Sexual Equality?

I recently read an article: “Why has it become OK to attack men?”.  In that article the author states:

Created equal

I recount this history of the vote in my book The Toxic War on Masculinity, and some readers have mistakenly concluded that I oppose women’s suffrage. On the contrary, I support it.

From the beginning of the debate, there were Christians who argued in favor based on women’s spiritual and moral equality as beings made in God’s image. Suffragist Sarah Grimke declared, “Men and Women are CREATED EQUAL.” The proceedings of a Woman’s Rights Convention in 1850 spoke of “the work of Creation, when it was so gloriously finished in the garden of Eden, by placing there, in equal companionship, man and woman, made in the image of God.”

An article subtitled “What Textbooks Don’t Say about Women’s Suffrage” reports that there were “hundreds of ministers who made their churches available for suffragists to deliver their lectures, and who preached in favor of it.”

Jenna Gray-Hildenbrand of Middle Tennessee State University concludes, “It would be difficult to think of women achieving the right to vote in this country … without religious people coming together and seeing this as a religious value.”

The article is just another recent example of how time and time again when reading “Christian” articles regarding the conflict between the sexes, the “Christian” authors dutifully pledge their allegiance to “sexual equality” claiming that men and women were essentially created equal, not because God ever said that, but because they believe both men and women are equally images of God our Father and Jesus Christ His Son.  And that one claim really is the only “unquestionable” basis that sexual equality has ever had.  Any other basis for sexual equality based upon biology or ability leaves the sexes unequal.  It has been known from ancient times that men are generally stronger physically, rationally, emotionally, and have more robustness in enduring harsh environments.  Only a fool would try to dispute the truth of that generalization.

So how can the sex that is generally physically weaker, more irrational, more emotionally unstable, and generally has a weaker constitution, plausibly claim to be equal to men?  Well, unless you’re ready to rashly be led by your sex-cravings straight into fertility goddess worship, you’d have to have the masculine God of the Bible somehow state that He established a basis whereby the sexes become equalized despite their obvious differences.

But what does the Bible say?

Genesis 2:18(YLT) And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper — as his counterpart.’

God said the woman was made to be the man’s (‘ê·zer) help, helper (kə·neḡ·dōw.) in front of, in sight of, opposite to him.  God said that the woman was created to be the man’s help.

I could go on with many verses: – weaker vessel — subject to your own husbands as it is fit — in subjection — as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything — in silence with all subjection — obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed., and Etc.

The Bible is very clear that — the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.  The relationship is not an equal one, but a hierarchy with the woman under the man.(1 Corinthians 11:3)  So what does the Bible actually say about the image of God?

1 Corinthians 11:6(RSV) For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

1 Corinthians 11:7(CEV) Men were created to be like God and to bring honor to God. This means a man should not wear anything on his head. Women were created to bring honor to men.

So where do people find this supposed “sexual equality” in the Bible?  Well, they have been trained to infer it from just a few passages which don’t actually say men and women are equal.

Firstly, they wrongly interpret Genesis 1:27 as including the female as being the image of God, when God was quite meticulous to never ever say that in the Bible.  Yet that is almost their entire argument for sexual equality.  However, they will also twist a few other scriptures as backups to that one main misinterpreted verse.

The next verse they’ll most popularly use is Galatians 3:28.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.  27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But is that verse really saying that there is zero difference between men and women?  That same-sex marriage is OK, that women can do anything a man can do in the church?  Of course not.  The verse is speaking of faith in Jesus Christ resulting in salvation and identification with Christ through baptism.  And stating that everyone’s salvation works the same.  Another verse they may also use (1 Peter 3:7) states that we are offered the same grace unto salvation:

1 Peter 3:5 For in this way the holy women of former times, who hoped in God, also used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands,  6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; and you have proved to be her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.  7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your[plural] prayers will not be hindered.

