Author Topic: The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights  (Read 5943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« on: August 13, 2011, 12:56:05 PM »




Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2011, 03:00:30 PM »
A friend of mine here in Ohio that I work with, has become well versed in Common Law as a Sovereign.

He was just pulled over, speeding while driving a fellow employee home, this week.

He pulled the Sovereign card,
 ie  released him of his duties, told him he did not wish to contract with him, and told him,  referencing  UCC 1-207....would not sign his name, but did print it in all Caps, and underneath wrote All rights reserved. etc

"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract,
commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
 And furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."



Long story short, after running his plate, He was let go.



"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2011, 08:22:06 PM »
A friend of mine here in Ohio that I work with, has become well versed in Common Law as a Sovereign.

Glad that went well.

I would be very interested in your take on the roots of the presumed 'claim of right' by Boniface and those that followed him since 1302. This lecture pushed the issue of sovereignty back in historical terms, well even before 1302. The question is whether this is solely a Roman Catholic initiative or are the hands of the chosen part and parcel of the insanity of presumption of world 'ownership' by the church? If we accept the idea that the whole Jesus Christ story is a concoction then obviously the Jews long ago played the opposing role in a early manifestation of the Hegelian dialectic. Much more research is obviously needed here.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2011, 08:52:20 PM »

Hmm this guy looks like a Joo & focuses on their traditional bete-noire the Catholic Church.  Could he be controlled opposition among the sovereign movement?  He praises DeMolay:  as a teen-ager I guessed that the "DeMolays" were a Catholic group until a Jewish friend revealed that he had been a DeMolay & the they were a Masonic youth group. 

http://www.universaltruthschool.com/ seems like Masonic stuff, very esoteric.  He does claim that Masons are part of the conspiracy but so what.  Sovereignty doesn't depend on long-winded conspiracy theory.  Santos is an interesting speaker but seems like a snake in the grass.

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2011, 04:12:06 AM »
Common Law
(Latin communis, general, of general application; lex, law)

'The term is of English origin and is used to describe the juridical principles and general rules regulating the possession, use and inheritance of property and the conduct of individuals, the origin of which is not definitely known, which have been observed since a remote period of antiquity, and which are based upon immemorial usages and the decisions of the law courts as distinct from the lex scripta; the latter consisting of imperial or kingly edicts or express acts of legislation.

That pre-eminent English lawyer and law-writer, Sir William Blackstone, states in his "Commentaries upon the Laws of England" that the common law consists of rules properly called leges non scriptœ, because their original institution and authority were not set down in writing as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power and the force of laws by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom; and, quoting from a famous Roman author, Aulus Gellius, he follows him in defining the common law as did Gellius the Jus non scriptum as that which is "tacito illiterato hominum consensu et moribus expressum" (expressed in the usage of the people, and accepted by the tacit unwritten consent of men).


When a community emerges from the tribal condition into that degree of social development which constitutes a state and, consequently, the powers of government become defined with more or less distinctness as legislative, executive, and judicial, and the arbitration of disputes leads to the establishment of courts, the community finds itself conscious of certain rules regarding the conduct of life, the maintenance of liberty, and the security of property which come into being at the very twilight of civilization and have been consistently observed from age to age.
Such were the usages and customs, having the force of law which became the inheritance of the English people and were first compiled and recorded by Alfred the Great in his famous "Dome-book" or "Liber Judicialis", published by him for the general use of the whole kingdom. That famous depository of laws was referred to in a certain declaration of King Edward, the son of Alfred, with the injunction:
"Omnibus qui reipublicæ præsunt etiam atque etiam mando ut omnibus æquos se præbeant judices, perinde ac in judiciali libro scriptum habetur: nec quicquam formident quin jus commune audacter libereque dicant" (To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously).

In modern times the existence of the "Liber Judicialis" was the subject of great doubt, and such doubt was expressed by many writers upon the constitutional history of England, including both Hallam and Turner. After their day the manuscript of the work was brought to light and was published both in Saxon and English by the Record Commissioners of England in the first volume of the books published by them under the title, "The Ancient Laws and Institutes of England".

The profound religious spirit which governed King Alfred and his times clearly appears from the fact that the "Liber Judicialis" began with the Ten Commandments, followed by many of the Mosaic precepts, added to which is the express solemn sanction given to them by Christ in the Gospel:
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." After quoting the canons of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, Alfred refers to the Divine commandment, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them", and then declares, "From this one doom, a man may remember that he judge every one righteously, he need heed no other doom-book."
The original code of the common law compiled by Alfred was modified by reason of the Danish invasion, and from other causes, so that when the eleventh century began the common law of England was not uniform but consisted of observances of different nature prevailing in various districts, viz: Mercen Lage, or Mercian laws governing many of the midland counties of England and those bordering upon Wales, the country to which the ancient Britons had retreated at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

These laws were, probably, influenced by and intermixed with the British or Druidical customs. Another distinct code was the West-Saxon Lage (Laws of the West-Saxons) governing counties in the southern part of England from Kent to Devonshire. This was, probably, identical for the most part with the code which was edited and published by Alfred. The wide extent of the Danish conquest is shown by the fact that the Dane Lage, or Danish law, was the code which prevailed in the rest of the midland counties and, also, on the eastern coast. These three systems of law were codified and digested by Edward the Confessor into one system, which was promulgated throughout the entire kingdom and was universally observed. Alfred is designated by early historians as Legum Anglicanarum Conditor; Edward the Confessor as Legum Anglicanarum Restitutor.

In the days of the Anglo-Saxon kings the courts of justice consisted principally of the county courts. These county courts were presided over by the bishop of the diocese and the ealdorman or sheriff, sitting en banc and exercising both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction. In these courts originated and developed the custom of trial by jury. Prior to the invasion led by William the Norman, the common law of England provided for the descent of lands to all the males without any right of primogeniture.
Military service was required in proportion to the area of each free man's land, a system resembling the feudal system but not accompanied by all its hardships. Penalties for crime were moderate; few capital punishments being inflicted and persons convicted of their first offence being allowed to commute it for a fine or weregild; or in default of payment, by surrendering themselves to life-long bondage.
The legal system which thus received form under the direction of the last Saxon King of England, was common to all the realm and was designated as "Jus commune" or Folk-right.

In contradistinction to English jurisprudence the Civil Law of Rome prevailed throughout the Continent. William the Conqueror brought with him into England jurists and clerics thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the civil law and distinctly adverse to the English system.

However, the ancient laws and customs of England prevailing before the Conquest, withstood the shock and stress of opposition and remained without impairment to any material extent. The first great court of judicature in England after the Conquest was the Aula Regis or King's Court wherein the king either personally or constructively administered justice for the whole kingdom.

The provision in Magna Charta to the effect that the King's Court of Justice should remain fixed and hold its sessions in one certain place, instead of being a peripatetic institution, constitutes historic evidence of the existence of such a court and, also, gives expression to the public discontent created by the fact that its sessions were held at various places and thus entailed great expense and trouble upon litigants.

In later days, the Aula Regis became obsolete and its functions were divided between the three great common-law courts of the realm, viz; the Court of King's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Exchequer. The Court of King's Bench was considered the highest of these three tribunals, although an appeal might be taken from the decisions thereof to the House of Lords.

 The Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction over ordinary civil actions, while the Court of Exchequer was restricted in its jurisdiction to causes affecting the royal revenues.
Besides these courts the canon law was administered by the Catholic clergy of England in certain ecclesiastical courts called "Curiæ Christianitatis" or Courts Christian.

These courts were presided over by the archbishop and bishops and their derivative officers. The canon law at an early date laid down the rule that "Sacerdotes a regibus honorandi sunt, non judicandi," i.e. the clergy are to be honoured by kings, but not to be judged by them, based on the tradition that when some petitions were brought to the Emperor Constantine, imploring the aid of his authority against certain of his bishops accused of oppression and injustice, he caused the petitions to be burned in their presence bidding them farewell in these words, "Ite et inter vos causas vestras discutite, quia dignum non est ut nos judicemus deos" (judge your own cases; it is not meet that we should judge sacred men).


The ecclesiastical courts of England were:

   1. The Archdeacon's Court which was the lowest in point of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical polity. It was held by the archdeacon or, in his absence, before a judge appointed by him and called his official. Its jurisdiction was sometimes in concurrence with and sometimes in exclusion of the Bishop's Court of the diocese, and the statute 24 Henr. VIII, c. XII, provided for an appeal to the court presided over by the bishop.

   2. The Consistory Court of the diocesan bishop which held its sessions at the bishop's see for the trial of all ecclesiastical causes arising within the diocese. The bishop's chancellor, or his commissary, was the ordinary judge; and from his adjudication an appeal lay to the archbishop of the province.

   3. The Court of Arches was a court of appeal belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the judge of such court was called the Dean of the Arches because in ancient times he held court in the church of St. Mary le bow (Sancta Maria de arcubus), one of the churches of London.

   4. The Court of Peculiars was a branch of and annexed to the Court of Arches. It had jurisdiction over all those parishes dispersed throughout the Province of Canterbury in the midst of other dioceses, which were exempt from the ordinary's jurisdiction and subject to the metropolitan only.
All ecclesiastical causes arising within these peculiar or exempt jurisdictions were, originally, cognizable by this court. From its decisions an appeal lay, formerly, to the pope, but during the reign of Henry VIII this right of appeal was abolished by statute and therefor was substituted an appeal to the king in Chancery.

   5. The Prerogative Court was established for the trial of testamentary causes where the deceased had left "bona notabilia" (i.e. chattels of the value of at least one hundred shillings) within two different dioceses.
In that case, the probate of wills belonged to the archbishop of the province, by way of special prerogative, and all causes relating to the wills, administrations or legacies of such persons were, originally, cognizable therein before a judge appointed by the archbishop and called the Judge of the Prerogative Court. From this court an appeal lay (until 25 Henr. VIII, c. XIX) to the pope; and after that to the king in Chancery.


These were the ancient courts.
After the religious revolution had been inaugurated in England by Henry VIII, a sixth ecclesiastical court was created by that monarch and designated the Court of Delegates (judices delegati), and such delegates were appointed by the king's commission under his great seal, issuing out of chancery, to represent his royal person and to hear ordinary ecclesiastical appeals brought before him by virtue of the statute which has been mentioned as enacted in the twenty-fifth year of his reign.

This commission was frequently filled with lords, spiritual and temporal, and its personnel was always composed in part of judges of the courts at Westminster and of Doctors of the Civil Law. Supplementary to these courts were certain proceedings under a special tribunal called a Commission of Review, which was appointed in extraordinary cases to revise the sentences of the Court of Delegates; and, during the reign of Elizabeth, another court was created, called the Court of the King's High Commission in Cases Ecclesiastical.

This court was created in order to supply the place of the pope's appellate jurisdiction in regard to causes appertaining to the reformation, ordering and correcting of the ecclesiastical state and of ecclesiastical persons "and all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities". This court was the agent by which most oppressive acts were committed and was justly abolished by statute, 16 Car. I, c. XI. An attempt was made to revive it during the reign of King James II.

The Church of England was the name given to that portion of the laity and clergy of the Catholic Church resident in England during the days of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy and during the history of England under William the Conqueror and his successors down to the time when Henry VIII assumed unto himself the position of spiritual and temporal head of the English Church.
Prior to the time of Henry VIII, the Church of England was distinctly and avowedly a part of the Church universal.
Its prerogatives and its constitution were wrought into the fibre of the common law.
 Its ecclesiastical courts were recognized by the common law — the jus publicum of the kingdom — and clear recognition was accorded to the right of appeal to the sovereign pontiff; thus practically making the pontiff the supreme judge for England as he was for the remainder of Christendom in all ecclesiastical causes.


The civil courts rarely sought to trench upon the domain of ecclesiastical affairs and conflict arose only when the temporalities of the church were brought within the scope of litigation.

The common law is chiefly, however, to be considered in reference to its protection of purely human interests. As such it proved to be powerful, efficient and imposing. The Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas and the Exchequer, together with the High Court of Chancery, were justly famous throughout Christendom.

 The original Anglo-Saxon juridical system offered none but simple remedies comprehended, for the most part, in the award of damages for any civil wrong and in the delivery to the proper owners of land or chattels wrongfully withheld. Titles of an equitable nature were not recognized and there was no adequate remedy for the breach of such titles. The prevention of wrong by writs of injunction was unknown.

The idea of a juridical restoration of conditions which had been disturbed by wrongful act as well as the idea of enforcing the specific performance of contracts had never matured into either legislation or judicial proceedings.

Such deficiencies in the jurisprudence of the realm were gradually supplied, under the Norman kings, by the royal prerogative exercised through the agency of the lord chancellor by special adjudications based upon equitable principles.

 In the course of time, a great Court of Chancery came into being deriving its name from the fact that its presiding judge was the lord chancellor. In this court were administered all the great principles of equity jurisprudence. The lord chancellor possessed as one of his titles that of Keeper of the King's Conscience; and, hence, the High Court of Chancery was often called a Court of Conscience.

 Its procedure did not involve the presence of a jury and it differed from the courts of common law in its mode of proof, mode of trial, and mode of relief. The relief administered was so ample in scope as to be conformable in all cases with the absolute requirements of a conscientious regard for justice.
Among the most eminent of the Chancellors of England was Sir Thomas More who laid down his life rather than surrender the Catholic Faith, and Lord Bacon who was the pioneer in broadening the scope of modern learning.
After the time when courts became established and entered upon the exercise of their various functions, the common law developed gradually into a more finished system because of the fact that judicial decisions were considered to be an exposition of the common law and, consequently, were the chief repository of the law itself.

For this reason the observance of precedents is a marked feature in English jurisprudence and prevails to a much greater extent than under other systems. As the law is deemed to be contained in the decisions of the courts, it necessarily follows that the rule to be observed in any particular proceeding must be found in some prior decision.

When the period of English colonization in America began, the aborigines were found to be wholly uncivilized and, consequently, without any system of jurisprudence, whatsoever. Upon the theory that the English colonists carried with them the entire system of the English law as it existed at the time of their migration from the fatherland, the colonial courts adopted and acted upon the theory that each colony, at the very moment of its inception, was governed by the legal system of England including the juridical principles administered by the common law courts and by the High Court of Chancery.
Thus, law and equity came hand in hand to America and have since been the common law of the former English colonies.

When the thirteen American colonies achieved their independence, the English common law, as it existed with its legal and equitable features in the year 1607, was universally held by the courts to be the common law of each of the thirteen states which constituted the new confederated republic known as the United States of America.

As the United States have increased in number, either by the admission of new states to the Union carved out of the original undivided territory, or by the extension of territorial area through purchase or contest, the common law as it existed at the close of the War of the American Revolution has been held to be the common law of such new states with the exception that, in the State of Louisiana, the civil law of Rome, which ruled within the vast area originally called Louisiana, has been maintained, subject only to subsequent legislative modifications.
The Dominion of Canada is subject to the common law with the exception of the Province of Quebec and the civil laws of that province are derived from the old customary laws of France, particularly the Custom of Paris, in like manner as the laws of the English-speaking provinces are based upon the common law of England.

In process of time, the customary laws have been modified or replaced by enactments of the Imperial and Federal parliament and by those of the provincial parliament; they were finally codified in the year 1866 upon the model of the Code Napoléon. However, the criminal law of the Province of Quebec is founded upon that of England and was to a great extent codified by the federal statute of 1892. Practice and procedure in civil causes are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 1897.'
"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2011, 08:19:28 AM »
Prior to 1066 & feudalism, folk-right juries – the true common-law
juries – had been an integral part of the administration of the “free
(still Catholic) System of English Laws.”

Even under King George, the sheriff was the only authority to legitimately preside over them (aneolderman or bishop of a parish also used to have that power). For the
Crown to have sent “swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out
their substance” with impunity, the king or his colonial governors would
have needed to deny colonists their common law juries – the only legal
venue left to assert the (common law) “rights of the People” in the
absence of (civil) “Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers” (all quotes
from the Declaration of Independence).

The war against common law institutions began soon after England was conquered by Normans seeking to replace common law with feudalism & civil law as practiced in some locals on the Continent (whence also King George hailed).

Beforehand England had a decentralised form of representative gov’t fostering unwritten legal
traditions as well as common law – an impediment to a Holy Roman Empire
re-uniting Europe into an extended “City of God” (as coined by St
Augustine), so pursing the Romans’ obsession for making “a city of the
once-wide world” (as described by Rutilius Claudius Namantianus) under a
civil (from the Latin for city) law enforced throughout that empire as
if it were one city.

Continental bankers furthered this resurrected policy to finance the Normans to conquer England, impose civil law & feudalism, and set up a banking haven in London’s ‘City’. Much later on,other peoples practicing uncompromising time-honored principles also
became victims of civil law supremacists – the Indians here or
traditional (financed by Zio bankers such as Max Warburg) Jews in Europe,  because the rule of principle greatly impedes unjust enrichment via legal fictions.'
"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2011, 05:10:49 PM »
Sovereignty doesn't depend on long-winded conspiracy theory.

Perhaps not but it's corruption is certainly the result of conspiracy. And these days they ain't theories no longer.

Quote
Santos is an interesting speaker but seems like a snake in the grass.

He's a bit frenetic ... but a 'snake in the grass'? I think not. He speaks to truth. I know this because most of what he has to say I've investigated over two decades and it's pretty close to what I've discovered in my own research. In particular, the fulcrum of his talk, is that Jesus is a myth and on that myth most all religious conflicts have emanated.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2011, 05:19:51 PM »
Prior to 1066 & feudalism, folk-right juries – the true common-law
juries – had been an integral part of the administration of the “free
(still Catholic) System of English Laws.”

All useful information but I guess I was more interested in your take on the Jesus myth. After all many pages here have been devoted to religious discussion and if in fact it 'Jesus' is but a myth and merely a regurgitation of sun worship then it is clear that it's all been a supreme waste of time, in as much as the details of the conflicts of opposing views and translation are concerned. Common law is (should be) independent of ecclesiastic considerations, all the more so if one disposes of this corruption called 'Christianity', which seeks to impose it's 'justice' in lieu of common sense and on the basis of some 'higher' authority.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2011, 08:02:12 PM »
Perhaps not but it's corruption is certainly the result of conspiracy. And these days they ain't theories no longer.

He's a bit frenetic ... but a 'snake in the grass'? I think not. He speaks to truth. I know this because most of what he has to say I've investigated over two decades and it's pretty close to what I've discovered in my own research. In particular, the fulcrum of his talk, is that Jesus is a myth and on that myth most all religious conflicts have emanated.

I certainly didn't mean to say there aren't real conspiracies.  But the crushing of common law hardly requires mystery societies.  Gov'ts have a natural incentive to amass power at the expense of rights.  The MIC is a conspiracy in plain sight.

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2011, 09:19:06 PM »
I certainly didn't mean to say there aren't real conspiracies.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I only meant to say many a conspiracy has produced, over time, one anomaly after another, each a building block toward a hierarchy that has usurped any notion of statehood in which the people play a part. This is clearly evident in what witness today, an oligarchy of shadowy 'men' & 'women' who speak glibly of human rights, dignity and nationhood while exercising control over every aspect of our lives without regard to their own rhetoric. As a matter of fact even their rhetoric is morphing into the diktat of tyranny. We are very much at the edge and unless the people exercise their inherent power and take this world back from their grasp we most certainly will be crowded over the precipice.... and to do that we must bury the false history they have piled before us like so much dung and find the truth of our past, and do it soon.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2011, 05:10:02 PM »
All useful information but I guess I was more interested in your take on the Jesus myth. After all many pages here have been devoted to religious discussion and if in fact it 'Jesus' is but a myth and merely a regurgitation of sun worship then it is clear that it's all been a supreme waste of time, in as much as the details of the conflicts of opposing views and translation are concerned.
Common law is (should be) independent of ecclesiastic considerations, all the more so if one disposes of this corruption called 'Christianity', which seeks to impose it's 'justice' in lieu of common sense and on the basis of some 'higher' authority.

You know my take on this.
His story was not a myth, by any stretch.
Letters from Pilate to Caesar of their meeting are On the record, but rarely if ever discussed. Ive printed them here.

Time itself is marked with HIS life and death.
Jews Hate him, Muslims revere him, Christians worship him, and his message today of freedom, justice, love and jew Usury, resonates as loudly now as it did then.

Catholics do not worship the Sun, but the Blessed Trinity.
I have lots of info on this if youd like to view it, but I dont want to hijack it either so its your call.
"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2011, 07:50:02 PM »
You know my take on this.
His story was not a myth, by any stretch.

Well, best we don't get into it. I would like to think that Jesus existed if only because what he has to say in the NT is inspired as well as inspirational but the more I dig the more I am convinced that he did not. And yes all religions have devolved from turning an appreciation of the universe and it's cyclical nature into faith and worship based on absurd interpretations of the astronomical evidence. In fact the evidence that such is the case far surpasses a letter from Pontius Pilate to Caesar. Man made documents are just that whereas the vast universe, far more incredible when compared to man made myths, is by the hand of God. I much prefer a faith in God than a faith in men presented as intermediaries to God, especially such an absurdity as naming some pedophile as a 'Holy father'. The arrogance of that is in itself stomach churning.

I rather doubt that you watched the vids I embedded. I didn't post this sequence because it involves 20 or so clips but I'll post the first. If you can open your mind without slipping into denial you may need to question your 'faith' a little.


And please don't presume that this fellow is the only investigator whose work I have researched. Sun worship is precisely what religion and the ecclesiastic world has embraced IMO and used extensively through the ages to enslave us, by worldly authorities or otherwise.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2011, 06:34:59 PM »
Well, best we don't get into it. I would like to think that Jesus existed if only because what he has to say in the NT is inspired as well as inspirational but the more I dig the more I am convinced that he did not.

The bible has many faults as a historical record but it could be that the Jesus myth as we know it was based on a real person whose views & accomplishments were embellished on as time went by.  However I agree independent evidence on a real person is mighty thin.  Well it's odd that so many Christians esp the more fundamentalist seem to require a real Jesus (saved us with The Blood LOL, as if Jesus was the only martyr) rather than relying on the message.

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2011, 12:10:41 PM »
From Non Christian sources on Christ:

1. Historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."
 Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

    Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. .


 Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.



2. Or letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor.
In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christian. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
    'They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.'

OR
3. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus.

'About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All the talk of sun worship is put out by Anti Christ Jews and their Jehovah Witness useful idiots

Kook-fringe anti-Catholics try to claim that the Catholic Church is just re-packaged pagan religion. All pagan religions worshiped the sun, so the Catholic Church must worship the sun, right?

Our Critics point out that the monstrance and communion is circular, therefore we are sun worshippers.
God help them if they notice the shape of any and all wheels,  on their car, or bicycle.
How about manhole covers, or the horizontal cross-section of a bottle, or a basketball or a baseball?


Some say the Church pulled this slight-of-hand (substituting sun-worship for Jesus-worship) because the words "son" and "sun" are homophonic, so it was easy for the ancient pagan Catholic Church to fool people.
Of course, this works in English, but not Latin or Greek or Aramaic (so the ancient Church was teaching in English, I suppose).
These are the same types of people who think the KJV is the original text of the Bible.
Much comes from  Jack Chick.

Chick gets his mythology all wrong.
For example, he claims that "in ancient Babylon, they worshiped the sun god, ‘Baal.’ Then this religion moved into Egypt using different names."
 In reality, ancient Babylonians worshiped the sun god Shamash. Baal was neither a Babylonian deity nor the sun god. In fact, he was the Canaanite storm god. Chick could not have had his ideas more muddled.

The source Chick depends on for his mythological ideas is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, an eccentric nineteenth-century Anglican clergyman.
Chick essentially recycles Hislop’s central thesis of Catholicism being a revival of Babylonian paganism. This allows him to identify the Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon.


The fool that wrote all of this, Ralph Woodrow, ie wrote Mystery Babylon, based on an earlier work, The Two Bablylons, has changed his tune, and now refutes any connection between Babylon and Rome, or Sunday and the worship of a sun god.


Well, we do worship the Sun of Justice, who rises with healing in his wings -- which is to say, Christ, as prophesied by Malachi. And we do look to the East for the Second Coming of the Bridegroom as prophesied in Psalm 19, one of the favorite scripture passages of the earliest Christians.
St. Justin Martyr explained, both in his First Apologia and his Dialogue with Trypho, the importance of this psalm verse. Here's the First Apologia bit:

"And hear how it was foretold concerning those who published Jesus' doctrine and proclaimed His appearance, the above-mentioned prophet and king David speaking thus by the Spirit of prophecy:
 "Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.
 In the sun hath He set His tabernacle, and he as a bridegroom going out of his chamber shall rejoice as a giant to run his course."


And of course, the sun and moon both darkened at the Crucifixion of Christ.
Shame on God for involving the pagan Sun in all that, much less Yehoshua's battle at Ajalon and Noah's rainbow sign, which wouldn't work without sunlight.
But of course He created the whole problem in the first place, by rudely daring to create the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars.

'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. '
Ephesians 6:12.

The Sun, has its place in Catholic theology, the Fathers and Doctors have written all about its comparison to God.
 It is for us humans a perfect symbol for God, the brightest thing in our lives and life giving by its effects.

It is natural then for the devil to twist the thing a make it an instrument for himself.
He did this with the pagans, but he had a further use of it reserved for his attack on Christianity, for their religion coveted their sun-centered system, their sun-god-centered world.
Few will not know of the Copernican revolution. But how many will even entertain for a minute that it was also the Devil's revolution?
Well, here is the test. If it destroys faith then it is of the Devil.

How could we/I possibly, as Catholics, worship Mithra, or Satan, or the Sun when we hold Christ in front of and around us, recall His life and teaching every Mass, participate in his Sacrifice, pray in Jesus Christ's Name and sing, read and listen to His Word, and take part in HIS unbloody Sacrifice on Calvary?

The Church did not adopt sun-centered religion when it ceased condemning heliocentric texts. We did not replace Jesus with Mithra. We did not change the story of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. We did not change one word of the Bible, nor how we used it.


So if you believe that Christians shouldn't worship Christ; that they shouldn't read the Gospels; and that God creating the universe was a big mistake; I suppose it would be okay to remove all symbolism connected to the sun or the east from Christian places of worship.

The Bible which says that:
The Sun does not go down for the poor,
The Sun stood still,
The Sun is ashamed and confounded and
The light of the moon shall be as the light of the Sun

The sun rises and the sun sets,and hurries back to where it rises.   (Ecc 1-5)
"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. (Luke 21:25)

James 1:11
'For the sun has risen with its burning heat, and has withered the grass, and its flower has fallen, and the comeliness of its look has perished: thus the rich also shall wither in his goings.'

IMHO,  People who uncritically accept such lame and absurd claims of heresy and sun worship and prostrate them forth, are not coming from a position of intellectual strength. 
No offense of course.


« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 12:27:37 PM by WaltDisney »
"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline FrankDialogue

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5707
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2011, 12:35:00 PM »
Thank you Walt.

Offline clefty

  • Shill
  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2011, 02:51:03 PM »

How could we/I possibly, as Catholics, worship Mithra, or Satan, or the Sun when we hold Christ in front of and around us, recall His life and teaching every Mass, participate in his Sacrifice, pray in Jesus Christ's Name and sing, read and listen to His Word, and take part in HIS unbloody Sacrifice on Calvary

how indeed?...I mean really!! everybody knows the text where Jesus changes worship on saturday to worship on the dies solis ...

he even said "when the end of the age comes and the temple is destroyed..pray that you dont have to run to the mountains on Sabbath sunday..."

oh and dont forget the classic "keep the commandments... except the fourth one which I will abolish"...

worship on sunday but eating unleavened sacremental ceremonial bread was exactly what the OT was all about...the OT was in fact abolished accept for that joo bread part...

why even  Peter and Paul met to worship on sundays...

Paul was just joking when he said at his trial..."neither against the law of the jews nor against the temple nor against Ceasar have I offended in anything at all..."

everybody knows Paul ate bread on sunday...and that means OT laws are abolished...and he worshiped on sunday

Joos were thrilled by all these converts  worshiping with them on sunday

and ceasar was happier even still...all those people worshipping some other diety on sundays gave him a chance to relax...

why nobody met on saturdays that's why by 321 AD the secular authority was just wasting its time forbidding sabbath rest...

and mandating sunday worship thereby changing ceasar's day to christ's was likewise so unnessassary...nobody worshiped ceasar...or any other sun gods so the day was wide open

the whole sun worship thing in the OT was just a warm up to the real worship of the Sun of Justice...a lord rising indeed...


any intellectual can see that when it says in the bible the "first of the sabbaths" in greek this actually means sunday....ha ha ha

Quote
The Sun, has its place in Catholic theology, the Fathers and Doctors have written all about its comparison to God.
 It is for us humans a perfect symbol for God, the brightest thing in our lives and life giving by its effects.
that's why sun is written with a capital letter S...

Quote
The Church did not adopt sun-centered religion when it ceased condemning heliocentric texts. We did not replace Jesus with Mithra. We did not change the story of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. We did not change one word of the Bible, nor how we used it.

exactly...the church never exercised her self declared God given authority to make changes...and is never relying on man's tradition but only scripture...

replace Jesus was mithra?...that's outrageous!!...everybody knows He said "dont forget my birthday dec 25"....
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 02:57:38 PM by clefty »

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2011, 02:59:28 PM »
My favorite of all time is the period that Jewry calls..... the Dark Ages.

It was called that, aptly, because 'they' were kept in locked, caged ghettos and society prospered.



"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline Jan Robertson

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2406
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • AKA Mystica. All things are connected
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2011, 04:24:49 PM »
We are very much at the edge and unless the people exercise their inherent power and take this world back from their grasp we most certainly will be crowded over the precipice.... and to do that we must bury the false history they have piled before us like so much dung and find the truth of our past, and do it soon.

Much too late for that now ... When the ME is 'contained' (almost there) globalization will become a reality and we will be the slaves of the elite.

If we can't convince the religious members here of the truth about religion then what can we accomplish?

Sadly nothing!!!

Christ ianity ... Chris inanity ... Christ insanity!!!

 SUN of God!!!


Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Offline clefty

  • Shill
  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2011, 04:56:30 PM »
Much too late for that now ... When the ME is 'contained' (almost there) globalization will become a reality and we will be the slaves of the elite.

If we can't convince the religious members here of the truth about religion then what can we accomplish?

Sadly nothing!!!

Christ ianity ... Chris inanity ... Christ insanity!!!

 SUN of God!!!

jesus said "tell no one i am the christ"...christ means king...jesus did not come for earthly gain or power...but his "kingdom" is spiritual...

he told them he was to come suffer and die to the very religious rulers who sought power...

Peter said "NO WAY" and Jesus rebuked him "get thee behind me satan"...and many followers left because they sought a king savior to deliver them from rome...

they did not seek a son of man/servant who would die to the authorities...but would deliver them from sin and suffering

this sun/son of god christ king is a tool to decieve and control the masses by religious authorites...especially christ's masses materialists who seek world universal corporate religious state

jesus and his followers of the way are not interested in temporal control or power

they are free...even while being  crucified or burnt

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 14553
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- The Law - Sovereigns, time to stand up! Reclaim your rights
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2011, 05:08:49 PM »
...the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112...

Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus.

You quote second hand sources who report well after the days that Jesus supposedly lived. That certainly nails it.

Quote
All the talk of sun worship is put out by Anti Christ Jews and their Jehovah Witness useful idiots

That's right, I'm an anti-christ Jew and a Jehovah witness. I'm sure that makes you feel better. Always paint those seeking the truth with some label, especially a religious label. Never mind that what I'm saying is that ALL religion, as currently defined is BUNK.  I didn't just come to that conclusion yesterday, but a long, long time ago. This fellow's video seminars merely puts icing on the cake.

Quote
So if you believe that Christians shouldn't worship Christ; that they shouldn't read the Gospels; and that God creating the universe was a big mistake; I suppose it would be okay to remove all symbolism connected to the sun or the east from Christian places of worship.

First off, we're talking Jesus. He never called himself 'Christ'. By his words he worshiped God. You worship man, not God. Funny how you ignore my statements in that regard.

This is the Christian view... God wrote the bible. How do we know, the Bible tells us so. Talk about intellectual fallacies. But hey, believe what you want about those who

Quote
IMHO,  People who uncritically accept such lame and absurd claims of heresy and sun worship and prostrate them forth, are not coming from a position of intellectual strength. 
No offense of course.

IMHO, People who uncritically accept such lame and absurd claims of belief in men, blood and sacrifice and prostrate themselves at the feet of men have no intellectual strength at all. But hey, no offense intended even though you insulted me ten ways from Sunday. And like everyone who prefers belief to factual data, I know you didn't bother to follow any of the vids. Live on in ignorance since obviously being on your knees and kissing the hem of some pedophile who has the nerve to call himself the 'Holy father' is preferable to using your brain.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu