Is The Bible Bowdlerized?

Deep Throat promotional poster

Definitions

Expurgate:

  1. To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material from (a book, for example) before publication.
  2. To purify; to clear from anything noxious, offensive, or erroneous; to cleanse; to purge.

Bowdlerize:

  1. to expurgate (something, such as a book) by omitting or modifying parts considered vulgar.
  2. to modify by abridging, simplifying, or distorting in style or content.

Etymology: Bowdler +‎ ize; named after English physician Thomas Bowdler (1754–1825). In 1818 he published ‘The Family Shakespeare’, a censored version of the bawdy works of William Shakespeare, expurgating “those words and expressions which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family.”

Recently I was alerted to someone in the “Christian manosphere” linking to some purportedly “Christian” hardcore pornography.  Is “Christian-pornography” an oxymoron?  Thanks to Hollywood and our “Sex, drugs, & Rock ‘n’ Roll” promoting entertainment culture, our nations have been saturated with the sexualization of just about everything lately.  However the church has traditionally been the force in society that desexualizes everything.  Well … until recently.

Debbie Does Dallas

Rev. Tommy Nelson famously produced a series of filmed messages re-pornifying a part of the Bible.

The yarn-spinning, joke-telling Texan travels the country using the Bible’s Song of Solomon as God’s definitive message on dating, marriage and sexual intimacy. … He explained words like pomegranate, vineyard and garden are layered in sexual imagery. Raisin cakes represent aphrodisiacs. And the phrase “let his left hand be under my head and his right hand embrace me” means begetting has begun.

So does the Bible deal with the primary focus of our generation, sex?

fertility goddess worship

Jack, over at Σ Frame recently said:

Just to point this out… the Bible has R and X rated content in prose and PG language.

Is that true?  And how does that work?

We shall ponder this curious matter of whether the Bible has been expurgated of its sexual mojo and whether there is merit to “brining the sexy back”.  But first, as I stroke my beard and try to think of a wise and orderly way to open this subject, please smooth down your pornstache and prepare your mind.

Pornstache

Sirach 26:10(NRSV) Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter, or else, when she finds liberty, she will make use of it. … 12 As a thirsty traveler opens his mouth and drinks from any water near him, so she will sit in front of every tent peg and open her quiver to the arrow.

Since Protestants don’t generally recognize the apocryphal books as part of the Bible, then perhaps without too much sacrilege we can then speculate about the above apocryphal passage and try to surmise what the ancient Hebrew author was trying to say … and why he didn’t just say it in plain English.  Is the tent peg a literal tent stake?  Could the quiver and arrow be figurative terms?  Are you pervs already presuming it to be something sexual?  Part of the issue is that there is a change in language over time and through translation.  But is it possible that those who have translated the text have bowdlerized it by rendering Hebrew figures of speech in literal English?  I’m not an ancient Hebrew father, but, their lives, back then, must have been pretty carefree if their biggest worry for a rebellious daughter was that she’d go out and sit in front of all the tent pegs and gather up arrows in her quiver.  Godfearing fathers in today’s oversexualized culture have to worry about their daughters becoming sluts!

The translation problems may lie in the fact that Bible translators don’t generally deal in dirty words.  Nor may the authors have chosen to use dirty words if they existed.  The whole concept of “dirty words” is even sort of a cultural phenomenon.  Is any particular word unwholesome?  Or do words only convey the shared meaning and connotations we allow them, making the words themselves inert, unless you use them in an unwholesome way.  Take for instance “the F-word” the queen mother of all dirty words.  Is saying it like saying an incantation to summon evil?  If I say “fuck” in a forest and nobody hears me, is it a sin?  What if I’m heard?  Or does sin come from disobedience and evil intentions?

For what it is worth, I had heard an urban legend regarding the etymology of the word “fuck” but after studiously researching the truth of the matter, the origin of the word is still mostly shrouded in mystery and is the subject of many speculations.  The reason many folks use it as an expletive is because people have been conditioned not to say it in polite conversation, and so people often say it to emotionally express that they are not having a polite conversation moment.  However, what is deemed as dirty conversation varies with the culture.  God Himself remains unchanging, nor is the Omniscient naïve about any subject, including the two sexes He created.  God has seen every sinful act ever committed.   We don’t need to play coy at church.  However, we should be careful in our speech since we will all be judged by our own words.(Matthew 12:34-37)

Many Christians seem to not want to ever speak to their children about sex, assuring that their children are either dangerously ignorant about sex or learn about it entirely from our perverted world instead.

Another translation problem may be that pornographic text could be made up of entirely inert words, which could be interpreted in another sense.

Give me your lovin’.  Give it to me.  Oh yeah, you’re the best.  Oh yeah, I love what you do to me.  Oh God I’m coming!

Was that people having sex or some new praise song lyrics?  Would we know the difference if we read something like that in the book of Psalms?

Bible translators, generally like their life’s work to be accepted and not doubted or denounced, and so they have a personal incentive to not make their translation seem risqué.  And modern translators may have additional financial incentive to get their translation adopted by denominations and the general public.  So the incentives are always there to make God’s words more palatable and less objectionable.

Starting in the earliest church which began in a Roman society heavily influenced by Gnostics, Stoics, and Cynics, who viewed natural physical sexual acts and passions as inherently evil, there has been a push to further desexualize Christianity.  And so today many risk-averse Christian leaders are also sex-averse cloistered and naïvely aloof in their ivory towers.  While Hollywood usually focuses on the Roman orgies and the sexual decadence and corruption of Rome, the Roman church fathers were the olden day conservatives who along with other conservative sects tried unsuccessfully to stop the moral liberality that contributed to the weakening and eventual collapse of the empire.

Long story short, the human sex drive is stronger than most people’s drive to follow religious dogma, so unless you ignore the Pericope Adulterae and enforce God-given sexual law with dreadful force, society will steadily slip towards depravity.

Martin Luther lamented, when the civil Crown quit executing all adulterers, that his country was headed down a moral slippery slope … to … today’s Germany.

But does the Bible teach us more about sex, besides commands like killing all adulterers?  Yeah!  Proverbs 5 is an entire chapter about sex.  For example:

Proverbs 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern,
And flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow into the street,
Streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
And not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 Like a loving doe and a graceful hind,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.
20 For why should you, my son, be exhilarated with an adulteress,
And embrace the breasts of a foreigner?

So is Solomon telling us to not drink any water that isn’t from our own well, and not to let strangers have a drink from our well?  Not even a cup of cold water given in Christ’s name?  Or was Solomon using sexual euphemisms where the husband has a fountain and his wife has a well or cistern, because in that case then the commands are sensible and in keeping with the law of God.  I have never even heard of a Christian man claiming they only drink water from their own well.  So how can we apply these passages if they are bowdlerized and we are kept from understanding their wisdom?  Well that’s where our free membership benefits kick in!  I just explained it to you, for free.  I may not fully understand it, but such as I have give I thee.

I think the correct position is to re-sexualize the Bible where it has clearly been desexualized, but otherwise to not sexualize the Bible just to make it more titillating to the sexually immoral.

Art Imitates Life: Biblical Forgery Edition

Christ and the Adulteress

“Christ and the Adulteress”, a forged ‘Vermeer’ painted by Han van Meegeren and sold to Hermann Göring.

A master painter from the Netherlands

Johannes Vermeer, 1632-1675, was an inspired painter, one of the old Dutch masters.  Some consider him to be one of the holy trinity of Dutch painters along with Rembrandt and Vincent van Gogh.  Vermeer was a popular painter in his hometown of Delft during his heyday.  However, due to the economic hard times brought on by the Third Anglo-Dutch War at sea occurring at the same time as the Dutch Republic was being invaded during the Franco-Dutch War, Vermeer had borrowed a large sum of money in hopes of being able to earn more money as an art dealer rather than just as an artist.  Shortly thereafter he died suddenly at age 43 leaving his wife Catharina and the 11 surviving children of the 15 she had born to him, deep in debt.  Vermeer and his work quickly faded into obscurity until, In the 19th century, Vermeer’s work was rediscovered by Gustav Friedrich Waagen and Théophile Thoré-Bürger, who published a highly influential essay on Vermeer’s art and attributed 66 paintings to him.  There are currently only 34 paintings that are universally attributed to Vermeer, but at one time there were more than 150 paintings that were claimed to be his work. 

Vermeer’s work is seemingly broken into two time frames and styles.  Vermeer’s early Baroque paintings were often large-scale biblical and mythological scenes, while his later work showed scenes of daily middle class life in interior house settings.  Vermeer’s later mature style is crisper and clearer than the more subdued tones and colors he used in his earlier work.  The art world, which had once again become enthralled with Vermeer’s work, even debated on whether ‘Vermeer’ might have actually been more that one painter.  The art world was eagerly hoping to discover some transitional works proving that Vermeer’s early style had in fact evolved into Vermeer’s later style. 

(Which reminds me of how Evolutionists are so eager to find a “missing link” between humans and apes, that they conjured up ‘Nebraska Man’ from only a pigs tooth and fraudulently combined the jaw of an orangutan with a microcephalic human skull to produce ‘Piltdown Man’.)

Adding to Vermeer’s inspired works of art 

Next in today’s tale comes aspiring Dutch artist Han van Meegeren, 1889-1947, whose paintings mimicked the styles of artists from the Dutch Golden Age, but critics disparaged his paintings as “derivative” and “unoriginal”.  Eventually, to make a better living, van Meegeren became an art dealer just like his idol, Vermeer, had also ended up doing.  He sold his own paintings for tiny amounts while selling older works for huge sums.  Because he was an art dealer Han van Meegeren became familiar with all the existing ways to authenticate old paintings.  Eventually he figured out that he could fool all the inspections by buying old canvases scrubbing the artwork off of them and instead of mixing the old-time powder pigments with oil he mixed them with Bakelite resin and then baked the paintings in his oven until they appeared as if they were dried and cracked from old age.  

In 1937 van Meegeren copied Johannes Vermeer’s style in his painting “Supper at Emmaus,”.  He then called in art expert Abraham Bredius, nicknamed “the Pope”, reflecting the authority he held in the art world, Bredius then publicly pronounced van Meegeren’s forgery to be “the masterpiece of Johannes Vermeer of Delft.”  Although van Meegeren was not nearly as good of an artist as Vermeer, whose art he forged, because he painted exactly what people were dreaming of finding, they paid a fine price for his miraculous “finds” and trusted the art world’s “experts” and testing with regard to their legitimacy.  And so it came about that Han van Meegeren ended up trading the poor quality painting shown above to Nazi Germany’s second in command, Hermann Göring, in exchange for over one hundred real original Dutch works the Nazi high command had seized, that were worth a great fortune.  Hermann Göring knew that there were very few authenticated works by Vermeer and he did not realize that small number was already inflated by eleven of van Meegeren’s personal forgeries.  The rare “Vermeer” painting was everything that Hermann Göring could have wished for, Jesus and the forgiven woman both looked German while the unspecified Jews in the background were dark and sinister looking!

In 2020, while many theatres were closed down, the fascinating drama concerning Han van Meegeren and his forgeries was released as a movie, “The Last Vermeer”, based on the 2008 book “The Man Who Made Vermeers”.

Chicom chicanery

Next our story skips to recent times in communist China where textbooks are being produced, for vocational students by the Chinese University of Electronic Science and Technology Press, containing a modified “Bible story” to teach students professional ethics and respect for the law. 

The Chinese have pirated the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery and changed the ending:

The crowd wanted to stone the woman to death as per their law. But Jesus said, ‘Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone.’ Hearing this, they slipped away one by one.  When the crowd disappeared, Jesus stoned the sinner to death saying, “I too am a sinner. But if the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead,” the textbook said.

LOL  So the Chicoms just authored an apocryphal declaration by Jesus that, He too was a sinner.  While their swipe at Christianity is transparent, to us, they combine their big lie with a bit of solid truth, rightly teaching that: if nobody who makes mistakes and has flaws is allowed to enforce the law, you thereby allow for no enforcement at all and are in fact putting all laws to death.

The Chinese communist government has often pirated and modified Bible stories in the past, to suit their purposes, but now the Chinese Roman Catholic Church has finally decided to fight back.  Apparently the Chicoms making alterations to this particular “Bible story”, that formerly had shown Jesus assisting a woman in cuckolding her husband and getting off scot-free, does not sit well with the Church of Rome.

And why would changing that particular Bible story finally raise the ire of the Church of Rome?

Don’t adulterate our Biblical forgery! 

Because the entire story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, sometimes referred to in Latin as the “Pericope Adulterae”, (John 7:53–8:11) is in fact Roman Catholicism’s own apocryphal addition to the Gospel of John. It was first added into lost Latin manuscripts by the Great Whore of Rome, possibly sometime during the AD 300’s.  In some Bibles the Pericope Adulterae was inserted into Luke’s Gospel rather than John’s.

The Pericope Adulterae is not in Papyrus 66 or in Papyrus 75, both of which have been assigned to the late 100s or early 200s, nor in two important manuscripts produced in the early or mid 300s, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin-Greek diglot Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s.

Most notated Bibles will have a note that the text of John 7:53–8:11 is not in any of the earliest manuscripts.  It is pretty well recognized that the Pericope Adulterae was written long after the apostles inspired works had all been finished, and we don’t really know who first wrote it, just that it wasn’t John or any of the other original inspired apostles who wrote the New Testament.

Christianity first began to flourish under Roman rule during the time of Emperor Constantine, who converted to the religion in 312 A.D. Although he brought a strong Christian presence to the empire, Roman culture and institutions resisted the change for more than half a century.  Christianity became the official religion of Rome during the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Great, who ruled from 379 to 395 A.D.

I believe John 7:53–8:11 was composed and added to the original inspired Gospel of John around the time that the church was being co-opted by the rulers of Rome on its way to becoming their official religion for the Roman Empire.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, there were many polytheistic goddess worshippers in Rome, whose religion had included orgies and temple prostitution, who were then forcibly converted to the new state religion of Christianity.  Much was done to appease them.  I’m sure the Roman rulers didn’t want to have to put all of the adulterous population to death as God’s law, given through Moses, required. (Leviticus 20:10 & Deuteronomy 22:22)

How much better it would be if somebody could “remember” being told an old story of Jesus forgiving somebody who was clearly guilty of adultery, and then that story could be added to one of the Gospels.  Perhaps the person could be a sympathetic figure, better make it a woman.  Then all adulterers and adulteresses can be absolved of the earthly penalties of the law set up by God for societies own protection.  No more law.  Voila!

Unfortunately they didn’t just grandfather their whores and whoremongers into Christianity.  By adding to God’s inspired words they bound the gate open for all sorts of future lawlessness within Christendom. 

As a case in point, I was reading a news story recently about a young boy who had been horrifically abused to death over a number of weeks by his mother’s new boyfriend while his mother helped him to cover up the boys injuries and declining condition and then tried to make her son’s murder appear to be from natural causes.  The crime was so gruesome and heinous that most commenters were calling for the mother and her boyfriend to either get the death penalty or life imprisonment.  But some chowder-head (a churchian I presume) publicly reprimanded all the other commenters claiming that nobody should be “casting stones” (not even comments indicating a desire to see fitting punishment) at the guilty murderers because we are all sinners as well.  And there you have the fruit of it!  Churchians will now defend even murderous child abusers against the slightest insult, based solely upon an apocryphal passage added to God’s word.  No wonder the Chicoms want to fix that erroneous passage, and prevent any resulting lawlessness that would cause decline in their civilization.

The added passage, when applied, invalidates all law enforcement within Christianity and aids and abets lawlessness.

I myself have always had misgivings about that story of Jesus preventing an adulteress from receiving the earthly penalty of His Father’s law against adultery.  She is neither recorded as expressing repentance nor faith.  Why would Jesus help her to cuckold her husband, and to deny the cheated husband the justice of the law, and instead condemn the victim to a life he never chose of being bound to an adulteress. 

Right about now some Feminist chowder-head churchian is probably already starting to speculate that the husband must have deserved to be cheated on.  SMH  Seriously!  Quit worshipping all whores over God’s laws!

Anyhow, after I expressed my misgivings about the passage here previously, commenter “burnstaicho” pointed out to me that the whole story was not a part of the original inspired Greek New Testament.  https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/horny-housewives-of-the-patristic-age/#comment-1593

(Sorry, but I don’t fall in with the silly “inspired-KJV” dogmatists who think that the King James English translation is somehow God’s only inspired word.  I think the KJV is one of the very best English translations, but, it came primarily from Latin manuscripts not directly from the mind of God.  Refuting that heresy would be a lengthy post in itself.)

Recently, on another site, when I wrote about the snake-handling, poison-drinking, passage (Mark 16:9-20) that it was also not in the original manuscripts, I got warned that I was likely arousing disbelief among “seekers” by questioning the use of passages we know were later added to the inspired New Testament books.  FWIW Mark 16:9-20 seems to have been added in to the New Testament a little bit earlier than John 7:53–8:11, and so even its apocryphal provenance is less dubious than the whore story.  But is it really those of us who don’t want spurious and faulty passages kept in the Bible, and taught as inspired truth, who end up discrediting God’s word?  We are told elsewhere in the Bible neither to add nor take away from God’s words.  Would God have bothered to tell that to us Bible readers if nobody was ever going to effectively try to add or take away from His words?  Shouldn’t we be zealous in removing the human-concocted doctrines added by the Great Whore of Rome?  If you study the history of the New Testament you’ll see that a few other apocryphal bits that were added to the New Testament have already been removed from most current Bibles.  

(If you believe Mark 16:9-20, then get your clot-shot, because believers are supposedly immune to all poisons.  /S  However I wouldn’t ever recommend risking your future based upon apocryphal additions to the Bible’s known inspired texts.)

The good news is that the Hebrew Old Testament was kept accurately by the Jewish scribes and whenever we find new manuscripts, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they only further prove the absolute accuracy of the Old Testament’s transcription down through time.  Every jot and tittle is the same.  Also with all the early manuscripts we have of the Greek New Testament and early translations from around the ancient world we can clearly tell what the original writing’s did say with great certainty.  Any serious arguments over alternate wordings are seemingly only related to the very few pieces of later added wording where whoever was adding these apocryphal additions to the original text was also often taking liberties with where they added it and how it was worded.  The best way to honor God’s word is to not allow these couple of clearly apocryphal additions to remain in it, nor to try to change or ignore any of the original text due to being ashamed of it or disliking it.

You can do your own research about how the Pericope Adulterae was first added into various Latin Gospels hundreds of years after the apostles were gone, and how it didn’t likely even originate from Greek text like the rest of the inspired New Testament did.  There are enablers of lawlessness who defend this passage not being included in any of the earliest manuscripts, but unbiased Biblical scholars have concluded that the Pericope Adulterae is an apocryphal addition to the original text added hundreds of years later and first added into Latin manuscripts and then later added into Greek manuscripts.  It kills the law of God that Jesus came to do and uphold:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

It has always been clear to me that the Pericope Adulterae trashes our heavenly Father’s law and abnegates discipline within the church leading us to today’s lawless churches.  Once I found out the passage wasn’t even part of the original Greek Gospel of John, it didn’t take me long to have a zeal to see it removed again, to the glory of my Christ who certainly would not have assisted in violating His Father’s law to keep the cheated husband of an adulteress bound in a cuckolded state.   Jesus came to free us from our bondage to sin, not to empower us to sin.   Abnegating the enforcement of God’s laws and church discipline will get many unsuspecting churchians cast into hell.

Matthew 7:22  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Just as Han van Meegeren’s poorly painted “Vermeers” were a stain on the beautiful work of Johannes Vermeer until they were discredited and no longer attributed to Vermeer, so also any uninspired passages added to the Bible will only be a stain on the word of God until they are removed and we refuted their enabling of lawlessness.

Is God after your money?

Rich Young Ruler

“Christ and the Rich Young Ruler” by Heinrich Hofmann

Note: If you are in a really big hurry, just read the “lesson” section. 

When I was a young blue-pilled churchian I remember hearing the following lyrics from the song ‘Bullet The Blue Sky’ sung by U2’s Bono, regarding televangelists:

And I can’t tell the difference between ABC News,
Hill Street Blues, and a preacher on the Old Time Gospel Hour
Stealing money from the sick and the old.
Well, the God I believe in isn’t short of cash, mister!

I remember at that time thinking Bono was right that God wasn’t short of cash, but resenting that he had said so.  For I feared that if word got out people would stop being guilted into supporting all the money-hungry churchian institutions, which at that point I naïvely believed were somehow a feature of us collectively living out Christianity, as though Christians collectively financed the working of God.  Reminiscent of the old Catholic jingle:

“As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs!”

The story of Jesus and the rich young ruler is found in Matthew 19:16-26, Mark 10:17-27, and Luke 18:18-27.   In it the young and successful man asks Jesus, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” and Jesus basically tells him to be perfect he must obey all the laws, which the young man claimed he always had, and then Jesus added, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”  Basically Jesus asked the man to give up absolutely everything of himself including his very influential job and to become a homeless follower of Him.  Jesus didn’t say that to everyone, but it is recorded for us in three Gospels as an example that nobody meets God’s righteous standards, not even a devout young leader of the traditionally theocratic Jewish nation who recognized that Jesus taught the truth.  

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

This was just like in Matthew chapter 5 when Jesus earlier told people that they would need to pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands to prevent themselves from sinning lest “that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”  None of Jesus disciples took that as a literal command and maimed themselves.  Jesus was just pointing out, in that case, that lust and hate were already in everyone’s hearts, and trying to make them realize that, even if outwardly they seemed blameless in relation to the law, inwardly they were still going to need a sacrificial savior.  Because our nature is to sin, and we cannot be made holy through our own willpower.

I believe Jesus was illustrating that we all can’t even keep the first commandment.  

The first commandment is: Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Eve the defiler put her own self-advancement before obedience to God, just like Satan had also previously done.  Satan deceived Eve into thinking her disobedience would allow her to be like God, just like Satan had once tried to usurp and be like the Most High God.  Adam then obeyed Eve’s request above God’s command.  We all have things we put before total devotion to God every day, and those things that take God’s place in our life are “other gods”.  I mean you still have stuff, right?  You didn’t give all your stuff to the poor and aren’t reading this on a computer at the public library before you go out to witness for God and beg for bread crusts, am I right?  Because if you’ve still got stuff, then Jesus said you’re not yet perfect. (to the rich young ruler)

No doubt the rich young ruler already tithed 10%.  Tithing paid for the Levites and temple guards that provided a justice system and enforced law and order in the Old Testament theocracy that God had prescribed.  Tithing was the Jewish taxation system that funded their national governance before they demanded to have kings.  Then the kings also made demands of them separate from their 10% tithe. However, notice that Jesus told the man to go and distribute his wealth to the poor, He did not ask the rich man to give it to Him, or to the temple or synagogue.  

That is contrary to many of today’s churchians who twist a single verse about Jewish tithing from the Old Testament and morph it into a self-serving doctrine called “storehouse giving”, whereby their dupes are required to give all of their charitable giving through, “the storehouse”, referring, of course, to that pastor’s church.   And as they say, “funds are fungible”. 

All of that has just laid a backdrop for the Biblical insight regarding money that I now want to explain to you:

~ Beginning of lesson ~

Matthew 22:15(NET)  Then the Pharisees went out and planned together to entrap Him with His own words.  16 They sent to Him their disciples along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful, and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.  You do not court anyone’s favor because You show no partiality.  17 Tell us then, what do You think? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”  18 But Jesus realized their evil intentions and said, “Hypocrites! Why are you testing Me?  19 Show Me the coin used for the tax.”  So they brought Him a denarius.  20 Jesus said to them, “Whose image is this, and whose inscription?”  21 They replied, “Caesar’s.” He said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  22 Now when they heard this they were stunned, and they left Him and went away.

I think Jesus’ testing by two groups of Jewish men, the Pharisees and Herodians,(who believed Herod was the messiah) over paying Rome a tribute coin had more significance than we today usually realize.  I believe Jesus was reminding those “Romanized” Jewish men that their overriding primary duty was in fact to their Creator, not Caesar.  The tribute coin bore Caesar’s image and was circumscribed to him. The circumscription at the time of Jesus stated “Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”.  As shown below:

Emperor Tiberius Denarius - Tribute Penny

So the coin was stated to bear the image of the son of a god.  Jesus taught that it was OK to give Caesar the tribute coin (worth one day’s wages) that was made in Caesar’s image and was circumscribed to him. And I believe the reason that they marveled at his answer was because those Jewish men who studied and debated the Torah remembered how they were proud to claim to be both formed in God’s own image and to be circumcised or circumscribed as a signet in their flesh that their very beings were forever wholly devoted to God.

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. … 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

We who are redeemed have all been bought with a price, bought into Christ at the cost of his flesh and blood.  However, since God made women for men and gave them to men, who are God’s image and glory while woman are only the glory of the man,(1 Corinthians 11:7) God doesn’t want women circumcised as His possession.  Men were intentionally created for God’s good pleasure and are His direct possession, whereas women were specifically designed and given to be the cherished possessions of men.  You can’t circumcise a woman into the covenant between God and Jewish men, and any vain attempt to do so is just female genital mutilation.  Women were made by God for men, and given to men, to be men’s cherished possession. 

Jesus reminded those Jewish men that their lives and bodies were doubly God’s possession, both created in His image, as all men are, and in particular they as Jews were circumcised signifying that they were God’s chosen possession and an eternal posterity of God’s.  The Pharisees and Herodians had come to lay a trap concerning whether or not Jesus, an unschooled religious teacher, would honor Rome’s demand of tribute over God’s chosen people.  But instead they got stunned as Jesus countered by showing how their very lives into eternity were already claimed and owed as an infinitely greater tribute to God Most High, in the exact same way that the little coins which Caesar had made in his own image and inscribed to himself, were meant to be paid back to him.  The returning of Caesar’s coins not only did not violate God’s duly established claim over the Jews, but as Jesus revealed Caesar’s coins were in fact a token replication of God’s exact ownership signets on all Jewish men who bore both God’s image, and God’s inscription.(circumcision)  

If Jesus had only meant for them to similarly pay off both God and Caesar each with a portion of money, like most hirelings claim, the Jews would certainly not have been left marveling at that compromise that would have blasphemously portrayed Caesar and God the Father as relative equals.

It disgusts me that greedy pastors falsely teach that Jesus was trying to show us, in that passage, just to hand over some of our money to pay off their church.  It is clear that the Pharisees and Herodians would not have been left marveling if Jesus had just been understood by them to be telling them to pay Roman taxes while also shilling for the temple fund-raiser.  The Pharisees were likely wanting to condemn Jesus for blasphemy against God (a capital crime) if he said to pay tribute to the Roman god-Emperor, since they could privately, in their gentile-free temple courtroom, claim that Jewish tithes were due to Jehovah alone.  While the Herodians would have also been there to turn Jesus over to Rome for sedition (a capital crime) if He had said not to pay Rome the tribute.  Jesus corrected them that as self-professed sons of God their Father owned them outright.  And without saying anything seditious Jesus made it clear that there was no comparison between them owing the true God everything, while returning the self-proclaimed “god” in Rome his mere pittance.   There is a great and glorious truth in there to be marveled at, for those with ears to hear, who aren’t too focused on money to see the image of God, and the covenant of circumcision, and men’s required duty, divinely illustrated by Jesus through the coin.

~ End of lesson ~

Bonus rant:

But what about the churchian’s money?

Early church father, Tertullian, said: “Nothing that is God’s is obtainable by money.”

Most hirelings will spend a lot of time and money attending seminary to learn how to preach the same lies and excuses in conformity with all the other preachers that lead our nation further into depravity.  Like Simon the sorcerer they sought to buy the calling and gifts of God.  And they bought a diploma, though they are still too cowardly to even face down this world’s Feminist influence and subject a woman to church discipline as Jesus tells churches to perform.  Instead their purchased “training” seemingly only teaches them to make excuses and blame-shift on behalf of women.

It is evident that they get fully trained to tell all the same old foolish hireling lies about how you can slowly boil frogs without them trying to jump out when the water gets too hot.  Am I the only one who went home and tried it?  Frogs are amphibious, when cold-blooded frogs warm up they get far more active, and the moment they feel it getting too warm, they jump out.  It turns out that even with their tiny frog brains, God made them wiser than hirelings who blindly plagiarize other pastors sermon illustrations, because God’s Spirit doesn’t reveal to them truth to teach, so they wind up trying to be religious entertainers.  Their “messages” sometimes remind me of political talk shows where the host has 2 minutes of new material and a two hour show to fill.

“God doesn’t want to take your money. He just doesn’t want your money to take you.” ~ Andy Stanley

I recall the New Testament telling of churches taking up a collections for other churches.   That sure doesn’t sound like today’s churches. 

While the churches have gone moneygrubbing and many are in permanent fund raising mode, I do think it is good for us to give when we can, but certainly not to them, since they are apostate.  That would be ungodly stewardship to hand off an offering meant to please God to false teachers, who are the firstborn of Satan.  God spoke of sharing with the needy, and of giving those gifts to them in the name of Jesus.  Jesus also praised a widow who, in faith, gave all that she had to the Jewish temple.  I would recommend that you only give as you are led by faith to give, and when you can do so in a way that seems right.  Because God loves cheerful givers, not perturbed givers who finally give in to some greedy pastor’s browbeating or tear jerking spiel.  If you don’t give your alms in the right way you’ll lose your reward anyway.  So I personally wouldn’t bother giving anything until you are prepared to give it wisely and to do it properly.

Matthew 6:1  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.  2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:  4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

The less fortunate will often need money, but God is never in need and accepts no bribes.  God looks upon our hearts.  Is there generosity and love in your heart?  Not if you can’t share your blessings when you are blessed, even though you’d still prefer to have more.  There’s no fooling God.  If you aren’t happy sharing your blessings, you’ll need to begin trying and practicing until you can be.  

Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus from Chapter 10 … How will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbors, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbor; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God.

Modesty, does it still apply ???

Two Piece Bikini

I recently saw an article about a youth camp pastor apologizing to his glorified neo-fertility-goddesses (embodied in young fertile women) for not having let them wear bikinis to church camp in the past.  As the article explains, he came to this shameful epiphany about his “toxic masculinity” recently while accompanying his fiancée and her 10-year-old daughter on a shopping trip, where they “desperately looked for a cute one-piece that would be appropriate for camp.”  LOL  So already it seems this Beta-chump pastor’s life is being spent auditioning to become the nursemaid and personal-shopping-assistant to an immodest single mother and her spawn from another dude.  They must make the preteen goddess look “cute”.(sexy)  And while taking his goddesses out shopping he came to realize, not only how unworthy he is of sloppy-seconds, but of his need to repent of all his former vestiges of patriarchal control over women’s sexuality.  It would seem that the patriarchal church fathers of the past didn’t adequately realize how women’s unrestrained sexuality is in fact the highest most divine thing a man can worship, those ancient saints believed women should be ruled over well.  Why they must have thought God to be more worthy to be obeyed than women!  Oh the misogyny!  /S

The article says: A Christian pastor has apologized for banning girls at his youth summer camps from wearing bikinis, admitting that it was wrong to lay ‘the weight of purity’ on the girls but not hold boys responsibly for being ‘gross.’

LOL  It sounds like a full-blown apology for our God-given male sex drive!  For the record: My sex drive was described in a cunt-court ordered evaluation as both “normative” and “robust”, and I will be making no apologies for my masculine sex drive, or my manhood, and I may even brag about it.  I’m truly sorry for all the Feminist’s unresolved penis-envy, but it just ain’t my fault that God made me a man, His preeminent earthly creature.  If rebellious Feminist women cannot resolve their envy of all men’s penises, and so seek to denigrate that which they all lack, it is no wonder that well hung studs like you and I should become lighting rods of their envious spite.  LOL

The pastorbater says: I am sorry that we have deemed a young woman’s body as something that “needs to be covered” …

Yeah!  Bend over in your thong, little camper, and show pastor your underaged babymaker!  Whores have more fun!  “Wear a swimsuit that lets you have fun.”  /S

The self-cucking pastor continues by saying: I am sorry if you felt sexualized by us telling you to cover up. I am sorry I didn’t teach boys to be men, and laid that responsibility on young women.

LOL This churchian clown lives in a backwards clown-world where girls are sexualized by covering up.  In light of that, I shan’t be posting any pornographic burqa pics!  LOL  And when females irresponsibly strip down to near nakedness, it is always going to be some male’s fault for noticing.   SMH   If you point out the wicked stench of their public immodesty, the people pushing lawlessness will reflexively blame you for noticing.  At my wife’s church, when I called out the churchian women for being immodest they said I must just be lustful, and when I called out a man for dressing immodestly they said I must be gay.  Their silly defense of their licentious false-teaching is no more advanced than, “he who smelt it dealt it.”

But pastor Supercuck wasn’t done yet: “Women are all shaped differently and for a male to come in and say what a female should wear? That’s the most ridiculous thing in my head now … The number one thing I hope comes from this is that we as leaders, especially in the church, would walk in humility and stop pretending we are the ones that have the answers.”

LOL He admits he doesn’t believe in exercising the good and holy patriarchal dominion over this earth that God created men to have, nor does this pastor feel he should give answers to women, but in humility he believes men should remain silent not usurping over women.(1 Timothy 2:12 fully inverted)  And he apparently lacks the good sense to even understand why people wear clothes in the first place.  I wouldn’t send kids to his camp.  You never know when his failure to understand modesty and why humans wear clothing will have him exposing himself as a result of his own lack of discretion.

I do have answers to many religious questions, as do many folks who comment here, so if you have a legitimate one, just ask it below.  And if you’re going to ask about a specific bit of clothing … if you have to ask … it’s immodest.

I also came across a podcast regarding churchian modesty and a recent twitter storm it sparked while I was preparing to write this post.  On the podcast the churchian thought-leaders lack much graveness, yet are still too polite to God’s enemies, and fail to go nearly as far as I would, nonetheless they do make a lot of good points.   Apparently they are starting to wake up to the fact that most all of churchianity is a great whoring after the defilers,(women) and giving womankind (the creature) the worth-ship to be listened to and obeyed above our Creator.

Logically, once you give up your right to enforce modesty, accepting the complete nudity and public display of every form of perversity by absolutely anyone is your only logical destination.

You gotta fight, for your right, to purity!

Seriously!  If you don’t want all your old and obese coworkers soon carrying on at work like it was an eight hour naked pervert pride parade, now is the time to speak out and start pushing back.  Sodom is the next scheduled stop on our cultural train track if we don’t do something about it.

Usurper

The Swan Princess by Mikhail Vrubel

Tsarevna Lebed, The Swan Princess by Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel painted in 1900 AD.

I found a good comment by “thedeti” responding to Jack’s post over at Σ Frame.  So, I will post his comment in its entirety, as I have done once before.  I borrowed the illustration below from Pete Rambo.

slide1

Thedeti says:

The main problem though is everyone thinking women are using this model; but they’re really not. This is really really subtle.

Jack describes this model:

God
Man
Wife
Children

Children submit to wife/mother. Wife submits to Man. Man submits to God.

Most Christian women, and nearly all clergy and Protestant family ministries, use this model:

God
Husband & Wife
Children

Children submit to wife/mother. Wife submits to God. Husband submits to God. Husband and wife submit to each other. Wife submits to husband if and only if she gets clearance from God through “her Holy Spirit”. (Her feelings, really.) Wife filters everything Husband wants, needs, desires, is, and does through “her Holy Spirit”. (“Is this in line with God’s will?” Does my Holy Spirit lead me that this is OK?”) If “yes”, submission to her husband is approved. If “no”, she is not required to submit to her husband.

Under this model, Husband and Wife are co-equal partners. Neither is above or below the other.

The husband is also not called “man”. He’s “husband”. In her eyes, his sole function is to serve her interests as protector and provider, and as “priest, prophet and king”. It never occurs to her that he has other functions. It never occurs to her that God has higher, loftier things for him. To her, the husband is HER priest, HER prophet, and HER king — Those functions were created, and he occupies them, solely for her benefit. His sole functions are to make money and turn it all over to his wife; to take a bullet for her; and to pray for her and lead her. In this model, Husband has literally no other functions or purposes. The marriage, the relationship, become all about her, and what she wants, needs, desires, is, and does. In doing so, submission to God falls away; and he submits to his wife.

This is wrong, of course, but today’s Christians use it because it gives lip service to submission without actually requiring true submission. It lets her “top from the bottom”. It lets her run the show without actually looking like she’s running the show. And it lets women feel better about “submission” because it is the one thing every woman hates – to lay it all down in the marriage before a man – a man she picked. Most women don’t ever truly submit to a man.

In heaven, men and women aren’t given in marriage to each other. But down here, in the fallen world, she submits to him, and he submits to God. If she has questions about God’s will for her, her marriage, or her children, she’s to go to her husband and have HIM seek the Lord about it. If she has questions about what God’s word says, she’s to go to her husband and have HIM seek the Lord about it. If she isn’t getting what she wants/needs in her marriage, she’s to go to her husband and have HIM seek the Lord about it.

God calls him. He follows. Or not, in which case he does it himself until he is at his wit’s end.

He invites her. She follows. Or not, in which case she does it herself (or with a series of other men in psuedo-submission through sex), until she’s at her wit’s end. (Gee, I wonder where I’ve seen that before?)

Most marriages don’t run this way. They just don’t. They LOOK like they do, the participants SAY they do, but they don’t.

Barak and Deborah

Deborah and Barak

To refute the incessant Feminist male bashing against Barak that I have always heard, I once left some comments at Dalrock’s site that I will rehash and combine here for you.  Or you can go to the link below, hit Control-F and type “Sharkly” into the little find-pop-up-window to locate and read them all there.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/06/it-would-be-unchivalrous-to-tell-her-no/#comment-275529

BillyS says: He was a wimpy military leader. Note that he didn’t dispute what she said, but was too afraid to go alone.

Judges 4:8 Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”

I have a different theory.  I think he was wisely testing her to see if he was being tricked and was being sent to his death, or if she really was being truthful about victory, to the point that she would go herself.  Unlike in a contemporary Hollywood movie, Barak’s army didn’t need a lone kick-ass woman’s help to fight off the army of Sisera.

I’ve had a similar situation before.  After I dismantled, repaired, and reassembled a business jet the test pilot asked me to go along and assist with in-flight tests on the initial test flight.  Sometimes in a situation like that there would only be the required pilots on the initial test flight.  When I asked why I was necessary on the initial flight, the test pilot confided to me that he would not fly the plane unless he knew I was confident enough in my own work, and the work of the other people I oversaw, to be onboard myself.  So I had the opportunity to literally stand behind my work, and perform the cabin pressurization/outflow valve and oxygen system tests on the initial test flight while the pilots were strapped in up front.  The pilot was not afraid to fly the airplane, so long as I was not afraid to be onboard.

BillyS says: You can have whatever theory you want, but the text clearly implies he was a wimp. (His glory for winning would go to a woman is what is written.) I think I will stick with the plain meaning rather than forcing my preconceptions on what is written.

I said my idea was a theory. You said he was a wimp, and “was too afraid to go alone.”

I wasn’t forcing anything into the Bible.  However you are forcing your feminist stereotype that women are brave and men are cowards, into the Bible.  Nowhere does the Bible say that Barak was a coward, or afraid.  You see a clear implication where I don’t.  I see a man who rose to be the leader of an army that fought in hand to hand combat.  That usually doesn’t happen to a coward, anymore than a cowardly man would one day wake up to find himself working as a test pilot.  I read my Bible and find Barak given as an example of faith, not as an object of Feminist ridicule.

Hebrews 11:29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. 32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

1 Samuel 12:10 And they cried out to the Lord and said, ‘We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord and have served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. But now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, that we may serve you.’ 11 And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety.

No mention of Jael or Deborah in those verses.  The glory may have gone to a woman, but God gives Barak due credit for his faith, and never calls him a wimp.  Just the Feminist preachers I’ve heard my whole life call him that.  I think he was just being a wise leader, protecting his men’s lives, by making sure the woman was telling him the whole truth, and not working for the enemy, by seeing if she would come along, thereby backing up her words with her life.

Judges 4:16 And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left. 

Chasing down and slaughtering better equipped foes does not sound like the act of a coward to me.

Judges 5:15a  the princes of Issachar came with Deborah, and Issachar faithful to Barak; into the valley they rushed at his heels. 

That verse implies Barak was able to inspire faithfulness in his men, and even led the charge!  With the others rushing at his heels.  I won’t listen to a keyboard warrior call this heroic man of faith a wimp, just because it pleases the Feminists to emasculate all our male heroes.

Barak was in fact protecting the women of Israel, not the other way around.

Judges 5:28 “Out of the window she peered,
the mother of Sisera wailed through the lattice:
‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?’
29 Her wisest princesses answer,
indeed, she answers herself,
30 ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?—
A womb or two for every man;
spoil of dyed materials for Sisera,
spoil of dyed materials embroidered,
two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’

If Barak had not been faithful and led the charge against Sisera, more than likely the women of Israel would have been raped, but the Feminists’ inclination is to make a wimp out of him despite his demonstrated valor that undoubtedly saved many women from rape and other ravages of war.

I don’t fault you for your view. It was what I was always taught.  But after the Red Pill, I see things differently, and I now know not to believe a word those hirelings told me.  Watch out for those who emasculate the men of the Bible, always double check that sort of stuff, and then triple check it.

I was not familiar with the story either except from Feminist hirelings telling me that a wimpy man was afraid to go into battle without a brave woman leader to lead the scared man-child to the battle.
So I went to my handy tool:
https://classic.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Barak&qs_version=ESV
And found out that Barak was only mentioned in Judges 4-5, 1 Samuel 12, and Hebrews 11.  Then I read those passages and saw the whole story.

I had always sensed as a child that there was something repellant and off about the feminist version of the story that the hirelings preached.  They seemed gleeful to spin this narrative of a cowardly general needing to be reprimanded and babysat by an empowered lady Judge.  And I felt they often went overboard in their gratuitous pandering to the womenfolk, while making me hot under the collar that they were bashing males and claiming crap like “the average mom is braver than a General, that’s why God doesn’t have men give birth, because they’re not up to the task”.  Even as a child I sensed that snake was up there blowing sunshine up the ladies dresses, and doing it at my expense.  The Bible said Barak told Deborah “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”  The story didn’t go on for half an hour running down men and claiming women are superior like the Feminist pulpiteer did.  The concept of a frightened General seemed phony.  And if he was so scared at the head of an army of 10,000 armed men, how in the heck was one lady coming along going to make him feel so much safer.  The story never made sense and I hated it, and how it was used in churches to make fools of all men.

But after I just read the whole story myself, I realized Barak was most likely testing Deborah.  He didn’t need her to come along.  He just wanted to be positive that she wasn’t afraid to come along herself, because, if she was afraid, then he would know he and his army were being set up, and Deborah would not want to be killed by them when they found that out.  False prophets were to be put to death, and Deborah was a prophetess.  If she really believed God had promised them a victory, she would not be afraid to go along and be there to watch from behind Israel’s lines.

Is courage important?

Barak was given as an example of Faith in Hebrews 11:29-34.  And Faith is the source of most courage.

“Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed.  God has fixed the time for my death.  I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me.”  He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: “That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.” ~ Stonewall Jackson

Men of God are not to be cowards, and cowards can only pretend to be Godly when they’re not scared out of it.

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. ~ C.S. Lewis

Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others. ~ Winston Churchill

Few women are very courageous today, and that is why their virtue is so easily abandoned in any situation.  Because of a lack of courage peoples “fixed morals” collapse into “situational ethics”.  The less courage a person has, the less influence it will take to get them to abandon their morals.

My theory is; if you were to have a person honestly rate the importance to them of each of their moral beliefs on a scale of 1 to 10, and then you were to rate their courage accurately on a scale of 1 to 10 you could multiply those two numbers together and get a 1-100 number representing how hard it would likely be, percentage wise, to get that person to violate that particular moral belief, or how likely they are to keep true to their conviction at different levels of pressure or temptation.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a printout before you “Man-up” and marry that whore.  She won’t fool around on you with a 7 or an 8, but 9’s and 10’s are beyond her resistance level, so don’t leave her alone with Chad, but it is fine to let her visit with Melvin.  That kind of thing would be handy to have computed.  If I put more pressure on her than X amount, she will begin to lie to me.  Maybe somebody needs to make a formula workbook if somebody hasn’t already.

Anyhow, hirelings preach about Barak and Deborah wrongly because they lack the courage to stand up for men against this world’s Feminism.  The church is led by cowards who will lapse on their less valued morals in secret at the least temptation or pressure, and their most firmly held beliefs are even up for grabs with enough temptation or pressure.  I wouldn’t mind if our church leaders had feet of clay, but they’ve got brains of clay and hearts of clay also.  So they are never any good, even before they fall.  Folks, you have to just read the Bible for yourselves!  These hirelings can’t be trusted with eternal matters.  Also be of good courage!  And be a good example of courage for your kids, and teach them to be courageous so that they can stand up against the world and be a pure light in the darkness.  Keep the faith.

The chief human enemies of Christ?

Jesus cleansing the templeIn Giotto’s c.1305AD Gothic/Proto-Renaissance fresco, shown above, Jesus Christ is illustrated clearing the merchants out of the temple while His haloed disciples watch and the religious leaders murmur against Him.

The merchants in the temple had turned the house of God into a den of thieves, but they could only have done this with the consent of their religious leaders.  The Romans crucified Jesus, but He was turned over to the Romans, to be crucified, by the High Priest of his own people.  Pontius Pilate asked Jesus (in John 19:10-11) “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?”  Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

So who did Jesus Christ argue with and rail against the most, the whores, the tax collectors, thieves, murderers, who?  We all know it was the Jewish religious leaders of that day that Jesus gave most of His condemnation.   Jesus was God’s “King of the Jews”, but His own religion’s leaders received him not.  They didn’t like His words, they didn’t like His ways.

Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews  The replica sign shown above reads, “Jesus [of] Nazareth King [of the] Jews”.

Jesus Christ’s chief human enemies were the apostate religious leaders of His own religion.  But weren’t they Jewish in religion and following God’s laws?  Mostly, maybe 80-90%, but they believed enough false doctrine and traditions of men to mistake their own miracle working Messiah for a blasphemer.  Was it an honest mistake?  No, they had motive.  They didn’t want Jesus busting up their sacrifice selling cartel, questioning their traditions, proving He had God’s power to heal on the Sabbath, and teaching the people contrary to their doctrines, based upon the holy Scriptures.  Jesus was correcting their wicked ways and they wanted Him dead, all the while they claimed to be looking forward to the Messiah coming to rule over them.  But, He had come and the religious leaders didn’t want Him as ruler over them.

So how is this relevant to us today?

Well, as they say, “History repeats”.  Ecclesiastes 3:15(NLT) What is happening now has happened before, and what will happen in the future has happened before, because God makes the same things happen over and over again.

So will Christ allow the leaders of His “new” religion to again leave the truth of His word, and begin teaching doctrines they evolved to excuse their own waywardness?  Is the same King of the Jews who let the Jews become idolatrous and apostate and reject His ways, now as King of the Christians going to allow the church to become idolatrous and apostate and reject His ways?  Surely, you can’t be serious?Woke PastorDeuteronomy 32:18 You ignored the Rock who fathered you and forgot the God who gave you life.  Some translations do say “gave you birth”, but none use the pronoun “she”.  This retarded woman-worshiper has forgotten our eternal Father and is demoting God’s sex to suit his idolatrous Feminist beliefs.

Jeremiah 44:15-17a Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,  16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee.  17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem.

So, could “Christian” churches again ignore Father God’s word and turn to giving idolatrous worth-ship to things feminine?  The following verse is soon about to happen:

Daniel 12:1(ICB) Daniel, at that time Michael, the great prince, will stand up. (He is the one who protects your people.) There will be a time of much trouble. It will be the worst time since nations have been on earth. But your people will be saved. Everyone whose name is written in God’s book will be saved.

The word “trouble” is listed in Strong’s Hebrew dictionary as word 6869 צָרָה Pronounced: (tsaw-raw’) a feminine noun that literally means: vexer, rival-wife, a female rival or adversary, and yet it also means trouble in a figurative sense. That Hebrew word has a more frequently used masculine version, but God said the less used feminine noun, perhaps to indicate the feminine vexing rivalry that is to be in that time of tribulation. Some feel that this was God’s way of warning us approximately 2,560 years ago, of the coming tribulation that is marked by the satanic evil of Feminism. Where God’s righteous patriarchal order has been completely thrown off and a defiling female-supremacist rival order, or Feminism, afflicts the sons of God’s people. I surely know Feminism has enabled the destruction of my family and now has my sons living without a father. However it is comforting to know that God not only foresaw this Feminist trouble, but that he warned us it would come upon us, before His deliverance of His people. God knows our “trouble”.  Commenter Feeriker once wrote:

Whenever I learn a new Hebrew word, the first thing I instinctively do is look to see if it is a cognate to Arabic.

This one definitely is. The Arabic word is. ثورة (“Thow’-rah” in classical standard Arabic, or sometimes pronounced “Sow’-rah”, or “Tow”-rah” in regional dialects such as Egyptian or Levantine).

The Arabs use it to mean “revolution” or “uprising,” a more powerful form of “trouble” or “disturbance,” which is DEFINITELY relevant to this topic.

Feeriker makes a good point. This female “uprising” or sexual “revolution” was long foretold as afflicting the sons of God’s people at the end of the age.  We can rest assured that God has this world under His watchful eye, and foreknew our Feminist trouble from the beginning.  And we who fight it, are fighting on God’s side, against the adversary of God.  So be of good courage!

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

So who are God’s worst human enemies today?

God’s chief enemies are again now our “Christian” spiritual leaders.  Like the Spiritual leaders at Christ’s first coming they have turned their worship centers into profit centers.  While they preach 80-90% of God’s word, they still join the Serpent in leading women into rebellion (“Ye shall be like God”) falsely claiming that women also image God the Father & Son, and were therefore created equal to men, thereby making marriage into a form of slavery where a man forces his equal into an unequal relationship as his helper.  They preach the exact same doctrine as anti-Christian Feminists, telling women to seek equality with, and to usurp, the image of God and telling men to hearken to the voice of the woman.  They’re replaying the role of the Serpent from Genesis 3.  They do the works of their father the devil.

Basically all of satanic Feminism was empowered by state sponsored church leaders in Rome declaring females to be in the image of God beginning around the end of the fourth century AD to allow Mary to be made co-equal with Christ and into a replacement goddess to offer to forcibly converted goddess worshippers.  Over a millennium later the Protestant reformation finally rolled back the deity of Mary, “the queen of heaven”, but today we still need reformers to roll back the image of God from off of women, so that wives can again rightfully and joyfully follow their clear superior, knowing that their husband is the image of the Lord Christ, the Good Shepherd, while wives don’t image God, but instead they image the ever straying church.

To restore God’s holy patriarchy we need to restore the fitting natural disparity between the sexes by reverencing exclusively fathers and sons as the image and glory of God the Father & Son.  By teaching men and women their correct respective standing and rank before God, men’s royal priesthood over their families can be restored, and marriage may again become a holy union operating according to God’s design.

Obviously laws and precedents would have to be reset, and governance returned to men, but the process of correct restoration of holy patriarchal governance begins with first understanding who God is, who we are, and how we all relate to God via His hierarchy. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

To make ready the way for Christ we must contradict the Feminist religious leaders of our day, who are Christ’s chief human enemies, and share the beautiful truth about our masculine God’s holy patriarchal kingdom where the Father, who is LORD of all spirits and all flesh, transfers all dominion to the Son.  So we as the images of God should seek to imitate God and transfer all of our society’s dominion into the hands of our sons, not leaving behind a society that is satanic, Feminist, and dysfunctional.  Amen!

Cunts Cancel Christian Clergyman

Brace yourselves men.  Atheists are now in control of what our nation’s pastors preach.  Why?  Because we let women rule over us.  The following link leads to a story about a pastor who got “Canceled” for advising women to endeavor to stay visually attractive for their husbands to bolster their marriages.  This pastor’s sermon was first pointed out and shrieked at by “Friendly Atheist” over at Patheos.  Later it was blasted by butch haired Reagan Williams who tells us that not only is Pastor Stewart-Allen Clark “toxic” to women, “he’s apparently extremely homophobic and transphobic too.” 

After these unsaved women began to publicly cunt-out over Pastor Clark’s practical sex-appeal sermon for women, then some of the woke media was also fed the story and blared it too.  As a result First General Baptist Church of Malden, Missouri now claims: “As of March 2, 2021, Pastor Stewart-Allen Clark has taken a leave of absence and is seeking professional counseling.”

Funny seal gasps

Sent to the reeducation camp!  So what horribly “toxic” things did this pastor say to incite his woke lynching?  Well, I listened to his sermon, and I personally was not offended by any of it.  Although he did spout the tiring & ungodly feminist fantasy of “perpetual courtship”, saying; “The chase ain’t ever over.”  But, I presume it wasn’t so much what he said, as how he said it.  Lots of quips holding women accountable for maintaining their beauty with very little gynogroveling or the profuse apologies that might ordinarily accompany even one such suggestion that women try improving themselves.  Furthermore pastor Clark has grown fat and his delivery was a little awkward.  So, much like how some people can’t “pull off” certain fashions, Pastor Clark was deemed by the woke trolls to be too fat and dorky to be telling wives to keep themselves beautiful for husbands like himself.  He was deemed unworthy to speak in such a way to wives.   They esteem themselves to have the worth-ship to be above any man’s correction, and certainly above an obese man’s correction.

Now if Pastor Clark had been a hawt panty-dropper with a way-cool delivery, he may have made many of these frigid harpies moist in the panties with his androcentric banter, and still be leading his church.  But, via many comments I read, I believe his biggest perceived “crime” was being fat himself, while instructing women not to be.

Pastor Clark also used Melania Trump as an example of a trophy wife who keeps herself attractive for her husband. 

Liberal heads exploding in …3…2…1… BOOM!

Sexy Melania Trump

Which would be your first lady?  

First Booty

Pastor Clark also said: “This is just the way God made us. Men have to have sexual intimacy or they’re not happy. It’s just the way it is.”  Presumably there are a few men with the “gift of celibacy”, but otherwise I’d have to agree.  Clearly my evil wife wasted our entire marriage intentionally trying to keep me unhappy.   

So where does this Feminist equality nonsense always derive itself from?

First General Baptist is a church in the General Baptist denomination, which released a statement Monday saying Clark’s sermon was “not consistent with the positions and values” of the organization.  “General Baptists believe that every woman was created in the image of God, and they should be valued for that reason,”…

The Image of God, men’s divine birthright, is falsely claimed by women and fraudulently touted to make them equal to fathers and sons who truly image God the Father and the Son.  And then, next thing you know, women are not only deemed equal to men, but women are treated like they are “more equal” than men.  And so men are not permitted to correct women.  But God never ever said women were made in His matchless image, like He so many times said men are.  And God, who chose to make two sexes, always clearly identifies Himself as the male sex.  And furthermore the Bible explains that women are a “weaker vessel”.  Not a strong vessel intended to carry the matchless image of God.  Instead of imaging God, women professing godliness are to be shamefaced and always in subjection.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Feminism’s Flimsy Theological Foundation

Recently I read an article at Answers in Genesis regarding; “Does God Have a Gender?“.  The author makes the point that: “God could have created a world in which there were no gender distinctions … Thus, in creating gender and then representing himself consistently and repeatedly as male, God is making a deliberate assertion about his nature.  There is something particular about maleness that he chooses to represent his nature in a way that femaleness does not.”

Another author at the same site discusses: “Is God Male or Female?”.   That author begins by pandering to this world’s Feminists by issuing the following disclaimer: “Before we go on, it is important to note that this question is not about the equality of men and women.  Both are made in God’s image and are therefore equal (Genesis 1:27).  Rather, it is about who gets to decide how we speak about God and how we address him in prayer: people or God?”

(Previously I have delved into what Genesis 1:27 actually says regarding who is the image of God, here, and also here, as well as in other posts.)

He is partly right, in that, if men and women were both the matchless image of God most high, then they would truly be equal.  Because no image could be greater than being the image of God.

As an example: If I and my old college roommate, who both got the same degree from the same university, were to debate about who had achieved the higher ranking degree, and I started going on about how I had attended a better elementary school, everybody would realize that what elementary school I had gone to was a moot point, because our ultimate degree ranking is based upon our highest degree, it is not determined by something of lesser degree.

And so it is true, that if both male and female were designed to image the eternal Father and Son, then by definition men and women must be equal, by nature of sharing that same highest aspect of their created identity and personage.  That assumed equality, in God’s image, is the bedrock foundation upon which all Feminism was built.

But of course, like the Bible and the earliest church father’s writings all unanimously attest, women don’t image our Father & Son Godhead, like men do:

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Ambrosiaster wrote:  Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

So the point of application is that Feminism then is exposed as a fundamentally false teaching based upon a falsely presumed equality.  While the one sex that truly images God, men, are shown to be superior, and thus rightful heads.  It is in the best interest of every man, woman, and child that men be given the patriarchal authority that God ordained for them to have over their wives and children.

Although women are a weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7) not designed to carry the matchless image of God the Father and His Son, it is not an individual woman or man’s relative strengths and weaknesses that determines men’s superiority, but it is the image of God that was categorically bestowed on men, that makes all men superior in earthly rank to women within God’s holy patriarchal kingdom.  A woman can’t become the stronger vessel by steroids or education, those things won’t make her outrank a man who was made in the image of God.  Even if she is physically stronger, and mentally stronger, she is still a woman who, if she professes godliness, should adorn herself with shamefacedness (1 timothy 2:9-10) while reverencing her husband. (Ephesians 5:33)

Feminism teaches that traditional patriarchal marriage as set up by God is a form of slavery where one equal subjects another equal into an unequal relationship where he rules over her.  If you accept men and women to be equals, then marriage automatically becomes unjust and also unworkable, since you can’t have a democracy of two people.  However, if God created man first in His own image, and to be His own glory, and later created Eve for Adam to be his helper and to be Adam’s glory, then it is only fitting that she should submit to her superior, as the Bible explains:  Colossians 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Marriage is not slavery, just as parenting is not enslaving children.  Because children are admittedly inferior and need parental guidance, it is only fitting that they be taught to submit to their parents’ control.

If men were truly created first, preeminent, and superior to women, and women, who being the last creature created, were the first creature to transgress against God; then patriarchy isn’t enslavement, but instead is the loving gift of our all-wise God.  Through patriarchy, God wants to keep society as righteous as can be expected by governing sinful and silly women with sinful yet more dutiful and dutybound men, who were created to serve God directly, while their wives were vessels created to serve God through serving God’s image, their fathers and then husbands.

Once you understand that females are neither the image nor likeness of the Father or Son, then women no longer have a basis to claim equality with men who are to be reverenced in marriage as the images of Jesus Christ,(God) while the wife images the church.(not God)

Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

So, I exhort you men, use the Word of God to pull down the stronghold of Feminism, by first destroying its foundation, women’s claim to image our masculine God.  If we don’t pull out Feminism’s root the noxious weed of sexual equality will grow right back in churches whereby satanic Feminism was first cultivated into our culture, ultimately destroying our culture.

Some time around 400AD women began to be claimed to also be the likeness of God, so that Mary could become a deity and be worshipped as a substitute for goddess worshippers whom Emperor Constantine had forcibly converted to his new state religion of “Christianity” in Rome.  The protestant reformation a millennium later rolled back the deity of Mary.  But, now we need to roll back the image of the Father and Son from off of women to rest just on us fathers and sons.  Feminism has now grown so wretched that women murder men’s children while still in their own wombs, destroy marriages for no fault, and get to kidnap father’s children by default.  Our society can’t survive much more of this satanic arrogance against God.

2 Corinthians 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds,  5 casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,  6 and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.

An Image of My Father

The picture above is a colorized portrait of my father.  He has been dead for a dozen years, but as I write this it chokes me up to see my father looking back at me again.  He was my protector.  While the rest of my family often mistreated me, when dad was home I was safe and he made sure I was treated fairly.   My father was a stalwart man of principle, a genius engineer, and a servant of God.  He was a formidable man who could bring gravitas to any discussion, but he could also tell hilarious jokes for two hours straight after all the serious matters had been taken care of.  

My father showed me how to be a man, by being masculine for our entire life together.  His Biblical frame of reference did not bend to accommodate the world, the world had to adapt itself to my father.  He never cared about fame, he had no love of money, and he wasn’t afraid to die, so the world lacked much leverage against my dad.  Life with dad was an adventure, a mission, a test, and I never doubted for a moment that dad would see to it that we achieved his mission, no matter the circumstances.

 I wish every boy could grow up with a father like mine.  Because then there would be no questions about how to be masculine, nobody undisciplined, and no man without a mission.  It breaks my heart that so many boys are now growing up without fathers, including my own sons.  What they miss out on by not having a father in their life is incalculable.   You need a solid man to raise up solid men.  Boys can’t learn how to be a man by watching their mother.