12:39-40 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
So yes we should believe the sign, but not in place of the commands given by Jesus. Most of Paul’s writing is preaching to the converted, as long as evidence of Peter’s earthly bindings remains, that is of secondary interest. The first 4 books actually called gospels are the primary source. Nowhere does Paul say we can forget about the commands.

Incidentally, while Jesus refers to an evil and adulterous generation, the KJV does not include the word “adult” even once. I’m not keen on being an adult about this.

Expanding a bit on the partial competence remedy then. In principle, if we can see that the state structure is hardwired to bind us, one would hope there is some relatively straightforward remedy also hardwired into the system.

The PPPR Act (Protection of Personal and Property Rights 1988) provides what we believe is a simple surrender process, and yes, it includes acceptance and delivery. This is our “Right” to “Protection”, when we repent (turn away from our old ways).

Form PPPR10 provides for a “property order”, for property to be managed by “someone else”, i.e. one of Caesar’s officers. This form include our declaration (acceptance) it’s prescribed into the  form, we don’t need to figure out the wording ourselves. Essentially that we are partially incompetent…..something less than omniscient god’s I take that to mean. As a child say. Then we need to say what property we think we are not fully competent to manage….that’s easy “ALL property of ALLCAPS”. Sign and date it, file in the court. Done, signed sealed and delivered. Hopefully the last signature on our own account ever.

We have not had to pay a filing fee “for you shall be redeemed without money” (no valuable consideration is necessary). We have not had to swear an affidavit “swear not at all”. We have not gone public with our clever ideas, all family court matters are protected and private. We have had to admit partial incompetence “as little children”. We have had to let go of all property interests “sell all you have”.

What is supposed to happen next? Well we get to be in control of nothing more. Like in the final Matrix, once the peace offer was accepted, Deus ex Machina took over and plugged Neo in so his artificial persona could be sacrificed. Like in the final Pirates of the Caribbean, once Will stabbed the heart (acceptance), the crew of the Dutchman took over, excised his heart (“unclaimed property of a valuable nature” Pintel) and put it in the chest. Also we see that the pricklyback bastard crew of the Dutchman become good men again…..Will’s choice saved them.

So firstly, all civil and criminal proceedings stop dead as soon as the application is filed. At this point we are no longer “under the law”. Unless we are going to be dicks about this and go back to the old ways, as you say, - “It appears Galatians 5 is a WARNING: "You got your Mulligan; let's not do this shit again, OK?"”. Otherwise the court can (and undoubtedly will) give leave for proceedings to commence again.
Section 57 Proceedings, execution, etc, not to proceed without leave of court  (1) From the date on which an application is made for a property order in respect of any person, no person shall, without the leave of a court,—(a) bring or continue any proceedings (not being proceedings under this Act or proceedings in the High Court) against the person in respect of whom the application is made; or…

Secondly, a lawyer is appointed. But remember Will’s choice transformed the evil crew of the Dutchman. If we hire a lawyer, by all means expect lies and deception. But in this case the Court appoints the lawyer, and the lawyer is duty bound to act in the best interest of the estate. A transformed pricklyback....
65 Appointment of lawyer to represent person in respect of whom application made (1)
On an application for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction under this Act, a court or the Registrar of a court must appoint a lawyer to represent the person in respect of whom the application is made, unless the court or the Registrar is satisfied that the person has retained or will retain a lawyer.

Thirdly, we can tell this lawyer our intent, specifically that we wish the beneficial interest to lie permanently with the Crown. This is explicitly provided for, the details of how this transfer or assignment needs to happen can be left to the licensed professional and the Court.
62 Court may settle the beneficial interests of person subject to property order (1) A court may direct a settlement to be made of all or any of the property of a person subject to a property order on such trusts and subject to such powers and provisions as the court may think fit;

Could this work? If we are reasonably capable, we might presume all that needs to happen for us to carry on freely is that an account is set up for us to use, everything goes in there, we get our daily bread, the property manager attends to what is essentially the Crowns own accounting. We are not liable for the estate. Who would even know the difference? I might walk through town, talk to friends, who would have the least inkling that the status has changed? All facilitated privately between the Father and I through Christ, “for no one comes to the Father but by me”. The 2 way flow can now function properly, “for I am the vine and ye are the branches”. All excess fat goes to the common pot for the greater good.

Will we get full control back? Who knows the [fullness of] time appointed of the Father.

That does leave a few points of difference. In this picture we don’t claim anything, we only accept the peace offer, as in Maccabees, and like Neo. – “Will we see him again – Oh I expect so..”. The NZ law dictionary defines a claim as “advantage or profit, a gain”. Definitely usufruct, and definitely not for us to claim. I’ve not found a solid authority that established a claim as an Act of War, but I do recall where I first heard it Boris. Children don’t need to claim or demand, only seek ask and knock – “if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?”. We do not need to first claim the beneficial interest in the estate, and then transfer it to the Crown. Surrender is simpler. Our hands are not clean, we cannot come in equity, the prodigal son story applies. It is to remedy our impossible predicament that Jesus was sent.

The property manager manages the property, the worldly things. That really does leave us free to live our lives as our creator intended. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Jesus was not an anarchist. He explained how we could be “in this world, but not of it”.