Standing on the land

In Medieval England, the king was the fount of justice and titles (political and legal theory).
At one time, the Domesday Book was considered the exclusive fountain of titles with nothing beyond it.

Quote:

---

justice
mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment;" also "quality of being fair and just," from O.Fr. justice "justice, legal rights, jurisdiction" (11c.), from L. iustitia "righteousness, equity," from iustus "upright, just" (see just (adj.)). The Old French word had widespread senses, including "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." The word began to be used in English c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning "right order, equity" is late 14c. Justice of the peace first attested early 14c. In the Mercian hymns, L. iustitia is glossed by O.E. rehtwisnisse. To do justice to (someone or something) "render fully and fairly showing due appreciation" is from 1670s.

title
c.1300, "inscription, heading," from O.Fr. title (12c.), and in part from O.E. titul, both from L. titulus "inscription, heading," of unknown origin. Meaning "name of a book, play, etc." first recorded mid-14c. The sense of "name showing a person's rank" is first attested 1580s. The verb meaning "to furnish with a title" is attested from late 14c.

---

The king of England held radical title to land. Subjects were granted an abstract entity of ownership known as an estate in land. This estate may have rights, privileges, offices, and duties attached thereto. Also, this estate may have governmental powers associated with it as well such as a baron exercising jurisdiction over and receiving tribute (tax) from his subjects.

Quote:

---

estate
early 13c., "rank, standing, condition," from Anglo-Fr. astat, O.Fr. estat "state, position, condition, health, status, legal estate" (Mod.Fr. ?tat), from L. status "state or condition," from root of stare "to stand" from PIE root *sta- "to stand" (see stet). For initial e-, see especial. Sense of "property" is late 14c., from that of "worldly prosperity;" specific application to "landed property" (usually of large extent) is first recorded in Amer.Eng. 1620s. A native word for this was M.E. ethel (O.E. ??el) "ancestral land or estate, patrimony." Meaning "collective assets of a dead person or debtor" is from 1830. The three estates (in Sweden and Aragon, four) conceived as orders in the body politic date from late 14c. In France, they are the clergy, nobles, and townsmen; in England, originally the clergy, barons, and commons, later Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and commons. For Fourth Estate see four.

entitle
late 14c., "to give a title to a chapter, book, etc.," from Anglo-Fr. entitler, O.Fr. entiteler (Mod.Fr. intituler), from L.L. intitulare, from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + titulus "title" (see title). Meaning "to bestow (on a person) a rank or office" is mid-15c. Sense of "to give (someone) 'title' to an estate or property," hence to give that person a claim to possession or privilege, is mid-15c.; this now is used mostly in reference to circumstances and actions. Related: Entitled; entitling.

---

I assert that standing originally meant a subject's rank or status in the king's court. The king's court was social, political, and judicial.

Having a title would also grant the holder access to and exercise of political power within the system.

One's title or titles to land (estate in land) may be held for generations by the same family. This could create the last name for those familial household members.

The title or titles in land are held of (belonging to) the king.

The basis of an estate in land may begin with a survey.

The estate in land is a grant from king to subject originally.

A grant from king to subject is not trust as a division between legal and equitable title, but trust as FIDUCIARY.

One interesting movie to watch, if you can abide all of the Hollywood fluff, is THE TUDORS. The king had his court and to be in the presence of the king was to be in the presence of the Sun in Light. But to be absent from the king was to be in outer darkness.

There are a small people who always cozy up to the king. And in the latter days will take the kingdom in flattery - for operations manual on how this will be done - see the book of Esther.

There are six words I carry in my bag "I have no trust in you". For if the kings rely on Scripture so do I. For I find in Scripture.

Eze 6:8 Yet will I leave a remnant, that ye may have some that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries.

Here is the thing. Most people today are so swept up in the Religion of Secular Humanism that they will not even recognize Scripture, much less do they comprehend it. But I tell you this day, that the Kingdom that you write about are derived from Scripture. The that king is NOTHING without Scripture.

That king is supposed to be the greatest servant of all. The servant who teaches the people the Scriptures and causes them to walk in them. For we are all with an estate under the King of kings.

Why is the foregoing statement true? Because if you have Qualified for the Estate in Salvation in Yehoshuah, by repentance and trust, then the estate has been transferred upon you with the Title Christ Man. And now you are with duty to abide in the Covenant whereby the Covenant is to abide in Torah.

Therefore upon receiving the estate we receive the duty to share our talents. And do not be one who does not share his talent for that one is worthless to the king.

And by the way, the United States rolls up like a scroll if that throne disappears in Britain. Which it will not for it was promised to David years ago that his seed would occupy said throne until the one who is called "Shiloh" or "the Son of David" or "the Son of The Man" shall come.

If that last statement is confusing I recommend reading "Steven M. Collins" - The Lost Tribes of Israel FOUND

Therefore a king begs a kingdom or a dominion. And the king's dominion is his to grant. But the king's dominion is to be first granted to him by the people. And therefore the people make the grant to put one at their head - 1st Samuel 8. And then that one is vested with the dominion.

Therefore your implied trust can mean so much more than your express trust. For you may say one thing and do another.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S. I presented this argument to a group of men recently and one brought up John 3:16. You all know it. If you don't look it up. See that word "Believe"? Consider that the Devils believe. So then might the so called men of the cloth be ignorant themselves or with an agenda to lead people into the pit? I think BOTH.

That Believe is not a passive verb. In my opinion it should have been TRUST. As in if you have trust in me then you have a fiduciary to me to keep the bylaws of our Covenant. Now considering the WHOLE of Scripture that makes sooooooooooooo much more sense. I know I couldn't be right, right?


Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Luk 9:61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

Luk 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


believeth:

G4100
πιστεύω
pisteuō

From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.


For there are MANY estates in the Everlasting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Here is the thing. Most people today are so swept up in the Religion of Secular Humanism that they will not even recognize Scripture, much less do they comprehend it. But I tell you this day, that the Kingdom that you write about are derived from Scripture. The that king is NOTHING without Scripture.

---

They missed it 2,000 years ago. Why not now? The destruction of the temple at Jerusalem was a highly significant event.

An interesting perspective, which I find favor with, is that, as most of us may know, we are NOT our bodies. The body is soil, of the earth, and everything of the earth was created by and is ultimately owned by the universal and Supreme Sovereign, Yehovah Elohim. We are spirits inhabiting the body and the earth as sojourners. When our bodies return to the soil, we still exist.

He granted us dominion over the earth, namely and foremost, our bodies. We also have dominion over our chosen and certain realm on earth (piece of land) by God's grace and generousity. We have exclusive and beneficial use over these dominions absent the claimed jurisdiction or authority of any man.

The body is essentially our Nation State; State = self-governing, and, Nation = to be born. Each of our bodies is our own sovereign nation state landed upon the soil commonly known as ?America?. We (our bodies) are essentially a state among the others which have been already declared. The other states are made up of people where as we are of our own nation.

Modern society and the custodial governments have created a system whereby those who will choose to self-govern have the authority, and inherent right, to administer their estates according to their own free will. The registration of the event of live birth places that authority over one?s estate unto the control, wardship and administration of said custodial government until such time as the heir shall come forth to redeem and make proper claim. Most do not ever attempt to accomplish this. Therefore the usufruct of one?s estate is with the government since it is the government which draws the profit, utility and advantage as we see in every day life. Those who live the conventional and conditioned life are held to the fiduciary ?energy-giver? role whereby one?s substance is harvested by the registered custodians and used for the purpose of collecting upon each of our own self-indictments ? the monetization of sin.


The creation of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust/estate is, in my opinion, not for the benefit of the creating State nor is it the State?s property; it does have the liability for it since it is created by NECESSITY (by it?s own doing) in order for people to be able to gain the essentials and necessities of life in this day and age since control of all aspects of modern life is with the government. The system exists by design and there is always a choice; trust in it or take control over it. That is why remedy is ALWAYS written into all of man?s created laws because God commands that there be a way out for those who trust in Him rather than the system.


Therefore, I believe that the FIRST MIDDLE LAST estate is our own private property if we redeem and declare it so. It was created by the State for our sole charitable benefit out of the necessity created by its own doing. The LAST or Family name existed long before the creation of the United States of America. The Family estate name may have been seen or used as a Title in the past through greed or ignorance; I see it as our dominium and birthright whereby we claim the Divinely granted inheritance and exercise our sovereign authority of our own bodies here on earth while recognizing that the only One who has higher claim and authority over it is Almighty God Himself. No man on earth can claim higher rights to our own bodies (landed estates) then we.

And by the way, the United States rolls up like a scroll if that throne disappears in Britain. Which it will not for it was promised to David years ago that his seed would occupy said throne until the one who is called "Shiloh" or "the Son of David" or "the Son of The Man" shall come.

Let me recommend you google and read about John Anthony Hill. (JAH) has whipped the queens ass in court and exposed her for the fraud she is.

The stone she sat upon at her coronation was not as claimed: "the very stone that Jacob lay his head upon when he had the dream about Jacobs ladder"
The stone she sat upon was fake and so her rule is fake and her government exposed as fraud.

I am really pleased to have you posting here Shikamaru!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am really pleased to have you posting here Shikamaru!

---

This all "hit me" as I was piecing things together.

Something else to add, landholders were enfranchised.
Representation was for the sake of the king to hit up his subjects with standing for money for waging war.
The nobles, clergy, and common (communitases (communities)) would send agents to stand in their place when summoned for appearance in the House of Lords and House of Commons.