But of course, the verse only says that the woman is to be honored as an heir together of the same grace unto salvation, not that she is equal to her husband.  The beginning of 1 Peter 3 makes clear she is to rightly be subject to her husband even if he himself is disobedient to the word of God.

Bnonn & Foster tried to use a phrase from 2 Corinthians 3:18 as a “gotcha” proof-text, which I have shown was only referring to males.(the leadership of the church)

So, why do I continuously harp, like a broken record, about 1 Corinthians 11:7 and men (not women) being the image of God?  Because the image of God is the Bible’s and the Western world’s only possible absolute justification for categorical sexual ranking.  Either the image of God is hermaphroditic and is the unquestionable foundation for categorical sexual equality and undergirds Feminism, or else the image of God is solely masculine, and it instills categorical superiority onto all men over all women and it therefore vindicates God’s holy order of patriarchy as the righteous hierarchy of an infinitely wise and loving God.

Are women responsible for their actions?

“After discussing marriage and related issues with a priest, I flat out asked if he thought women had moral agency. He reflexively said yes, but being a pretty smart guy, he looked back at the discussion we just had and realized he couldn’t square that with the views he had just espoused.”

I’ve met worse. Some can no longer even sense their own incongruity. I once had a cousin by marriage who is the “director of small groups” at my wife’s church come over to my house to apparently try to help me figure out where I failed and caused my wife to divorce me. After him making one speculative accusation after another and me explaining that I was well above reproach in each area where he thought I might have failed. I asked him if he thought women had a “sinful nature” and if wives were capable of sinning without their husband being somehow at fault. He claimed he did believe women were capable of sinning on their own, but then dove straight back into trying to figure out how I had caused my wife to do such evil against myself and my children. And after a few more speculative accusations and my explanation that I’m not a wicked person who merited the evil done against me, I again asked him if he believed women could sin entirely of their own accord. And again, he claimed to know that they could, but went straight back to trying to figure out how I must have forced her into wanting to divorce me.

Eventually it became painfully evident that he has some severe cognitive dissonance. While he knows that the right answer is to say that women are moral agents and are responsible for their own behavior, good or bad. Yet because he religiously worships women and habitually turns men into the scapegoats for his goddesses, he seemingly is unwilling to ever accept that a woman might have chosen to sin entirely for her own sinful reasons. He pathologically must blame some man, like me, to absolve any woman of the guilt of her wrongdoing, so that his goddess does not become a common sinner like all men.

Their willfully ascribing greater worth to the creature (women) than to their own Creator, makes them become darkened in their thinking, and vain in their imaginations, and leads them into dishonoring their own bodies. (Romans 1) Remember, when the emasculated churchmen of today grovel before women, their choice to willingly dishonor themselves was foretold long ago, as being the direct consequence of their idolatry.

Some folks seem to get upset that I don’t go out of my way to humble myself before society, when the Bible asks that men humble themselves before God, not that men must be humbled before their wives and children, and even strangers on the internet. The satanic ritual humiliation of men that goes on in churches is the result of twisting scriptures to emasculate men who directly image God the Father and Christ the Son. They claim they elevate women and denigrate men to bring “equality”, but really, they only have brought about a satanic inversion of God’s holy patriarchy. Come out from among them and be separate from their uncleanness. (2 Corinthians 6:17)

Thoughts from Ray #1

“Perseus with the Head of Medusa” a bronze sculpture by Benvenuto Cellini – 1554.

Commenter “ray” sent me the following information to post.  I asked him a few follow up questions, which he responded to with two addendums which I have attached.  He has requested that I not try to answer questions specifically regarding his teaching, which I don’t yet fully comprehend.

