Abraham

From PreparingYou
Jump to: navigation, search
Abram had left Ur and also Haran which were city states. He also avoided other city states like Sodom and Gomorrah. What was he doing and why was he able to defeat whole armies that had just conquered these State governments when he was neither a king nor ruler? What was Abraham really doing? Did he form a free "Polis" through a network of Altars?

Chapter 2. Abraham Uncivilized

From the book Thy Kingdom Comes

The City State

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:3

As man became civilized by the creation of City-States, he entered into social contracts that made use of at least two legal concepts or structures. One can be called a trust and the other is a corporation.

Concerning corporations in the most general sense, it is when two or more people are gathered together for a particular purpose, as one person or one body, under a preexisting authority.

This precept is fundamental in all early City-States. The elements of greatest concern should be the purpose and under what authority the corpus of the City-State is established.

The first example of the concept of a corporation was undoubtedly in Genesis 2:24 with Adam and Eve coming together as one person under the authority of God. Matrimony was the union of Man and Woman as one flesh, for God’s purposes, under His original authority. The principle of incorporation extended to the whole Family under the offices of Husband and Wife. They are no more twain but one flesh, one body, one corpus under God.

If Holy Matrimony is the incorporation of a Man and a Woman in the first estate or State or dominion under God, then subsequent marriage under that original authority is merely an incorporation under that preexisting divine authority from generation to generation. The Family could grow by new members being generated, i.e. being born or adopted. Anyone who opposes that union opposes God.

This was being righteous in their generations.

“The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.”[1]

Men formed the first city-state by expanding the concept of family to an unnaturally large scale. The first citizens of these city-states were like adopted children or domestic servants in a civil family, which was ruled by the patriarch of a new and unnatural family.

“Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law”[2]

Marriage under the authority of the Civil State, giving the State original jurisdiction and authority over that union, may have a purpose altogether different from God’s purpose or plan. The living family tree is replaced by the civil family tower. The ruler and benefactor of the tower of Babel became the Father of a nation.

The City-State is a national menage with the leaders sitting in the position of Father. The City- State adopts the people by their application and certification into a civil family. The State becomes the Father of the people with patrimonial rights that was originally invested by God in the Families of everyman from generation to generation. Emperors, kings, and presidents receive all their legitimate power, called the imperium[3], from the people by consent through application, participation, or acquiescence. “Excise (tribute), in its origin, is the patrimonial right of emperors and kings.”[4]

Under this new management which emulated God’s institution of Family, the potestas, or power and authority once inherent in each individual or individual Family, is now vested into a more centralized system. Choice in the family is diminished as power of government increases. As responsibility is relinquished, rights become privileges. Duties of society are dictated by rulers instead of our God-given conscience. Love is neglected and virtue is vanquished.

The body or corpus of the organized State acts like a giant family with the Patronus[5] in the position of Our Civil Father, able to demand, Parens Patria, obey the Father.[6] These Conscripted Fathers[7] were vested with the jurisdiction of the corporate state. That State could incorporate other institutions, bringing all within its jurisdiction to abide under their corporate authority as children, or persons, or members of the State. Howard Scott defined a criminal as, “A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation”.

The first City or Civil State was not an institution of God, but the corporation of Cain. God granted man dominion over the earth. He has an unalienable God-given right and responsibility to “dress it and keep it” or he may choose to contract, grant, or relinquish that responsibility to another. Therefore, those rights and responsibilities of dominion may be incorporated into the body of the State[8] contrary to the will of God.

Rights are responsibilities, and responsibilities are rights. They are inseparable. To the degree you neglect the one, you will be barred from the other. An unalienable right is one, “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable”.[9] But we know that because God told us to keep it, we can lose access to that right by creating obligations to a third party by consent, error, or sin.

If you commit yourself to a contractual agreement or damage another individual’s right, by accident or by design, then you create an obligation that may bar you from pursuing your inherent rights to happiness. You may become snared and bound in obligation and debt.

A City-State is both a trust and a corporation. To fulfill the elements of these concepts, there must be more than a mere promise, pledge of future donation. It requires that some substance of present value be included as a deposit into the corpus or body of the corporate entity or State. A pledge of allegiance imparts an understanding of an actual exchange of some real substance or estate. That substance is often the members themselves. But, “The body of a freeman does not admit of valuation”.[10]

The “social contract, agreement, or covenant by which men are said to have abandoned the ‘state of nature’ to form the society in which they now live.... Assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy where there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual by the group… by the social contract men had surrendered their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state”. [11] This is done at the cost of liberty.

“Puritans in Massachusetts vowed ‘to build a city of God on earth’. The ‘city’ they built, however, required conformity to the temporal and religious standards dictated by them. Although persecuted themselves in England, Puritans in Massachusetts persecuted those who did not abide by their strict beliefs.”[12]

A social contract is when a man casts in his lot with other men, abandoning his original Natural State under God, in exchange for the social security offered by an organized corporate State. With the surrender of his “natural liberties”, he becomes part of a larger whole with certain advantages and disadvantages. Through his trust in this larger body politic, he becomes a partaker of the whole body or nation. He has created this new State with his own hands. By striking hands with that corporate State, a man goes under a new authority, abandoning his natural liberty, to be captured in the web of his own creation, often in hope of gain.

In 1620, the Pilgrims attempted to establish the “City of God”, ironically based upon a social contract, the Mayflower Compact. Although the Compact was short lived and granted no real centralized authority there would be other agreements which would bring people into subjection.

Once people have given power to exercise authority through contract, those that did not fit this artificial mold were sometimes punished. Because they could not forgive the persecution by the king and church, they began to persecute others in self-righteous hypocrisy.

What they thought would guarantee their freedom became their trap. The Bible warns in Proverbs:

“My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not… If they say, Come with us,… Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.” Proverbs 1:10-19.

In Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), the word “allegiance” is defined as, “The tie or obligation, implied or expressed, which a subject owes to his sovereign or government; the duty of fidelity to one’s king, government, or state”. The meaning was influenced by the Latin word ligare, meaning “to bind”, and even by lex, legis, often translated as “law”. [13]

The trust of one’s substance by pledge or oath denotes some mutual faith or trust in the Patronus, or ruling power, and a corresponding subjection to that created State or Status. A corporation is a fiction. It has no life of its own. It is entirely dependent upon the life of its corpus. The corpus is the flesh and bone, the life and breath of those who are bound as its members.

“Which say, [It is] not near; let us build houses: this [city is] the caldron, and we [be] the flesh.” Ezekiel 11:3

In the City-State, one of the most common things of present value to be contributed for the benefit of the corporate State, as an equitably converted asset, was the individual corpus of the people themselves; the subject citizenry. This merging of the rights of the corpus of individuals into the corporation of the State was established or constructed by contracts or other deeds or acts of allegiance. A portion of their labor, the estate of the family, even their gold and silver of their purse, were all held in the repository of the legal State. All became as one body, one flesh with, ultimately, one central head who was a god and appointed many gods. But God in Heaven did not like or desire that way for men.

“And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron....These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the : land of Egypt.” Exodus 32:3

In a City-State the social security, national defense, common welfare, and the benefits brought a repose, avarice, and apathy to the general virtue of the population. There was a growing loss of personal choice, liberty, freedom and actual wealth and a corresponding corruption, bureaucratic abuse, and waste as power was centralized. The people were devoured by their own beastly appetite.[14]

“Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.” Micah 3:3

Is the Bible talking about cannibalism? Is it talking about brutal torture and mutilation? The statement was made to the “heads of Jacob” and the “princes of the house of Israel”, the government officials of that time. The text goes on to speak of the “prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him”.[15] The word “prophet” just means those who speak for the prince or government of Israel. Somehow the government of Israel had caused the people to “err”. The word “peace” is from the Hebrew shalowm and is also translated “welfare” and “prosperity”. The people had listened to the words of the leaders of Israel, who were now rulers taking pieces of the people like a beast biting off chunks of their corpus and devouring the people as they were in the flesh pots of Egypt.

We see the same metaphor of a cauldron in a book written about the formation of welfare program in the United States where the government offers social security to the people in exchange for a portion of their labor: “one could look into a caldron in which the Government and the people of the United States were moving around in response to a new idea…”. [16]

“And the children of Israel said unto them… in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, [and] when we did eat bread to the full…” Exodus 16:3

The phrase, “sat by the flesh pots” can literally be translated “inhabited the body of the cauldron of Egypt” and means the corpus, or corporate state of Egypt, where the individual dominion of each man was joined with that of the whole state. The state obtains its power and dominion from the people, who, by their application, merge with the state.

The creation of City-States also created a need to belong to a City-State. Like the gangs of the inner city today, the youth often feel compelled to join a gang in order to find protection from other gangs.

All these systems rely on some voluntarism at first, but also a compelled contribution. Entitlements work both ways. A betokened benefit reciprocates a compelled contribution. The repose that comes from relinquishing God-given dominion and responsibility brings an addiction that calls out for more and more. One group in society is often depleted to supply the growing demands of another.

Though there is an appearance of affluence in early stages of such civil systems of social welfare, there is always a shortfall between receipts and expenditures. As apathy and avarice grows, this deficit increases addiction and fear. The corpus of the state dissipates as it is pilfered, robbed, and squandered by both the people and their princes. The ensuing deficit compelled the creation of innovative ways to sustain the feeling of affluence and security at any price.

Thus, the addicted citizen of the city-state loses sight of any other way, as he becomes trapped in an endless cycle of corruption, depletion, and a vain hope of reform. To awake to the delusion of his dilemma often means total collapse and chaos.

“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.” Genesis 4:17

The first City-State we find in biblical text is Enoch, which was established by Cain who defied God in its making. Cain was told to become a wanderer after the ultimate oppression of his brother’s life. This was not so much a punishment, but a way back and a guard against his selfish nature of oppression and abuse.

“When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” Genesis 4:12

Instead of following this direction, Cain sinned against the will of the Creator and established a civil power that bound men to his own will and control. By offering them a social state of security, he secured his own position of power and authority. He became the forefather of the first corporate State and unnatural civil Father of the people within it.

There was a different branch of the family of man who continued on earth. From Seth to Noah, they were faithful to God’s plan and did not enter into the family of the City-State, remaining righteous in their generations. They did not enter into a social contract walking with the civil fathers of the corporate State made by the hands of men, but abode in a State of Nature, walking with God, their Father in Heaven.

“These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.” Genesis 6:9

The grandsons of Noah did create many City-States and their civil power reduced men to possessions, human resources, and subject citizens held by the organized state. The family of men became the family of the civil state. Civil law[17] supplanted the ways of God. The leaders of these Civil powers held their office as trustees, protectors, or benefactors of their respective corporate kingdoms. These offices and positions of exercising authority transformed the people. The law of the Father became the despotic centers of civil tyranny and terror.

The word for “city” in Hebrew, `iyr [ריע], actually means “excitement, anguish, of terror.” The City-State offered protection, but often became a threat to those around it as the people in it became slothful, rapacious, and covetous. The people within even became victims of their own lust for gain.

Two Kingdoms

The generations of Cain and the generation of Seth to Noah walked different paths until the flood. After that great deluge, the first we hear of a city-state is the one called Babel, built by Nimrod.

“He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the hunter before the LORD.” (Genesis 10:9)

The word “hunter” is from tsayid, which is more often translated “provision, food, food-supply, or victuals”. This verse would be better translated to the effect that Nimrod was a mighty provider instead of the LORD.
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower[18], whose top[19] [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” Genesis 11:4

The word “tower” in the above reference should be the subject of interest and controversy. “Tower” is translated from migdal, which would be the same as the word Magdala, as in Mary Magdalene in the New Testament. Although it does mean “a tower”, it also has an elitist or elevated concept to its meaning and use. It can be used as we use the word “tree” in family tree. A similar association is also with the word “top”, translated from rosh, which takes many forms in other verses such as “head, chief, beginning, company, captain, sum, first, principal, and rulers”. None of this insinuates that a tower was not built, but that the focus should be on the infrastructure that supplied the organization, funding, and planning to construct a tower. This is more significant than the building.

Nimrod had amassed a gigantic political bureaucracy to perpetrate such public works. He had gathered people to labor and commit vast wealth into a centrally controlled government. With these monumental institutions also came politicians, bureaucrats, clerks and lawyers. It is clear from the present use of such elite classes in society that the people in subjection to Nimrod’s government were undoubtedly introduced to doublespeak, red tape, and legalese. These factors alone can confound whole societies so that no one knows what anyone is saying.

The people sought to possess the benefits of the City-State and the City-States sought to possess the people or, at the least, a portion of their rights. The people became the laboring asset of the State, as Israel was for Egypt. In more modern times, this statutory labor was called a corvee, which was nothing more than the compelled contributions or servitude of the people.

The system was predicated on the desire of each person, through the agents of their government leaders, to force their neighbors to contribute. When the burden and demands of the political contributions brought a threat of rebellion, the City-State often placated the people with promises of gifts, gratuities, and benefits, financed by debt or conquest. The Imperial State reached out to rob the citizenry of their future and even attach their children to debt. They took from their neighbor what they could no longer safely extract from the blood and flesh of its enfranchised members. Such states often became roaring beasts, enlarging their borders in a bloody colonial and imperial expansion.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s.” Exodus 20:17


The Merchants of Men

The word Kana`aniy [ןענכ ] can mean “descendant or inhabitant of Canaan”, but more specifically it means “a merchant, trader, or trafficker”. Were they called “traders” in Hebrew because they were good business men or was there another aspect to their character and methods that made them so detestable to Israel?

Sodom was a city like Canaan and, in it, the people were a possession of the State as persons.

“And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.” Genesis 14:21

The Hebrew word translated “persons” here is nephesh. There are numerous different Hebrew words translated occasionally into the word “person”. Nephesh is translated “soul” 475 times[20] and only translated “person” a few times. The use of the word “person” interchangeably with the word “soul” is not unheard of in the Bible, history or law.

“And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, … beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.” Revelation 18:11-13

Knowing that the State considers that it owns the people as persons, which may include the idea of owning the very souls of men, can give new meaning to other verses in the Bible.

To understand history, it is of value to understand the historical concepts of law. This includes the laws that men make for themselves and the law by which they are authorized to make laws for themselves. What makes law, law? The precept upon which laws are constructed have remained the same throughout the ages.

Much of this construction of law is discussed in the book, The Covenants of the gods, but there are a few issues that need to be addressed just to clarify the concepts that form the union of man’s dominion into the City-States like Babylon, Sodom, and Egypt. The distinction between the words “man” and “person” seems trivial, but there are few concepts and relationships that are more important to understanding these issues.

The organized State is composed of what the law calls “persons”. These persons are specifically, members. When reading legal forms and regulations, people should understand that there is a difference between a “man” and a “person”[21] according to the law.

“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”
“A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.”[22]

These “persons” have a status which includes obligations, duties, and allegiance as a part of their membership in the State which is not the same as the state of freedom enjoyed by the natural man. As a person, a portion of a man’s natural being or soul is incorporated.

“Membership in a political society, implying a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society.”[23]

Being a member of the State is dependent, not upon the man, but upon the person created by his relationship with the state. The person is not considered by his relationship with Nature and Nature’s God, but by his covenants he makes with the State, both specific and constructive. Although men are created equal, they may not remain equal due to their oaths, applications, and participation with the institutions they create. Man, in his pure form, is in a state of Nature, but there is another State which is a quality that belongs to man as a person:

State: “That quality which belongs to a person in society, and which secures to and imposes upon him different rights and duties in consequence of the difference of that quality.”
“Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality, yet there are among them marked differences…”
“Three sorts of different qualities which form the state or condition of men may, then, be distinguished: those which are purely natural, those purely civil, and those which are composed of natural and civil or municipal law.”[24]

As mentioned earlier in Micah, some would not partake in the error of the people, nor eat of the flesh of the caldron. Those who would not participate were warred against and persecuted.

“Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.” Micah 3:5

The early Christians suffered for much the same reason. They would not eat that which was sacrificed to idols as the Nicolaitans did. Their non-involvement created suspicion and envy, which led to most of the persecution by the Roman Empire and the civil powers of the world.

“If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed.”[25]

These merchants of men were not exclusive to Canaan. There were men in Northern India who were called Asuras. They were identified as the mercantile caste. They built a huge system of irrigation lakes and canals. These monuments of engineering were accomplished by a readily available and large well-regulated labor force. This system both prospered and oppressed the people.

As they controlled the utility of these civic projects, they also controlled the people who depended upon the use of their production. Those who mastered the product of their common effort often expanded their personal wealth and power with an impoverishing effect on the general population.

There arose a ruling elite with the corresponding subjugation of the masses. Not only the circumstance of this economic system, but also the mind set of the populace kept the people subservient. The elite ruling class exercised an ever-increasing authority in the created legal realm, often with a uniform rise of injustice and oppression.

There was another group of people who opposed the Asuras’ desire for domination. This race of independent-minded people often stood and occasionally warred against these traffickers of bondage. In the totalitarian quest for the sweat and blood of men, appetite grows. The desire in some for individual autonomy and love of liberty becomes a thorn in the side of those ambitious merchants of men, the world of all Canaanites.


The Hindu Connection

Amongst these men lived a wise and influential man by the name of Brahma. He had a half-sister named Sarai-Svati, Princess of the Temple, or Tower, who he married, along with an Egyptian Princess named Ghaggar. He also wrote one of the revealed books of sacred Hindu scripture, the Atharva Veda.

He was a social reformer with great compassion and a genuine care and concern for liberty and a belief in obedience to the Creator of life. It is obvious to deduce that Brahma is Abram, the Abraham of the Old Testament, along with Sarai his half-sister and Hagar his Egyptian concubine.

His two sons’ names, Isaac and Ishmael, are derived from Sanskrit. Ishaak is from the Sanskrit equivalent Ishakhu meaning “Friend of Shiva”. The Hebrew word for Ishmael has its Sanskrit equivalent spelled as Ish-Mahal meaning “Great Shiva”.

The four sacred Hindu books are Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and Brahmanas Granth. The Brahmanas Granth is a commentary on the Vedas, but it is considered as a revealed book. It is divided into four books, including the Atharva Veda.

The Atharva Veda is also known as Brahma Veda or, in its defined meaning, it is known as the Divine Knowledge. It is a reforming commentary on the sacred Vedas of the Hindus. Brahma, its author, is actually BrahmA, where the letter ‘A’ is moved to the beginning, producing Abram.

According to many historians, these Aryan people suddenly picked up and abandoned over twenty thousand villages and moved. Many of them traveled toward the west, where they resettled the ancient city of Ur. They left in their wake a destroyed agricultural empire that was wrecked by a series of floods and devastating earthquakes.

There were two floods in biblical accounting. The first took place long before Abram and Terah, Abram’s father, were born and is known as the Great Flood, or Noah’s flood. The other one took place generations later when Abram was a young man and people served other gods.

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, [even] Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” Joshua 24:2

The classical geographer Strabo tells us just how nearly complete the abandonment of Northwestern India was. “Aristobolus says that when he was sent upon a certain mission in India, he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus [River] had abandoned its proper bed.”[26]

Indian historian Kuttikhat Purushothama Chon believes that Abraham was driven out of India. He refers to the Aryans as being in constant competition and even having warred with the Asuras (The mercantile caste that once ruled in the Indus Valley). The Aryans marched to West Asia after the destruction of the Asuras’ huge system of irrigation and lakes, causing destructive flooding.


Abraham and the Legend, The Prodigal Son

In The Legends of the Jews Abraham’s ancestor, Reu, prophesied when Serug, his son, was born: “From this child he shall be born in the fourth generation that shall set his dwelling over the highest, and he shall be called perfect and spotless, and shall be the father of nations, and his covenant shall not be dissolved, and his seed shall be multiplied forever”.

There were stories of Nimrod attempting to prevent Abraham’s birth by causing midwives to abort male children and even kill them as infants. Abraham survived miraculously. Later, the counselors and princes speak to Nimrod of Abraham, the child.

“Our king and our god! Wherefore art thou in fear by reason of a little child? There are myriad upon myriad of princes in thy realm, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens, and overseers without number. Let the pettiest of the princes go and fetch the boy and put him in prison.” [27]


Our king and our god?

Kings were gods. The word “god” represents an office, not the being. A god is simply someone with the power to judge. Abraham knew this and so did Moses, Jesus, and Paul.[28] This is why they said that they served other gods beyond the flood (Joshua 24:2).

Men were worshiping other men as gods by paying them homage and giving them power. This is not such a foreign idea in modern thinking when you realize that “worship” is simply homage and allegiance.[29]

This power or authority corrupted the leaders who eventually weakened and oppressed the people. The idols were objects that represented that authority. By the symbol of the god you displayed, people knew under what house or authority you were, i.e. who your patron was.

If you displayed the idols or symbol of a specific government office, then you were protected by the authority of that office. Like a passport or flag, they were displays of the authority under which you belonged. Nimrod was an appointer of gods, or Apotheos, of the civil powers of the State. As one who stood before gods, he was a god who ruled and judged the people instead of the LORD. Abraham would not worship, pay homage, nor give allegiance to Nimrod, nor show respect for the symbols of his office, nor the authority of his appointed princes or lesser gods.

This is really not any different than modern governments who establish themselves from the top down. Governments of men have always used a chain of command to exercise authority over each other. Kings or presidents see themselves as the fountainhead of justice for their subject citizenry, supplanting God as gods. They even call themselves “lawmakers” and “sovereign”. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus offered a different type of government. His government was not a centralized authority from the top down, but was a system based on freedom, individual rights, and liberty. God has always warned men of the effects of central governing authorities.

“…This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons… to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters… And he will take your fields, and your goodliest young men… and put them to his work… And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” 1 Samuel 8:11-18

Moses, Samuel, and Jesus expressed the same precepts as Abraham. When Jesus ordered his Apostles not to be like the princes of the gentiles, who exercise authority one over the other,[30] he was repeating a precept as valid today as it was from the beginning. It appears that men have returned again to the mire of his own making, disregarding the words of Jesus and the prophets, while proclaiming themselves Christian and believers.

There are many stories about Abraham which are not included in the Christian Bible. Abraham is reported to have said to his father and mother in Babylon, “Ye serve a man of your own kind, and you pay worship to an image of Nimrod”.[31]


The Code of Abraham

Abraham was able to muster 300 armed men from his own household and was often traveling with a large contingency of people. What was his system of government? There is no doubt that his fame and respect was known throughout the world and even his servants were honored and respected. How did he manage to keep order and manage the daily ministration to these people? What system of law and order did he teach?

The codification of law at Ur replaced the Ana Ittishu, which was the ancient equivalent of modern “words and phrases”, and was a part of an ancient system, preserving the “Sumerian Family Laws”.

Such codes made provisions that mandated the customs of marriage, adoption, liability, and property, as well as obligations to neighbors, penalties for false accusations, and rules for hiring laborers as slaves for a period of time (employment). The importance of a code was that law was no longer a matter of words and phrases or maxims of wisdom to be interpreted by a jural society of your peers, but had become an earthly command of compliance from a central authority. Such central systems of authority had accompanying penalties and punishment and the power of enforcement by a lawgiver and the gods, or judges, he appointed. Law was no longer in the hands of God or His people but in the hands of the ruling elite.

The laws etched on pillar covered criminal behavior, slavery, marriage and divorce. There were brutal punishments for the disobedient. The Hammurabi Code is one of the oldest documents of significant length with 282 laws applied according to gender and social status (free or bond) with an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" fashion.

When the Code of Hammurabi appeared, the “king is already the source of justice; the judges are strictly supervised, and appeal to the king is allowed”.[32]

Over four thousand years ago in the kingdom of Ur, there were systematic methods and specified rules in courts of record. They settled, “disputes arising out of sales, inheritance, gifts, or divorce”. There were different kinds of courts with different jurisdictional authority. “When the claim had been ‘in the king’s name’ and rebutted, the case was settled by an oath either taken by one of the parties or by a witness.” [33]

You could be executed for questioning the authority of the princes and gods appointed by the king.

“And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.” Genesis 11:28

Haran did not just die, he was executed as a result of some presumed infraction of the codified laws. The word “died” is from [twm] muwth, which means “to die, kill, have one executed… to die prematurely… to kill, put to death, dispatch”.

“And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.” Genesis 11:31

The word “took” is a strong word. It is from laqach, meaning “take possession of”. The ancient stories tell us that Haran was executed for the crime of defying the authority of the gods of the city. Abraham had done the same, but he was spared.

Terah took possession of his family and exited the jurisdiction of Ur. This was because neither the Father nor the individuals of the family had possession of themselves before they left. They were persons or souls of the state. Terah, Haran, Nahor, and Abram were persons within the jurisdiction of the city walls and under its authority. Terah had learned some of a lesson, which cost him the life of his son, Haran. Although he detested the tyranny of Ur, he was not willing to let go of that power over other men and trust solely in God and His liberty and free dominion.

Abram had separated himself from the Asuras in India, then he left Ur and, finally, he left the city-state of Haran and his own family. That City-State had been established by his own father, Terah, and named after his executed brother, Haran. Though he had expatriated from family and the civil power of his people, he had continued to tithe to the righteous King of peace. According to the Ana Ittishu, or “Family Laws”, the righteous king was the eldest generator of the family.

Abraham remained righteous in his honor to his generator, i.e. righteous in his generations. He became Abraham after he refused to take even a shoe latch of the spoils of the City-State Sodom and was blessed by that righteous King of peace for his faithfulness to the ways of God the Father.

“That I will not [take] from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that [is] thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:” Genesis 14:23

The generations of Abraham were Shem, begat Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram who became Abraham. Amongst all the descendants of Shem, there were many that disagreed and even fought over who should be the rightful heir to the blessings of Shem. Shem was rightful king as elder of the family of man and, according to Bible chronologists, Shem was still around when Abraham expatriated from his father and the matrix of the City-State. Since Noah and his wife had died, Shem was a righteous king of peace. He was without Father and Mother and was possessor of all his rights. Shem was sui juris according to the family laws that preceded the codification by kings. Although he had produced many heirs, no one had been chosen. There was no one worthy of the honor and blessing of that royal office of the righteous King of Peace.

“And Melchizedek [righteous king] king of Salem [peace] brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed [be] Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:” Genesis 14:18-19

Abraham and the Family

“Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:” Genesis 12:1

Abraham knew the importance of family but his father kept diluting the position of the family by seeking the protection of the Patronus of a City-State. That protection had its advantages and disadvantages. It incurred all the protection, but lost liberty; it had charity, but condemned discretion; it pooled the power of men, but not the wisdom of God in their hearts.

If Abraham would separate and live as God intended, God promised to bless Abraham and make him a blessing to others. This offer is extended to all men through God’s offer of Faith in Him and, eventually, through His Son.

“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:” Genesis 12:2

More than a blessing, Abraham would be a dividing mark in the history of man’s relationship with God Almighty and His Laws and the rulers of men and their laws. He would become a blessing and a curse depending upon our interconnection with the God of Abraham or the institution of men.

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3

Many of the religious faiths of humankind claim Abraham as the originator of their chosen faith. Yet, do men walk in the pathways of Abraham? The Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, and even Christians can trace their beginnings to his influence, words, or deeds.

What have they forgotten?

Have men lost sight of the message of Abraham the prophet? Have they forgotten the ways of the God of Abraham? Have they left the household of Adam and entered the city of Cain? Have they lost their way in the labyrinth of lies constructed by the adversaries of God the Father?

“And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19:9-10

Which household have men chosen? Which dominion, which path have they clung to? Have the foundations of modern societies been based upon the precepts of God or upon the methods of Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh, and the elected Emperors of Rome?

“If we want better people to make a better world, then we will have to begin where people are made --- in the family.”[34]

Has man lost his way and departed from the grace of God’s dominion, His Kingdom?



Chapter 3 The Altar of Abraham

From the book Thy Kingdom Comes

“They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” John 8:39

What did Abraham do that was counted as righteousness and how was it so different from the corrupted conditions found by Christ upon His arrival in the kingdom of Judea? Where do we find the potency of Abraham’s character? How do we become a part of God’s blessing for him and his seed? Did God asked Abraham to do something unique and seemingly out of character with Jesus Christ?


“And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said … and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.” Genesis 12:7

Why did God want Abraham to build an altar? Was it to kill animals and burn their lifeless carcass upon a pile of stone and earth? Does God delight in the blood of beasts? What is the purpose of the altar?

“To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.” Isaiah 1:11

Jesus expounded upon the absurd idea that the blood of beasts was a delight to God when he spoke with the scribe who understood the nature of the kingdom of God on earth.

“And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. ...” Mark 12:33-34

If God does not delight in the bloody sacrifice, then why did he want Abraham to build an altar? What function did it fulfill? Have we missed the true purpose of these altars?

“Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.” Ecclesiastes 11:1

If the Bible is always taken literally, then we should go out every morning and cast bread on ponds and rivers and oceans. The metaphoric meaning is often clear, yet sometimes is lost in the confusion of impractical historians and religionists. Casting your bread upon the waters has little to do with bread or water. And “burnt offerings unto the LORD” is not really about burning up dead carcasses so that God will be happy with the “sweet smell” of it.

When Abram left his Father’s house, he took with him many people who likely believed things very much the way that Abram had begun to see things. Abram was not a poor goat herder but a literate, wealthy, and respected man with a substantial following.

“And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan…” Genesis 12:5

As Abram traveled, he continued to spread his ideology, his beliefs, and teachings. As a man with a mission, he spread his “tent” and built his “altars” amongst the people wherever he went. Where people would listen and abide in God’s way, there was His altar.

“And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, [having] Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.” Genesis 12:8

Moses and the Altars of Clay and Stone

The Mizbeach or altars are said to be of two types.

“An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” Exodus 20:24

Moses made an altar of earth. He was told to do so. He was not told to use just any type of earth but particularly the “red clay”.[35] God had made Adam from this “red clay”. Was the altar made of dirt or was this another metaphor? Was the altar made of a certain kind of clay, or was it made of a special kind of man?

This altar was used to convey the sacrifices of the people. The chief characteristic of sacrifice is not so much that something is destroyed by fire, but rather that it is lost to the grantor. The grantor must be willing to truly concede the, “surrender of something for the sake of something else… something given up or lost”.

Such giving was essential in a free society where no government collected funds through taxation for redistributing wealth. Society needed a way of taking care of community needs. Such voluntary assistance is an extension of what should already be a part of the family, but in Israel, it became a part of the congregational community on a national level. Nothing is more benevolent than the parent’s sacrifice for their children and the children’s for their parents. The same may apply to nations with networking intimate charitable congregations.

The burnt offering is dedicated, or hallowed, upon the living altar of each family by the grantors. Like bread upon the waters, or tribute to the kings, it is lost to the grantor. If you have anything more than an intangible hope and faith to insure its return, then it is not entirely given and pure charity is not truly exercised.

In the City-State, there is a contribution for the good of the populous and the general welfare of the corpus of the State. The difference between those statutory contributions and those offerings set on Abraham’s and Moses’ altars was the former is extracted by authority upon entering the jurisdiction of the State as a member; and the latter was a freewill offering with personal daily choice in liberty. The State guarantees social security within its walled boundaries of authority in the form of entitlements, while God’s altars offer only hope and faith.

Abraham and the people who exercised the free will choice to support one another formed an altar of earth and brotherhood. As he spread his tent, his tabernacle, the way of liberty became strong in the land. When kings like Chedorlaomer devoured one City-State after another, it was Abram and those who believed in the law of liberty and choice who were the saviors of that day. This prophetic principle may still hold true in our own time.

There was another altar mentioned by God, but not with the terms “thou shalt”, but with the terms “if thou wilt make”. This altar was different and carried specific restrictions.

“And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.” Exodus 20:25-26

This altar was made of stone not hewn by the hands of men, not touched by tools of iron or power. You are also warned not to make the altar tiered where you go up to its higher places by steps or degrees. If you do so, you will reveal a nakedness or lack of the covering or authority.

The Hebrew word rigmah [המגר ] is translated into “council”, but actually means literally “a gathering of stones”. It is from the Hebrew word Regem [המג ], which is translated “friend” and is the same as ragam [המג], meaning “stone”. Both words have as a common origin [bgr] regeb, “a clod” (of earth). Hebrew letters have meanings which define the words.

God wrote the Ten Commandments upon dead stone. It is not the medium that He preferred, but was a secondary choice, as the hearts of the people were too hard. They were stiff-necked and hard- hearted. It was easier to write His laws on stone than upon the hearts of the Israelites. There would come a day when this was no longer true.

“For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:” Hebrews 8:10

God wishes to write His laws upon lively stones and to construct His altars and temple with those same stones of living flesh.

“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5

The stones of the altar of God were men. The use of the word “stones” was a metaphor, just as the words “burnt offering” were a metaphor for the idea of giving a thing up entirely. These altars were composed of men who the community trusted as friends, not rulers.

One of the key characteristics of these altars of men is that they are not to be hewn with iron tools. Again a metaphor of the language common to Abraham. This is in reference to regulations and restrictions placed upon these men as to how their job is done.

Why would it not be a good idea to regulate these men of the Altar? First, you should ask, “who is doing the regulating and who made them judge over the men of the altar?”

The people who freely give offerings govern by their power in choosing to give or not to give. If they did not trust or choose to give, they could stop donating and that living altar would no longer receive their offerings. The people were the governors of the system and tempered the wisdom of the altar by their own freewill charity.

No “steps that go up” is another limitation on these stone altars of flesh. The going up by steps would also be creating a hierarchy of power and control. It would be a centralization of the wealth of the altar. This would lead to power and authority amongst those who tend the altar. A different kind of soul would be drawn to the service of the altar, one thirsty for position, prestige, and power. They would assume the duties and responsibilities of the people, one to another, and, in the repose of the people, apathy and corruption would grow. The people need to participate in the daily choice of charity. Such activity builds virtue and character, as well as fellowship and community. Any centralization of authority leads to a ruling elite, and the slothful deprivation of man’s individual dominion or freedom granted by God’s good grace is diminished.

“What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose; the right to create for yourself the alternative of choice. Without the responsibility and exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.”[36]

These systems of charitable altars allowed communities and nations to remain free from the exercising authority established by men like Cain, Nimrod, and others. It encouraged strength amongst the gathering of the people through virtue, brotherhood, and sacrifice. It did not diminish the role of the individual or the family. It left honor within the family and compelled men only by the practice of God’s love.

At the core of this system was the family. It was the family that provided security for men through the blessings of the ways of God the Father. Each family as members of the community cared one for the other, forming the whole nation through a network of caring.

In this fragile life we live, families may falter or suffer calamity or experience destitution. When larger groups came together to safeguard the whole community, they would devise methods by which all could be secure. There was always a danger of a loss of freedom: the people sought social security. Abraham’s Altars gave a solution to the dilemma.

In the City-State, security was established by controls, force, and regulation of men, by men. These edicts hewed away at the freewill of men, giving power to other men instead. Men who sought power and control carved this new system into their own image. The exercising authority corrupted men and with that power came the danger of tyranny.

“Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection”[37]

These leaders were granted the power to enforce the security of the State. Stripped of the presence and plan of God, these men revealed their naked assent to the position of gods, or ruling judges, of the city or civil powers. The dominion granted by God to the individual was now incorporated into the City or Civil State. The ruling elite were perpetually tempted by that power granted to them by the demagoguery of the people.

From their high positions over other men and their lofty offices, these principalities exercised authority that became totalitarian. The temptation to become a beast, devouring the people and their substance, was too great, except for men like Moses and Abraham. There was none more divinely suited as ruler of a free state than Jesus, Who came as a servant.

“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49

Leaders are corrupted by their weakness for power and the weakness of slothful people. Equally important in the devolution of mankind is the cultivated apathy of the general populations. People no longer had to choose corporeal sacrifice in charity. No longer was faith in the Creator and love of neighbor the essential principles of social security.

It was the will of the organized State that men conformed to the will of the state and not the will of the Father in Heaven. The State promised to provide security from famine, catastrophe, and other “acts of God” or the tyranny and attacks of other civil gods of power.

A new kind of faith was directed toward the State and its gods. This faith was called allegiance. To insure the loyalty and fidelity of men, oaths were required. These ruling Benefactors also required tribute from all to insure the benefits of this controlled society. Ultimately, one class of citizens were deprived to pay for the appetites of the other. Coveting your neighbors goods became a policy of the State with a granted license by the voice of the people. Love of the State was more undeniable than love of neighbor. Private wealth became an enemy of the state and we soon saw Plato’s simple economic policy, whereby no gold or silver shall be owned by any citizen, become true, even before he taught it.

Gold in the hands of the public is an enemy of the state. Adolph Hitler

Children were taught by the State or abandoned to the care of strangers. The sanctity of marriage diminished and the natural use of the flesh became dissolute. Fear of the State was more real than fear of God, for despite the praises in their temples and churches their real homage, prayers (applications) and worship was to the State.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [institutions] … For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:” Romans 1:22-26

Under the perfect law of liberty and at the altars of Abraham and Moses, each individual or family exercised faith, hope, and charity. While at the altars and temples of the City-State, obedience and compliance were the ruling creatures. The spirit that moved those altars of force was that of covetousness, control, and cupidity.

Men may choose to apply, or pray, at a government altar of authority and force or the altar of God’s granted liberty. God created a law that forbids coveting or stealing from your neighbor. Man created institutions based on taking from your neighbor.

“Because the creature [institutions][38] itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Romans 8:21

Mankind is changed by his choice. He chooses the institutions made by men to rule over men or he chooses to seek the kingdom of God and its righteousness.

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Matthew 11:12


The Altar of Sin

In the days of Joseph’s famine, the people had given their gold, their animals, their land, and themselves in exchange for provisions. So, what did they use for money in everyday business transactions? They used a small stone or clay scarab given out by the City Treasury. The priests of Egypt administered this financial system, living through the famine on a donation from the Pharaoh. They grew wealthy while others toiled. They had vast stores of grain which they controlled as an utility, loaning it out at interest.

In their temple “granaries… priests became bankers through the loan of seed grain. In many societies the main temple and dependent structures were the most important buildings, although many smaller, often isolated, temples existed as well.”[39] These temples were the centers of commerce and control and the depositories of records and contracts.

“Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws”[40]

The High Priests knew the arts of the temple, which was, at the least, a central bank. They had control of the flow of currency which could be redeemed by foreign traders through the gates of the city, but was a regulated fiat money for the subject citizenry.

It was the greed and envy of Joseph’s brothers that had brought all of Israel under the power of the Pharaohs and at the mercy of the priests of Egypt. They were to be the Altar of God as ministers in His kingdom on earth, but instead they became the bricks and stones of a ruling elite.

In Egypt, two-and-a-half month’s worth of labor each year went to the government. All the gold and silver was in the treasury and the people held a mere legal title to their land and their possessions.

Moses became the son of the daughter of Pharaoh by adoption, but he saw himself becoming a tyrant and murderer like Cain and Lemech. He fled from this temptation and sought the ways of God.

God saw that the people too, were corrupted by this bondage and He sent Moses back to lead the people out of Egypt and desired that they never return to such a system.

“But he shall not… cause the people to return to Egypt … Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.” Deuteronomy 17:16

God chose His people from Abraham’s seed of faith and led them out of the civil powers of Egypt. He would be their God and Ruler through their hearts and minds, but they did not have the faith of their forefather, nor of Moses. They feared for their lives and sought strength in their own numbers and bound themselves together by surety and sacrifice, placing the wealth of their families in Aaron’s altar of the golden calf.

“… And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron. And he received[41] [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” Exodus 32:2, 4

What possessed them to make that golden calf? It was not mere superstition that motivated them, but a practicality and a lack of faith. The people literally deposited their gold, as well as other goods and sacrificed their rights to them on the altar of the golden calf. They took, in turn, some sort of exchangeable token and the promise of social security.

“Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.” Proverbs 1:14-19

Gold was deposited into a large statue for all to see. The wealth and the community was melded together into a common purse. No one person could leave in the face of an enemy without leaving behind the golden depository of their wealth. Moses could take the people out of Egypt, but only God, time, and repentance could take Egypt out of the people.

“… I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” Zechariah 13:7

Without men of faith like Moses, David, or Jesus Christ, the people become frightened. In their fear, they reach out for something else other than God to secure their safety.

In Egypt’s central banking system, the temple issued clay and stone scarabs as a substitute for commodity money like gold and silver. Those scarabs, or tokens of exchange, were worthless except in that monetarily-bound community. The priests of the temple in Egypt had kept track of all the complexities of their centralized monetary system and, of course, they profited from its management. Allegiance was assured with no true wealth in the hands of the people.

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Luke 12:34

Was the sin the golden statue or the lack of faith it represented? Men gave away their God-given rights and liberty in exchange for the promises of men. The altar upon which they now sacrificed was hewn with the hands of men and regulated by a ruling elite of that central depository or national bank. They had returned to Egypt with a new god.

“They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” Exodus 32:8


The Artifice of Sophistry

Why did people turn out of the way so quickly and what is the way? How do we find that way and distinguish it from the ways of the world? God is the same today, and man has not changed much either, so it is likely that the same error and solution has remained consistent throughout history. We may also assume that the adversary has remained the same and is still using, or misusing, words, and twisting their meaning in order to lead mankind astray.

“But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses." Leviticus 9:10

"And the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth [the inwards], and the kidneys, and the caul the liver:” Leviticus 9:19

If we examine these verses we shall discover that words may be given more than one meaning because of Sophistry. For more details see The Adventures of Artifice in Languageland

What is the Truth? Each of us must develop new eyes with which to see and new ears with which to hear , working out our own salvation with fear and trembling, striving to know and do the will of God. There is a standard; it is the Holy Spirit. It is our comforter and guide by which we may see and hear the truth of the scriptures and the words of God the Father, as they are written upon our hearts and our minds.

Large numbers of people knew at different times in history that there was no call by God for burning up dead animals and that the altars and temple were to be made of living earth and living stones. They knew that justice and mercy, freely given with charity and hope, is for what God has been calling from the beginning. They knew that men should not covet their neighbors’ goods nor the wealth of those families, nor their sons and daughters through the agencies and institutions they devise for themselves.

“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5

The sophistry of language has mislead men from the simple truths of God’s ways. The authors may have been inspired. The translators, however, are often lacking that inspiration, but not their own imagination. The word “heart” may represent an organ or the “capacity for virtue”. “Kidney” may be and organ or the “power of choice” and a “liver” may be an organ or the “honorarium given” to a minister.

A “stone” may be a chosen friend who is to minister this freewill offering and a “gathering of stones” may be a council or network of such friends to assist in a national necessity of charity and hope. A “burnt offering” may be something simply given up entirely by the contributor.

The simple instructions of the kingdom and how they make their freewill contributions may have been twisted into a superstitious, pagan, and mindless ritual of trauma and bloodletting by altering the meaning of words.

Were these ancient verses trying to say:

“The power of choice over the distribution of the honorarium are given freely to the living ministers of God’s altar, and the surplus of that offering is their covering to take care of their needs according to their own power of choice; as the LORD commanded Moses. This is the strength of God’s way”?

This is the Kingdom of God. Ministers of that government are servants, chosen by the people through the granting of their contributions. They are tithed to only according to their service. It is a government where the power of choice to make contributions remains with, of, and for the people, and coveting your neighbors’ goods through the agency of institutions created by men is against The Law. The people are bound by faith, hope, and charity and everyone lives under and by the perfect law of liberty.

Government | Governments | Civil Government | Government and Liberty Described |
Social contract | Covenants of the gods | Contracts, Covenants and Constitutions |
Nationalism | Republic | Democracy | Minarchism | Statism | Fascism | Federation
Communism | Anarcho communism | Communist Manifesto |
Communist Altruism | Primitive Communism | Karl Marx Marriage |
Collectivism | Altruism | Anarchist | Capitalism | Socialism | Atheist |
Viable republic | Republican form | The Way | Perfect law of liberty | NAP |
Taxation | Tribute | Tithe | Tithing | Pay tribute | Social Security | Corban | Hierarchy |
Imperial Cult of Rome | The Democracy Cult | Employ | Bondage | Mammon |
Nimrod | Mystery Babylon | Saving Babylon | Exiting Babylon | Temples |
Supreme being | gods many | Ideological subversion | Foolishly | Law |
Schools as Tools | Roots of the Welfare State | Covetous Practices |
Consent not | Withdraw consent | Come out | Put out | Cry out | Voice |
Kingdom of God | Church legally defined | Pure Religion | Christian conflict |

Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links

Footnotes

  1. Conjuctio mariti et femina est de jure naturæ. Maxims of Law from Bouvier; s 1856 Law Dictionary.;
  2. Homo vocabulum est; persona juris civilitis. Calvinus; Lex.;
  3. The imperium was divided into the merum which dealt with foreign aggression and the mixtum which dealt with the “wicked” within the jurisdiction of the civil state. These powers are originally inherent in all men within their Family.;
  4. Vectigal; origina ipsa; jus Cæsarum et regum patrimoniale est.;
  5. Patronus; Roman civil law. This word is a modification of the Latin word pater; father; a denomination applied by Romulus to the first; senators of Rome; and which they always afterwards bore. Romulus at first appointed a hundred of them.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition.
  6. See USC TITLE 15; Sec. 15h. Applicability of Parens Patriae actions:
  7. Conscripti Patria; the congress of Rome were the conscripted or elected fathers of the national family in which the power and authority of each free family was eventually vested..
  8. “Incorporation… the formation of a legal or political body… In civil law. The union of one domain to another.” Black’s 3rd p. 946.
  9. The American Heritage® Dictionary; 4 Edition
  10. Liberum corpus aestimationem non recipit.
  11. The Columbia Encyclopedia; Columbia University Press; 1968; p. 1983;
  12. United States History for High School; Laidlaw Brothers Pub.; 1969; p. 23;
  13. See the Chapter; Law vs Legal in the book The Covenants of the gods.
  14. Polybius
  15. Exodus 16:3; Exodus 20:17; 23:32; 34:12..; Jud 10:14; 1 Sa 8:18; Psalms 69:22; Psalms 91:3; Psalms 106:36; Psalms 119:110; Psalms 124:7; Proverbs 1:10-33; Proverbs 23:1..; Ezekiel 11:1-11; Jeremiah 11:12; Zechariah 14:21; Micah 3:1-5; Romans 13:9; Mark 7:22; Matthew 5:34; James 5:12; Galatians 5:15.;
  16. IX Forward by Frances Perkins Sec of Labor 1933--1945 The Development of the Social Security Act by Edwin E. Witte [See Employ vs. Enslave in The Covenants of the gods.];
  17. The civil law is what a people establishes for itself. Jus civile est quod sibi populus constituit.1 Johns. N.Y.424; 426.;
  18. migdal 1) tower 1a) tower 1b) elevated stage; pulpit 1c) raised bed;
  19. 07218 ro’sh head; William Topel; summit; upper part; Stan Park; total; sum; height; front; beginning
  20. Nephesh [vpn] is translated soul 475 times; life 117; person 29; mind 15; heart 15; creature 9; body 8; himself 8; yourselves 6; dead 5; will 4; desire 4; man 3; themselves 3; any 3; appetite 2; misc 47.;
  21. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona); of the civil law. Homo vocabulum est; persona juris civilis.Calvinus; Lex.;
  22. American Law and Procedure; Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910.;
  23. Luria v. U.S.; 231 U.S. 9; 34 S. Ct. 10; 13; 58 L.Ed. 101.(see Black’s 3rd.);
  24. State in Society. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.;
  25. Emperor Palpatine;
  26. Strabo’s Geography; XV.I.19.;
  27. Legends of the Jews; Vol. 1; Chapter V;
  28. See “There are gods many” published by His Church and Appendix 7.
  29. See Appendix 3 What is worship;
  30. Matthew 20:25-27, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25
  31. Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg, Volume I , Abraham’s First Appearance in Public.
  32. En Brit V. II p. 862 ‘57.
  33. En Brit V. II p. 862 ‘57.
  34. Braud’s 2nd Enc. by J.M Braud.
  35. [ המדא] ‘adamah from “adam” the red earth from which Adam was made.
  36. Archibald Macleish (1882-1982) Secretary of State under FDR.
  37. Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio protectionem. Coke, Littl. 65.
  38. Ktisis from ktizo meaning to found a city, colony, state and itself means “the act of founding, establishing, building etc… the sum or aggregate of things created 1c) institution, ordinance
  39. Temple Microsoft ® Encarta. © 1994 Ms. Corp.& F & W’s Corp.
  40. Baron M.A. Rothschild (1744 - 1812)
  41. “Receive” is from laqach, which includes the idea of “acquire, buy” and is sometimes translated “buy” in the Old Testament.


About the author

To read more go to "His Holy Church" (HHC) http://www.hisholychurch.org/