Pennsylvania judge hears Ted Cruz 'birther' challenge

The Allentown Morning Call ^ | March 10, 2016 | Steve Esack

[2ndDivisionVet]

HARRISBURG -- Carmon Elliott is not a lawyer. But he got to play one Thursday in state court when he tried to convince a judge that Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is really a Canadian who has no constitutional right to be a candidate for U.S. president.

Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini of Commonwealth Court was as impressed with Elliott's oral arguments as he was his Uncle Sam tie.

"By the way, I like your tie," said Pellegrini, who's known for his wit as well as his probing legal questions.

Some judges don't like hearing election petition cases argued by pro se litigants because they can be unprepared and disruptive to the political process, Pellegrini said. Not so in Elliott's case.

"I have to compliment you," Pellegrini said in court. "You represented yourself well today."

Elliott, a retiree who lives in Pittsburgh and is a Republican with a self-professed affinity for the U.S. Constitution, went up against Robert N. Feltoon, a lawyer from the Philadelphia firm Conrad O'Brien.

Feltoon argued that Elliott's petition should be dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on whether a person born outside the United States as Cruz was can run for president, he argued. It is a decision, Feltoon said, that should be made by Congress and the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the president.

Elliott's petition was one of several "birther" lawsuits filed against Cruz after GOP front-runner Donald Trump openly questioned whether the Texas senator can serve as president.

An Illinois judge tossed one lawsuit last week....

[Springfield Reformer]

Donald is still for the “exceptions.” Why would you assume I would not forgive him for the errors of his past? I would. You judge me falsely. But he has never done anything for which he needed to repent. He said so. Therefore, how can I forgive what he has never admitted was wrong?

But even if he had, but was still for the killing of innocent babies if the dad is a rapist (and that is his position - Google it), that’s enough for him to be disqualified for office, IMHO.

As for the law, I am a Christian, not a Jew. I follow Christian revelation. Nearly the entire book of Hebrews is devoted to showing how the Old Covenant has been set aside for Christian believers, not with respect to eternal spiritual truths, but with respect to the covenant relationship between God and the nation Israel. We no longer offer temple sacrifices because Christ has been offered once for all for our sin. Subjugating Gentiles to the legal rigor of the Old Covenant is forbidden, something the apostle Paul expresses very clearly throughout the entire book of Galatians, even wishing the purveyors of such falsehood would injure themselves. You misrepresent Paul if you suggest that his written on the heart law included Israeli citizenship laws intended only for Israel. The Bible interprets itself. Leave out part of the message and you can build a Gospel-denying cult out of it. Take the whole message seriously and in context, and it becomes the fountain of liberty and eternal life.

Peace,

SR

[patlin]

Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares YHWH.

The new covenant is made with the house of Israel & the house of Judah, it does not say it is made with this entity called the “Christian church” and its members. Paul is quoting from Jeremiah 31 and the new covenant with the biblical body of Messiah that includes our fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & David. The terms of the covenant do no change (Mt 5:17-20). Elohim is neither “Jewish” or “Christian”, therefore, the Body of Messiah is neither “Jewish” or “Christian”. The body of Messiah is defined by Messiah as those who “keep the commandments of Elohim & who also possess the faith of Messiah” (Rev 14:12), to these are given the right to enter the reign of Messiah. I did not understand this until I left the Sunday pew after having kept it warm for nearly 50 years. It was not until I returned to His Sabbath that He began to teach me as He says He will in John 14-17.

And as far as judging, you gave the typical jump to conclusion response. I did not judge you. I did not ask you to forgive Trump. Really, why would I? Did he do harm to you directly that he should seek your forgiveness?

And FYI, Christian “revelation” according to Christ is found in Genesis through Malachi, the ONLY books Christ taught from. (Luke 24) He did not teach from Matthew - Revelation, Matthew through Revelation is merely the living out of what is taught in Genesis - Malachi.

John 1:10-13 tells us that Messiah was in the world, yet those world did not know Him, save those such as the ones listed in Hebrews 11 as examples for us to follow, these are the children of Elohim & the body of Messiah.

The entire bible is about the Son, the Creator, working tirelessly to turn the hearts of men back to the Father in Heaven. The Son is Israel (Isa 49). The Son gave ALL the Torah & commandments to Moses (Acts 3 & 7).

I am sorry you can not see this & I pray Christ will open your heart to receiving His truth.

Shalom

[Dagnabitt]

Another nonsense birther case to be tossed out.

[mdmathis6]

Congress will then get to decide!

[OKSooner]

Thanks for posting this. Marked with the keyword NBC.

[Forty-Niner]

I agree with the exception of McCain. His parents were in service to the US Navy at the time of his birth.

I believe that US soil lies under the boots/shoes of all such service members so deployed.

[Forty-Niner]

I agree with the exception of McCain. His parents were in service to the US Navy at the time of his birth.

I believe that US soil lies under the boots/shoes of all such service members so deployed.

[Springfield Reformer]

I notice that in no case did you address the specific transition from Old to New Covenant based on the inferiority of the Old.  This is the central theme of Hebrews, Christ above the angels, high priest displacing the Levitical order forever, being the mediator of a better covenant:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(Hebrews 8:6-7)

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law.  Fulfillment is completion. There is no more Levitical order. What Jesus completed is done, and it cannot be redone.  If the law had been intended to continue in full Mosaic form for Christians (Christ followers), the Holy Spirit would not have come to the non-practicing Gentiles.  Christians (Christ followers) are neither Jew nor Gentile, and according to Paul in Ephesians, one new man in Christ.

As for Jesus teaching exclusively from Genesis through Malachi, this is not strictly true. He is God. All that came from His mouth was as authoritative as anything He said to Moses.  Furthermore, we know from Peter that the words of Scripture are God-breathed, and that they include the writings of the Apostle Paul, who, like the writer of Hebrews, rejected the continuation of the Old Covenant, or as Jesus said, the old wine skins:

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
(Romans 7:1-6)

For our purposes the takeaway from the above passage is that the Christian (the follower of Christ) is dead to the law, and is married to Christ.  The law made sin manifest, but it had no power to save, only to kill. But we have been raised by the Spirit, delivered from the law and the oldness of it's letter. New wine skins, as Jesus said.

So here are some logic problem you have.  

1) You would know nothing of the life of Christ, what books He taught from, the things he said, apart from New Covenant authors, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.  You have no basis for saying He taught only from the Old Covenant without relying on New Covenant authority.  This is an unresolvable contradiction IF one rejects New Covenant Scripture.  

2)  Jesus promised His Spirit to the first followers of Christ (Christians), in order to teach them and bring to their memory what He did and taught. This was either a true or a false promise. If false, Jesus was a false prophet, and nothing He said should be respected. If He was a true prophet (and He was and is), then His promised gift of the Spirit is certain, and any apostle blessed to write by the Holy Spirit was speaking with the full authority of God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, rejecting New Covenant revelation (Matthew through Revelation) as equal to Old Covenant revelation is a direct repudiation of the authority of Christ to teach His own people through the Holy Spirit.  

Bottom line, you can believe whatever you like.  I'm sticking with the apostles.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

One of the biggest lies the enemy has people convinced of is that somehow, the Law saves.

God cold not be clearer that the Law kills and its purpose was to reveal to mankind its sin and need for a redeemer.

[MHGinTN]

Matthew 26:27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28 because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell all of you I will never again drink the product of the vine until that day when I drink it with you once again in my Father’s kingdom.”

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[MHGinTN]

The events with Peter in The House of Cornelius prove Gentiles were to be included in the New Covenant. Additionally, the first great 'church' council as portrayed in Acts 15 reveal there is to be no differentiating between Jews and Gentiles during the Ekklesia Age.

In the end times, before the Tribulation, false prophets and myth mongers will abound ... it is a sign of our times that these 'other gospels' arise to lead many away from The Truth.

[Godebert]

Notice how the author of this article lies about the Constitution. From the article:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The author left out a key phrase in Article II (in bold):

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The dishonesty of the media is blatant and treasonous.

[Godebert]

So Cruz was made a citizen by the authority of Congress, not thru naturalization.

Congress only has the powers of Naturalization. Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 4. They can not create a natural born Citizen.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Then you and the others who believe like you need to file suit and present your legal theories to a judge. Let me know if you ever win one. Which I doubt will happen. Because Congress certainly can, because McCain got to run. Until you win one, I am not interested in this stuff and don’t want to fuss about it. But if you ever do win one, please let me know.

[patlin]

I notice that in no case did you address the specific transition from Old to New Covenant

I showed you the transition. Now whether you accept it as it is written in the books of Hebrews & the Gospel of John that I posted, that is up to you. And further, the new covenant is not fulfilled until Messiah returns and gathers together the house of Israel & the house of Judah so that they are one again as they were in the days of King David.

Now let's address that passage of Hebrews you posted. What does the Greek really say about the high priesthood? Do you know there was a special covenant of peace made with Aaron?

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and slaughters. So it was also necessary for this One to have somewhat to offer. 4 For if indeed He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Torah, 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly, as Moses was warned when he was about to make the Tent. For He said, “See that you make all according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent service, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was constituted on better promises. 7 For if that first had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says, “See, the days are coming,” says YHWH, “when I shall conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them,” says YHWH. 10 “Because this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says YHWH, giving My laws in their mind, and I shall write them on their hearts, and I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people. 11 And they shall by no means teach each one his neighbor, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know YHWH,’ because they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 Because I shall forgive their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I shall no longer remember.”
Heb 8:13 By saying, ‘new’ He has made the first old. Now what becomes old and growing aged is near disappearing.

The word ‘covenant’ that is in verses 7 & 13 in most bibles is NOT in ANY Greek translation of the New Testament. Paul is writing about the priesthood and there no longer being a need to take sacrifices to the Temple that has long ago been defiled by the priesthood. The context is the fading priesthood, not the covenant of Elohim.

As for the Romans 7 that you posted, Paul begins by saying that he is speaking ONLY to those who are learned in the Law (Torah) of Elohim. Are you learned I the Law that you understand the it is speaking of the law of adultery? Do you know that Elohim divorced the house of Israel and so according to His Law, the only way back to Him was through the death of the husband?

Jer 3:8 And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too.

Deu 24:1 When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a certificate of divorce, and put it in her hand,and send her out of his house, 2 and if she left his house and went and became another man’s wife, :3 and the latter husband shall hate her and write her a certificate of divorce, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before YHWH.

YHWH calls both houses, Israel (Ephraim) & Judah whores who committed adultery and to the house of Israel He gave a certificate of divorce,therefore, according to His Law, the only way back to Him is through death & resurrection as new man. Idolatry in the bible is defined as adultery. Any worship that is not in accordance to the Law of God is considered adultery. Not my words, they are His Words.

And might I remind you that the Lamb of Elohim was slain from the foundation of the world. Messiah's death here on earth was but a shadow of what had already taken place in heaven. What is here on earth is to reflect His kingdom in heaven. It is not to be a chaotic mess of religions, all claiming to have the truth. There is only one truth, His as He is the way, the truth & the life...now go read Psalm 118-119 because the book of John is but a the teaching of what is written in the Pentateuch & the books of Psalm 118-119.

Now who was Paul writing to in Rome? To the diaspora of Israel living in Rome, to those who knew the Law of Elohim and who were still keeping His 7th day Sabbath and gathering on the Sabbath to hear Moses. (Mt 22:34-23:1, Acts 15:21, Isa 56, Mt 12:8, 24:20). Paul was writing to those who were still keeping the Commandments of Elohim & who possessed the faith of Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah. (Php 2:5-9, 1Pt 2:21-22, James 1-2)

And yes, the bottom line is we can choose whatever we want, we can continue to serve the religions of men that make void the Law of Elohim (Mk 7), or we can choose to serve the Father as Messiah & the Apostles served the Father. As for me & my house...

Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH.”

Now tell me you have never heard this quoted in church, yet not one Sunday church actually believes so to do that which they quote.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (The Son, the Word, the Way, the Truth & the Life...Psalms 118-119) Shalom

[MHGinTN]

You’ve got a live one ...

[Springfield Reformer]

Do you believe Matthew through Revelation are the word of God, on an equal footing with Genesis through Malachi?

Peace,

SR

[AFret.]

Attorney General Lynch likely has everything lined up, including the judge.

---

And,....even though sealed, Loretta has already seen Raphael’s US birth documents..proclaiming him a naturalized citizen....

[Redmen4ever]

Is Prince Hashim of Jordan a natural born citizen of the U.S.?

Prince Hashim is a child of two Jordanians, born in Jordan. No, he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S.

Perhaps you were thinking that because Queen Rania is so beautiful, she must have been brought into Jordan by their H1-Beautiful program, the way certain billionaires in this country bring in their wives.