——————————————————————————————————-

You know that one day on Earth equals 1000 years in heaven.  (2 Peter 3:8)

You know that at the end of the King’s Millennium, the current Earth and ‘heaven’ will pass away.  (Rev. 21:1)  These are replaced by a ‘new Earth and heaven’.  (Rev. 21:1)

Combine this with what you know concerning the origin of human beings.  The male was created from two things, the Earth (soil) and the pneuma or masculine spiritus of God. (Gen. 2:7)

The woman, however, was created entirely from the man’s body.  (Gen. 2:22)  She didn’t partake of the pneuma, else she’d be a he, not a she.  Think Lucy Fer, who has been separated from Papa for so long, it doesn’t even know what it is anymore.  Like the human male, the angels or firstborn were created from God’s pneuma or spirit/breath.  (Psalms 33:6; 104:4)

Thus the obsession with androgyny from our terrestrial powers and principalities.  This, also, is why the Baphomet of the treacherous Templars has both male and female sex attributes.

So the female is entirely a product of the Earth.  This makes her FAR more attached to the planet — and to Earthly things in general.  It’s called ma-terialism, not pa-terialism.

So all the Gaia stuff — the re-arising of the ‘divine feminine’ in our time, the ancient (and current) mother-goddess blood-sacrifice cults, the temple-priestess cults of Scripture and James Frazer, all of it really — persists because the Woman and the Earth essentially are the same thing.  (Rev. 12:16 — ‘her’ is feminine as primary translation)

The female as individual and collective senses strongly that the planet that she is, that she loves, identifies with, and typically worships in one way or another, is about to be destroyed completely and forever.  (Rev. 21:1)  So in a very real sense, due to this identification the female is always fearful that she is about to be utterly obliterated and utterly forgotten.  (Isaiah 65:17)  

Do you see this?  We live in the final hours before the Tribulation, which as I have explained to you is the ‘time of the female adversary’ or ‘time of the female vexation’.  (Rev. 12:1; ‘time of trouble’ = Strong’s 6869 = tsarah, female adversary)

The Tribulation is NOT just some general punishment and cleansing like the Deluge, as modern Christians all assume.  It is the feminine making war on the masculine, globally — which is making war on God, because it is the male who carries Papa’s holy spirit within them.  That is what the rebel angels and the Raging Feminine truly wish to crush.  Feminism is just the ideo-political exteriorization of the inner collective urge.

Result is, a large percentage of modern females live in a kind on ongoing existential terror, lives of collective hysteria and fear.  They sense what is about to happen.  By heaven’s clock, the feminine/female has only ONE MORE DAY of existence.  Satan and the rebels know consciously what the feminine only senses unconsciously.  

Because at the same time the Earth is annihilated, the Woman (as such) likewise will be annihilated.  There will not even be a MEMORY of her, nor of this planet.  And at that time the binary or dualistic state of mankind (the male and female) will cease, and satan with all the rebel elements will be exterminated.  (Mark 12:25; Rev. 20:10)

——————————————————————————————————-

Only reason we’re masculine is because God is masculine.  The pneuma He ‘breathes’ into the human male, and the angels, is masculinity in essence.  The pronouns used to address the ‘holy spirit’ are masculine.  Christ Himself refers to the paraclete as ‘he’, not the impersonal ‘it’.  Note that the King calls this person the ‘spirit of truth’, not the ‘holy spirit’.  (John 14:16-17)  

The human male is made masculine and ‘like the angels’ via Father’s holy spirit.  It is true that the spirit can alight or descend upon folks of either sex, but Scripture makes clear that historically, this has meant upon men (prophets, apostles) and rarely upon women.  An exception is made in our hour (Joel 2:28) for a general dispensation of the spirit.  Women are able to receive the spirit, but it does not dwell within them as a matter of birth.  Thus males are the usual vessel of reception, it being an ‘easy fit’ so to say.

Obviously, women can be saved.  But it’s worth noting (1 Tim. 2:15) this is done overwhelmingly via childbirth.  A child usually ejects the female from her lifelong solipsism and narcissism and forces her to focus outside of herself.

——————————————————————————————————-

The paraclete is an individual.  God’s breath or pneuma provides masculinity, spiritual discernment, and God knows what all else to men and angels.  That is not an individual being, as in the paraclete.

