Peymon explains it pretty clearly here in 26 minutes...answers all the "deep" questions, arising from fearful programming.....which is what prevents 95% of people from taking back their power and benefiting from their own hard-earned money.
In short, you only need to pay "income taxes" if you live in the geographical boundaries of the District of Columbia and/or are employed by the Federal government. That's the "law" (rules written by the rule-makers) and what the Founding Fathers originally intended, and has always been true to this very day.
Before any meaningful and clarifying conversation can ever be had, an agreement on definitions and word meaning is imperative. Were I to answer your question without said clarification, we continue talking past each other.
The word "God" is derived as follows.
Yod Heh Vav Heh [YHVH] (Tetragrammaton) is one of the TWO words in Hebrew translated to "God" in English. It was shortened to "Yod" when speaking casually, and then Anglicized to "God", just like "Yeshua" was translated to "Jesus". Anglo-translation transforms "Y's" to "G's" and "J's".
The other word translated to "God" was "Elohim". That's the plural form of "Eloha" and the word means "Creator Beings". Something you are!
Yod-Heh-Vah-Heh (YHVH) means -> "I AM that I AM". Thus, "Yod" translates to "I AM" or "I".
YHVH, with vowels inserted generates words like "YaHWeh", "YeHoVaH", "JeHoVaH'.
Thus, "God" is "I AM". Something we all say thousands of times a day.
"Jesus" comes from YHSVH -> "YeHSVaH' -> Yeshua - Jeshua -> Jesus.
The "S" (Shin) inserted into the center of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) produces -> YHSVH - Yod-Heh-Shin-Vav-Heh.
The "S" (Shin) indicates "In Form" or "materialized". Thus, YHSVH (Jesus) means "God in form" or "I AM in form".
The word "Christ" derives from "Kristos" in Greek, Krishna in Indian Sanskrit -> Kristos -> Krishna -> Khrist ----- same word, same meaning.
The simplest definition of "Christ" is "Light". All of material reality is "light". Humans can only perceive a tiny fraction of the entire light spectrum - the "visible light spectrum" only. The entire light spectrum is VASTLY LARGER.
"And god said, let there be light" -> I AM vibrated love into the temporary form of light.
Thus, "God" is Love (not in form) and "Christ" is love in form, or light.
Love makes the world go around but has no form. Everyone agrees with this, even if they try to fight it. We are all brainwashed into DEEP IGNORANCE, attempting to SEEK LOVE or "GET LOVE**. This is the delusional egoic program (Satan) operating within us. Humans are out FOR-GETTING. We have literally FORGOTTEN WHO WE ARE. And this is why humans behave the way they do. Pure, unabated FOR-GET-FULLNESS. Most all of us have FULLY FOR-GOTTEN all our lives.
A few have RE-MEMBERED who they are. RE-MEMBERING -> Putting back together again. There are dozens of words used for when a human pulls this off; Enlightened, awakened, Born-Again, etc. The best phrase however, IMHO, is SELF-REALIZED. The human has REALIZED WHO THEY ARE. Very few have pulled this off across millennia. My understanding is, ,approximately 8000 in total. Most up high in the Himalayas, Indian ashrams, etc.
The man, who lived 2000 years ago, popularly named "Jesus Christ" in English, was one of those 8000. In fact, he was the first to accomplish the deepest Re-Membering in that period. He transcended all the veils (BELIEFS) that his predecessors had not yet fully reached, like Elijah or Buddha as well as many thousands of others. He reached the FULL RE-MEMBERING. And that's how and why we all know his name today. Which undoubtedly was NOT "Jesus Christ**. Nobody disagrees that he was called "Yeshua ben Joseph -> Jeshua, son of Joseph.
This is what was "special" and "unique" about Jesus. He told us, in no uncertain terms, that we too would one day return to the awareness and realization that he held. Jesus was the "pattern man", that we all will one day emulate, some sooner than others.
As such, we can now DEFINE "Jesus Christ" -> I AM LIGHT.
That you don't yet REALIZE what you are should not interfere with the understanding. Unitl you become "anointed" with light, this is something we can only BELIEVE for now. Because said BELIEF stands in stark contrast to what we were all brainwashed to BELIEVE, that "I AM a man/woman that has this body". Which is a perfect inversion of truth, 180 degrees.
The simplest way to "Grok" this for a Christian like yourself, is to flip-flip the popular understanding. You are not a human (body) with a soul. You are a "soul" with a body. You are MUCH MUCH MORE than just a soul, but that's the first "step back" from material appearance, the "Witnessing" position. The guidance in scripture -> "Become a witness for God". This is the position of "neutral observation", or non-judgment for starters.
Okay, that's enough for now. If you disagree with any of the above, speak it clearly and succinctly. If you have questions, please ask them. Because without perfect clarity on WHAT we're talking about, no "meaning" or "Understanding" can be conveyed.
Well, I understand enough of what you're saying. (Now, there may be historical issues that I could nitpick as an etymologist; for instance the short form of Yahweh is Yah, not Yod (which is a form of yad meaning hand). But rather than nitpick about your Hebrew epistemology on top of your English, let's instead recognize that you find meaningfulness in the associations such as Yod being perceived as a bridge between Yahweh and God, and work from that recognition.)
And let's not quibble over how many have achieved what Yeshua called Rebirth or being born-again ("8000" or "many thousands"), but rather let's focus on your definitions. You're using "god" (as the Bible does) for any "creator being" seeing as "we all say" "I am"; and you're using "christ" for "light" (which is similar to the Bible sense "anointing" via lighting oil), or "all of material reality". That would imply all kinds of things participate in being god(s) and christ(s), but not everything self-realizes it. And self-realization entitles one to say "I am light" and to claim the name "Jesus Christ". This returns me to the question, when we speak of each being christ ("I am the light", "ye are the light"), should we speak of this being many christs or this also being one christ? I think the Biblical answer is very sound that we are together the one and we should call it the "body of christ" so as not to confuse it with the individuals who are also each christ. Since one's bride is considered one's body, this also becomes "bride of christ"; another formulation is "we are christ in this world" (not "I am", BTW), which is the bride taking the husband's name. (If we don't observe language principles like that, we risk erring by separating christ from christ, but christ is one.)
Another question was more related to people who separate Jesus from Christ, but you have those as identical instead of separated, because the first means "love in form" and the second means "light". Similarly I also asked in relation to some people who don't believe people named Yeshua and Shaul lived in the first century so as to have the legends accumulate around them under the names now in English as Jesus and Paul; but you have a keen grasp on the historical men involved.
Now if we posit a state of being christ in this world, and Yeshua has a special place in being the first to demonstrate this state of being in history, and we don't quibble over how long he was in this state or the future unknown eschatology of what he (the man) might do next, that might be enough foundation to build on. So my questions would be:
(1) Are my own summary statements above sufficient to proceed with (e.g. how to speak about the one christ)?
(2) What is the fraud that you charged people with making about Yeshua, seeing as Yeshua would be the pattern for the name "Jesus Christ" (thus matching the name in every detail), but you started with the harsher framing that Yeshua does not qualify as "Jesus Christ" in some sense?
(3) You ask where I disagree, but for now I don't need to disagree sharply with most of this because I can translate the meaning (for instance where you say "Yod" I can say you really mean "Yah"). The epistemology question: Is that approach acceptable; or, if not, how do we determine historically the most accurate statements about uses of matters like "Yah" and "God"?
(4) One concern where I might find myself disagreeing is the emphatic language "perfect inversion of truth" for "I AM a man" etc. Previously you wrote in a different context, "I'm a man", and "I, A MAN, am". I do understand that the difference is that in distinguishing yourself from legal strawman you're natural Homo sapiens man, but in distinguishing yourself from the body you're more than what scientists mean by natural Homo sapiens man. That's fine. What I mean, though, is whether this is not an inversion but a paradox, two things that reconcile due to different nuances. That is, you say I am a soul with a body (soul being central), and you say I am not a man having a body (human body not being central): I wonder whether both are true, I am a soul, I am a body; also I am a heart, I am a breath, etc. The question is: Are you emphasizing this distinction with such brash language merely to downplay someone's false assertion tied to the body focus; if so, what assertion, and, if not, are these paradoxical or multipolar foci (body, soul, etc.) valid enough? This obviously also starts to track back to OP territory.
(5) It sounds like we can work with relatively close shared definitions for now, then. However, so far you haven't presented anything that pushes me away from my concern for those (some 2 billion) calling themselves Christians, as well as for all humanity. Is there any particular issue or two that you find truly to be "perfect inversion of truth" about these trads, rather than just a semantic issue? Because what I see is not that you disagree with them, but that you anticipate them coming along sooner or later in universal time and that you find their current approach stunted and a less complete realization. If there were some red line between you and the "church", that should be hashed out.
Genuine thanks for your understanding!