Scripture makes clear that in the ‘last days’ (our time) God’s spirit/pneuma will be ‘poured out’ in ways including both men and women.  I want to make this clear.  As in ancient times, however, the preponderance of this spiritual gifting will go to men, for men already are ‘hard wired’ for spiritual reception and expression.  

Yes, all males are born with this pneuma, yes it facilitates, but does not guarantee, love of the truth.

What is Worship?

The word “worship” gets used roughly 180-300 times in most English Bible translations. But nowhere is the word “worship” seemingly more misunderstood and misused than in churches. “Worship” does not mean some vainly repetitious emotion-stoking pep rally music where men are forced to gayly sing, “Jesus is my boyfriend!” The word originates from Old English and is a combination of worth + ship and as a noun it indicates the “condition of being worthy or having value”. The word “worship” also quickly got turned into a verb, meaning: to ascribe or grant worth-ship to. Worship is most clearly evident in what or to whom we grant the worthiness to be hearkened to, served, and obeyed.

Who or what you listen to, serve, and obey is who or what you worship.

God has asked us that we worship no others before Him. Meaning that we heed no words contrary to God’s words, that we serve nothing or none other more devotedly than we serve God, and that we always obey God above all others.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So, as you can see worship goes on like microtransactions all throughout our waking hours as we invest our time and energy into what we value. It is usually not wrong to value or ascribe worth to other things or people or entities. God’s insistence is that He be the most valued, and ascribed the highest worth, as evidenced by our words and deeds, not just at some religious gathering, but throughout all of our time and in all of our efforts.

You might ask, “But my job takes most of my day! Is that a problem?” Most likely not.

Colossians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

OK, so then what’s the problem?

Well, the problem first started with Eve hearkening to and obeying the serpent above both God and her husband, and Adam hearkening to and obeying the woman above God. Which is why God’s first commandment was to put no others before Him.

The problem is that we are granting people and things the undeserved worthiness to overrule God’s commands, unopposed by us. Even churches do this, especially regarding women:

Does your church command women to remain silent in church?
God does! (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Does your church boldly command women to submit to their husbands?
God does! (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1-2)

Does your church command women to wear a head covering when they pray?
God does! (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)

Does your church forbid women to refuse their husbands sex?
God does! (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

It readily becomes apparent that when offered the choice between hearkening to and obeying God or hearkening to and pleasing women, the churches systematically worship women above God. Any time you’re compromising God’s command to suit a woman, she is being worshipped above God who commanded it. You might just as well let her slap a trinity bikini over her three lady parts and make the men all bow down to her, because the men of that church are already worshipping women above God there. They are worshipping the creature above their own Creator.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God has given them over to a reprobate mind. Don’t expect to make much progress reasoning with those woman-worshipping fools. Just separate yourself from them before they drag you along into their Feminist idolatry. God already knows that your true worship is comprised of what you’re doing and saying all week long, not whatever act you put on at a church. If you’ve come here seeking God’s truth, or to share it, then you’re already worshipping God by seeking out an online gathering of faithful believers, where women are always welcome to ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in our assembly.

Who was first given dominion over the earth?

I was recently corresponding with an uncle of mine, who is a professor of Biblical languages, in order to consult with his expertise before publishing my previous post citing Matthew 25, and the discussion turned to focusing on my teaching that the image of God is only ever attributed to men in the Bible.  The Doctor of Biblical languages admitted that, “there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”, yet he tried to sway me back towards that view with a variety of reasonings, most all of which I have already dealt with here at this site.  However, he did offer one scripture-based attempt to sway me, which I hadn’t addressed before, which I will also now address here.

He wrote:

‘Adam’ is a collective singular noun. Of the 540 occurrences of the word it is never found in the plural [Lisowsky, Gerhard: Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament, 2nd ed. Stuttgart, pp.20-23], though it can be found in parallel with plural words. [I.e. Isaiah 43:4 where the singular ‘adam’ [men] is placed parallel to ‘li’mim’ [peoples]. I would therefore argue that ‘adam’ of Genesis 1:26 is not limited to the male partner only as can be seen by God’s use of the plural ‘let them rule’ but this must include the female half of His creation: [Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Koehler, Ludwig, Baumgartner, Walter, Stamm, Johann, Hartman, Benedikt, Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev, Kutcher, Eduard, Reymond, Philippe, trans. by Richardson, M.E.J. (E. J. Brill, 2001) pp.14-15].

For your reference:

Genesis 1:26(KJV) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

At first glance that seems like a well backed up assertion, especially as it comes footnoted with some very scholarly sounding footnotes.  But upon closer examination you’ll see that his assertion really winds up being very inconclusive at best, and the Hebrew Bible text is more likely speaking of men there and it is clearly speaking of a single male in the very next verse, Genesis 1:27, when the Bible says: God made “the man” (hā·’ā·ḏām) הָֽאָדָם֙ (the definitive article, noun – masculine singular) in His own image, in the image of God created He “him” (’ō·ṯōw;) אֹת֑וֹ (direct object – masculine singular).  You can further investigate that at the following link: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

I responded as follows:

Regarding ( וְיִרְדּוּ֩) ‘let them rule’ in Genesis 1:26 the root word is said to be (third person masculine plural).  There are only two personages mentioned in that verse, Elohim and Adam.  The phrasing of that particular verse of the creation account also seems as if it reveals a discussion that happened before anyone was created, so to say that “them” “must include the female half of His creation” doesn’t necessarily follow.  I think the far more likely implication, based upon God’s use of a masculine plural word and in keeping with Adam’s eventual role as head gardener, and other scripture, is that God intended and foresaw all men as being delegated God’s natural dominion over God’s own earth, and all women were created for men to be their helpers and like the rest of the creatures, which Adam also named, women fall under men’s dominion.  The following translators, in the verses below, made that word “rule” refer back to Adam either as an individual or as the father of all men:

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition:  And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

New Life Version:  Then God said, “Let Us make man like Us and let him be head over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every thing that moves on the ground.”

Wycliffe Bible:  and said, Make we man to our image and likeness, and be he sovereign to the fishes of the sea, and to the volatiles of (the) heaven(s), and to [the] unreasonable beasts of [the] earth, and to each creature, and to each creeping beast/each reptile, which is moved in [the] earth. (and said, Let us make man in our image and likeness, and be he sovereign over the fishes of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the unreasoning beasts of the earth, yea, over each creature, and over each reptile which creepeth on the earth.)

But we really need not speculate as to whom God granted the dominion over all the creatures of the earth to, because the Bible tells us that plainly elsewhere.

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;  4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?  5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.  6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:  7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;  8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

If you check the original Hebrew, at the following link, it is unequivocable that the language there is all singular and speaking about one single man: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/8.htm

So, the Psalm 8 text shows either that God granted the dominion to Adam alone before God created the woman and gave her to Adam to also be under his dominion, or else, after God created the woman, God still chose to only give the dominion over all the other creatures of the earth solely to Adam.  And since the Psalm 8 passage does not show God giving the woman dominion, then the most likely interpretation of Genesis 1:26, which is speaking from before men’s creation looking forward in time, is that the masculine plural “let them rule” (wə·yir·dū) וְיִרְדּוּ֩ is referring to Adam and his sons after him.  And Psalm 8 divinely throws in the phrase, “and the son of man” indicating that there are sons issued from that one man, being granted that same favor of God.

So, just as all dominion over creation was first given (singularly) to the first Adam, who fell into sin and under the power of death, through hearkening unto the voice of the woman, so also all dominion over all creation will finally be returned to the Last Adam who overcame sin and death and is a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)  All dominion over all creation will be passed down patriarchally from the father of all mankind to the Son of man.

So, according to proper hermeneutics, if we believe the Old Testament to be the infallible words of our God, who will not contradict Himself, then if we are clearly told that only a singular man, the first, Adam, was granted dominion, and yet earlier in a forward-looking statement God said “let them rule”(masculine plural), then the most reasonable explanation is that God gave dominion over all the earth only to Adam, as the Psalms 8 text explains, and not also to the woman, but that God foresaw that dominion being passed on patriarchally to the sons of mortal men, ultimately getting passed on to Jesus Christ, “the Son of man”, the Last Adam, whose dominion is eternal.

The woman was never intended to rule over the earth but was instead made to be a helper, staying subject to her husband, as the Bible clearly teaches us.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

The Least Of These My Brethren

The Blind Beggar
By: Josephus Laurentius Dyckmans

Today I will share with you yet another Bible passage indicating that men, not women, are the image of God our Father.  It comes from within the following New Testament passage:

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus indicates that our judgement is somewhat dependent on how we have treated men, who act as His surrogates, His stand-ins, His alternates.  Even “the least of these”, His brethren, are all still representative of Him.  They are living representations, likenesses of Him. Actions done towards these likenesses, or images, of God are accounted as actions done towards God Himself.

So, how do we know That Jesus Christ was only talking about men?  Well, by the words God chose to use, of course. Jesus calls His likenesses, “brethren” ἀδελφῶν (adelphōn) in verse 40.  Jesus did not say, brothers and sisters.  And in verse 45 when Jesus only says, “to one of the least of these” ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων and does not say add “brethren”, every single word of that phrase is in its masculine form.  Feel free to double check it for yourself: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/25.htm

So, the Bible never tells us anywhere that women are made in the image of God, and quite scrupulously avoids doing so, in places where it would have been far easier to just say, all people are in the image of God, if that was the truth.

Now, does that mean that we are free to bedevil women, and are welcome to recreationally use them for our punching bags?  No!  They are God’s creatures also, and as such, we should not be cruel to them but show appreciation for them maintaining their proper place and love them by doing what is in their eternal best interest.  Just because God intentionally chose never to claim that He is also represented by womankind doesn’t mean women are to be treated poorly or that we can’t also be rewarded for showing appropriate kindness towards any of God’s other creatures.

But, be especially good to men, because each man is a likeness of God.

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

Art Imitates Life: Biblical Forgery Edition

“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 stop their enabling of lawlessness.

Is God after your money?

“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:

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.

The chief human enemies of Christ?

In 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.

  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?Deuteronomy 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!

2021 Predictions

Well, 2020, (the worst year evah!) is now thankfully behind us. 

The sun has set on that year of turmoil.  

Will we watch the birth of a new year of God’s great blessings on these our faithless lands?

Well, I don’t claim any inspiration for the following predictions, nor am I a prognosticator, but I think things will get tougher for those who truly seek to serve God, and probably for everybody else as well. 

Unless President Trump does something drastic within the next few weeks, we will be looking at a new administration that does not have America’s best interest in mind.  However, our leftist media, which has been religiously preaching doom and gloom for four years straight, will usher in a new era of gilded-turds.  “Everything is Awesome!” will become their new mantra.  We will be told that everything is getting better.  However, since our adversaries “Never let a good crisis go to waste” we can be sure that some crises will arise to justify their taking away more of our freedoms, presumably for our own good.

Now if Donald Trump does decide to, and successfully unleashes a battle to claim the presidency, that all honest-minded folks know he won, then there will be mayhem, and more years of liberal screeching like nothing we’ve ever witnessed before.  Donald Trump does not get the gilded-turd treatment from our treasonous media.  On the contrary, if he remains, the media will do everything within their power to foment discontentment with absolutely everything that can possibly be linked to his reign.

Either way things don’t look rosy.  Either we’re ruled by crooks and we will be told that we’re doing great while they rob our children’s future to feed their hedonism today.  Or there will be riotous opposition to Making America Great Again.  A large part of the country will be trying  to bring down our republic from within.   And that is all without even considering the possibility of acts of God. 

My Prediction

Pain!

Please leave your thoughts or predictions below: