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.

Affirmative Action for Baby Makers

Female Job Qualifications

Feminists say that us men all want women barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen.  Well, they’re wrong.  I’m not opposed to footwear.  LOL

I’d like to share with you some concepts that can recalibrate your thinking about women.  The primary concept is that all actions to “advance” women from out of their God given and natural role of wife and mother, are contrary to God and contrary to what is best for society.  

God intends natural unions and divisions among people.

After a failed experiment with communism William Bradford wrote in his Journal of Plymouth Plantation about the communal living:  The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young-men that were most able and fit for labor & service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals & clothes, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors, and victuals, clothes, & Etc., with the meaner & younger sort, thought it some indignity & disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, & Etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all beginning to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. 

Part of what Governor Bradford was saying was that there are natural distinctions that God makes amongst mankind that need to be kept in place to maintain the mutual respect everybody’s position is due.

Distinctions among people form the basis of what respects they are due.  

1 Peter 3:6 It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you].  7 Likewise ye husbands, dwell with them as men of knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, even as they which are heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not interrupted.

The apostle Peter also clearly tells us about mutual due respects.  He says that women are weaker vessels, right after speaking of their propensity towards hysterical fears and anxieties, yet women have also been given the grace of life and are due to be honored as wives, even though the husband is lord over her.  The wife is not to be scorned even though she is known to be weaker and unequal in her created being, because even as God made her a weaker creature, yet God Himself has made it so that she shares in the same saving grace that God gives to husbands, and so she should also receive some honor due as a recipient together of that grace of eternal life.  Clearly the Husband is the greater, the lord, and due greater respect, but the point is that neither of them is due contempt, but both are due respect in keeping with God’s order.

What is God’s order?

God created the man(Adam) first, and gave Adam dominion over all the earth.  Then God created Eve secondly, and for Adam, to help him and to be a mate to Adam, and so that he might be fruitful and multiply.  After they both had sinned, God again made it clear that Adam should rule over Eve, who had tempted him into defiling himself, after she had first defiled herself.  The earth was cursed making Adam’s job of providing their “bread” harder.  Adam was to be the breadwinner who provided the sustenance for his family.

Women are defilers.

Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from humanity as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

So not only was Eve the defiler of the very first man in Genesis, but all the way forward into the future, as recorded in Revelation, women are so defiling of men, that even in heaven, virgin men are honored by God among His holy saints. 

Wives owe their husbands reverence.

When a female former fornicator gives her husband less enthusiastic sex than she gave to others, she is defrauding him of the same respect that she showed to other guys.  She consciously has chosen to disdain the husband that God so mercifully gave to a whore(who by God’s law deserves death) and she has refused to even cultivate her passion for what is her undeserved gift from God to enjoy.  She does this because the love of God is not in her.  If Christ were living in her, she would strive to love her husband more and more as she grew to know him better. 

Ezekiel 16:32 You unfaithful wife! You desire strangers instead of your husband.

The prophet Ezekiel makes it clear that it is unfaithfulness for a wife to desire strangers instead of her own husband.  If Christ were living in her she would cultivate her desire and her passion for her beloved.  If she was having difficulty showing her husband the same respect she paid to others, she would be fasting and praying that God’s Holy Spirit would ignite a fire of passion inside her for her own husband.  Do you blaspheme the Holy Spirit by believing the lie that God’s Holy Spirit is an evil cuckolding spirit living inside of women that causes them to defraud their husbands of the respect that they showed other sexually immoral men?  Do you honestly believe that a woman filled with God’s Holy Spirit will go on sinning her entire life in such great unfaithfulness and not ever be convicted to see to it that she reverence her own husband as commanded in Ephesians 5:33?  

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”  41 Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Wives serving other men too much is unfaithfulness to their own husbands.

For a woman to desire to serve other men more than her own husband, whether through her work or through her sexuality, is unfaithfulness to her vow to be his, forsaking all others.  Women shouldn’t get married if they want to serve some other men rather than their husband, they should stay single if they don’t intend to serve their husband as a keeper of his house, and by their unfaithfulness blaspheme the word of God.  As below the apostle Paul commanded the older women:

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,  5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

The marital bed is holy and a pleasure that should be enjoyed at all times.

Younger women, like the one shown in the meme above, really should be married and at home serving a husband.  Her young breasts and baby maker, really are her most highly desired job qualifications that no man has, and they are made for a divine purpose that no job can surpass, that brings God glory, for which she was lovingly and wonderfully created, to submit herself to an image of God, and become one flesh with him and bear the offspring of a god.(John 10:34)

Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.  19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.  20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

1 Timothy 2:15 But she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Women work out their salvation by fulfilling their God-ordained role.

Getting a young woman trained in the ways of the Lord and married to a godly man and ready for keeping home should be her parents highest priority for her, because that is God’s highest priority for her and His purpose for making women.  Young women should be taught to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.  That is real “Affirmative Action” for young women’s absolutely divine calling.  What this evil world calls “Affirmative Action” for women is actually just defiance against God’s highest calling for women.  I’ll let y’all ponder all the manifold ways the world tries to get young women into their camp.  As their deceitfully “affirming” Feminist signs welcome young women into the workforce, telling them  “Arbeit macht frei”, which means: “Work makes [you] free”.

Do redeemed women receive glorified male bodies in the afterlife?

The floor of one of the coffins of Gua, a physician of the governor Djehutyhotep. The paintings, dated to 1795 B.C., show the “two ways”—land and sea—that the dead could use to navigate the afterlife. An even older “Book of Two Ways” has now been unearthed. (Werner Forman/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Smithsonian magazine had an article mentioning ancient Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife:

“The inscriptions clearly quote the Book of Two Ways … such “coffin texts” were meant to “situate the deceased in the world of the gods,” … This particular sarcophagus was occupied by a high-status woman named Ankh, though the afterworld instructions in her final resting place actually refer to her as “he.”

“The funny thing is the whole idea of how you survive in the netherworld is expressed in male terms,” …

In ancient Egypt, rebirth was linked most closely to male gods; dead women, then, had to adopt the pronoun “he” to be more like Osiris himself …”

I had previously commented:

The Book of Enoch states that there are no females among the angels, because they were created to live forevermore, and therefore they had no need to reproduce themselves, like some had done with the daughters of men.
Enoch 15:5 It was for this reason that I gave [men] females, in order that they might cast seed into them, and, in this way, beget children by them, in order that descendants should never fail them upon the earth. 6 But you were existing as spirits, while living perpetual, and are immortal for all the generations of the age; 7 and this is why, I did not make females among you. …
I believe I was reading in the book of Jubilees when it was stated that all the redeemed in heaven will be given new incorruptible bodies that are male(sons of God) like the angels. But I can’t find the passage right at this moment. I believe Jesus may have been referring to those scriptures in the following passage:
Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
So I currently wonder if women who are redeemed will quite literally become conformed, sharing in the image and glory of the Son. Will they become brethren, glorified, finally freed from their previously unresolved penis envy, and Eve’s curse?
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ray commented: “As for your speculations on women being made into males after the resurrection, I’ll comment later.”  At this point I’m wondering about this concept that seems to have been an extra-Biblical belief, and may be hinted at or even indicated in the Bible itself, according to your interpretation:

Please share your speculations, opinions, revelations, scriptures, or any other thoughts.

Genesis 5:1-5

I decided to make a post from a comment on the previous thread.

Commenter Swanny River queried:  “I was reading Genesis 5 this morning and don’t recall what you said about verse 2.  I like the explanation of Genesis 1:27, but I don’t remember about 5:2 and it does seem to be at odds with it. Was there a particular post you covered it?”

I have never before made a devoted post about Genesis 5, but I have referenced it in a few comments.  As I have mentioned before the original Hebrew does not have punctuation, and Genesis 1:27 is a three line, or three complete sentence, Hebrew poem.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in His own image.
In the image of God created He him.
Male and female created He them.

God first explains that He created Adam in his image, forward and then backwards, and then God contrasts that by saying that He only created “them” (which is not the word “Adam” in Hebrew) while contrastingly leaving off any mention of that creation being done in the image of God when referencing both male and Female combined. The male and female were not created in a combined event, but in two separate creation events, so their combined creation is a summarizing statement of two separate events, and those two separate creations when combined are never said to have been in the image of God. Reading that verse(Genesis 1:27) is when it first dawned on me, that God, the author, went to great lengths to never say that the woman, Eve, or both male and female, were created in the image or likeness of God, while saying four times, in Genesis 1:26-27, that Adam was created in God’s image or likeness.

Some English speaking folks insist on saying that line three of the poem given in Genesis 1:27 is not part of a separate sentence, but that it has to be referring, the male and female that were only said to be created, back to the statements about the man being created in the image of God. They do that partly because that is how it can seem in their English translations, but also because they would have to give up Feminism if God clearly made men superior, in the image of the Most High God, to be reverenced and obeyed by women who are created for men, to be men’s help.

So it is really telling that when an extremely similar restatement of the poem is again given in Genesis 5:1-2, they separate the verses right where the Feminists insist there is no separation, and right where I said there should be one. “Male and female created he them” is part of a whole new Bible verse, like I have taught that it could be divided and that the thoughts should be divided for better clarity in English.

Genesis 5:1(KJV) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Now again the Bible backs me up that when only referring to Seth, Adam’s son, Seth is referred to as being “in his(Adam’s) own likeness, and after his image”, making clear that the image and likeness of God transferred from father to son, like it did from Father God to Adam who was a son of God.(Luke 3:38) And yet again when both the sons and daughters of Adam are mentioned, the likeness and image are not mentioned because the combined group of both male and female are not in the father’s image. The daughters take after their mother’s image and likeness.

The King James Bible almost always gets the gender of gendered words correct, and if you check it you will never find the likeness or image of God said to be upon any living earthly woman. While it tells of men and Jesus Christ(a male) being the image and likeness of God in multiple places.

Now any Feminist is going to try to exploit the fact that in Genesis 5:2 all people, male and female are called or named after “Adam” the man, the father of mankind.  Adam, in Hebrew, can mean: man or mankind, the first man, or ruddy(like clay). So also in English, the word “man” can refer to an individual male, all males, or even all humans. But “Adam”/”man” never refers to Eve individually, any individual woman, or womankind. “Adam”/”Man” only refers to women when they are lumped in with all men. That is a patriarchal colloquialism that God started, whereby we are called after our father, just like how my wife and kids all share my family name.

If God had wanted to make clear that Eve was in the image of God, he could have said that Eve, or the woman, was in the image of God but he clearly didn’t. The fact that all are called by the man’s Hebrew name “Adam”, is an honorary naming, that only goes to show that the man was created superior, and was the one by whom the others would want to be known by association. Just like today, wives and kids take on the man’s name, because he is the superior one, and it is an honor to be associated with your husband or father by name. Again I will mention that if both were equally made in the matchless image of God, the man would not be superior, but they would be equal. However only the man was made in God’s image and that is why it is such an honor for all to be called after his name, even to this day.

The believers of the church of Philadelphia(part of the bride of Christ) will be honored by being named after God and Christ: Revelation 3:12b I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
I’m looking forward to that new family name! What an honor it will be.

So, in review: “Adam” meaning “man” was the first man’s name which became the family name of all people, we are now all collectively known as “man” or “mankind” in English, which is the translation of the Hebrew name or word “Adam”. That does not negate all the rest of what God clearly told us, just because God honored us all by calling us “Adam-kind”, however some folks, on the side of evil, will always try to negate the truth by whatever means they can.  For further clarification see 1 Corinthians 11:7.

Bonus information:

Gary Naler has pointed out that when God counts people He usually only counts the men.
For example:
Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Matthew 15:38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.
Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
There are far too many examples to give them all.
While God certainly can and does count others, like in Jonah 4:11, He usually counts groups by the number of men present, and sometimes indicates there was also a multitude beside them. I think even God’s method of counting us has implications, as to God’s patriarchal priorities, that we may not have realized.

There are no longer whores, only verbally abusive men. /S

Scantily clad whores in skimpy clothes. Prostitutes going for a slut walk. Only three things don't get cold in the winter, Polar Bears, Penguins, and Whores

Slut-Walks are now being organized by sluts to reclaim the word “Slut”.  Apparently the word “Slut” has a bad connotation. Slut-walk organizers say that the shaming connotation was caused by “The Patriarchy”, which is to say: all previous generations of the church that upheld God’s patriarchal order and laws condemning sexual immorality and effectively instilled their godly values throughout past generations of society.   But, no more!   The word “slut” now will mean; an empowered woman who seduces and copulates with whichever men of her choosing will dare to stick their dick into her.  Only “slut” will now supposedly mean that in a far more positive way, free from the shaming that societies influenced by an effective patriarchal church, previously maintained.

So how did we get to be such an immodest and immoral generation where women openly attend church dressed like the whores that they have become?

The immodesty and immorality of our generation is the legacy of cowardice and inaction on the part of the previous generation of leaders of our nation’s churches.  Cowardly leadership has led to a worthless “church” that today intentionally resembles the world, which has grown much more evil on those hirelings’ watch.  These apostate churches no longer lead our culture towards modesty and morality, but instead they follow the world into immodesty and immorality.  Will the churches of our children’s generation be returned to modesty under our watch?  If not, we’re not fighting hard enough or effectively enough.  You can read the lack of willingness to enforce modesty in today’s typical churchian assemblies in the following language from Whitewater Community Churches website:

Come as you are

Casual, Business Dress, Formal.   At Whitewater Community Church our concern is not on your outward appearance, but on the inward appearance of your heart.

While that sounds so “nice”, what that is really saying is; that they haven’t the balls to rein in attention-seeking immodest sluts.  Modesty won’t be forced to return while impotent churches lazily preach “come as you are”.  Profligate whores have slut-walked their way into these churches and the churchians esteem them as their pure hearted goddesses.   The goofballs that mismanage such churches are probably far more upset by my use of derisive words designed to shame their immodest and immoral congregations.

While floozies want to boldly reclaim the word “slut”, most misguided churchians try to assist by shaming upright men, hoping to just keep us from ever calling anyone a slut.   As you can see, Satan’s Feminist minions will continue to denounce God-fearing men as being “mean-spirited” or “verbally abusive” even after they have already restricted them from using anything more forceful than mere words to discourage immodesty. The whores and apostate churchians combined satanic goal is to “smash the patriarchy” removing all of men’s ability to correct wayward women, and rule over them well, as the Bible instructs men to do.  Eventually Satan will have the woman-controlled Beta-males at your local megachurch so thoroughly muzzled that you’ll have to ask those poor fools to blink twice if they don’t approve of the clothing-optional Sunday school class for polyamorous members.

Churchian men lack both the will and the loins to tell women to cover their heads when they pray, like God tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10.  Instead they twist God’s word, to nullify God’s commandment, because their actual lord and master whom they serve, wants them to subvert God’s commands.  And they are far too cowardly to tell women to cover their heads, or even to modestly clothe over their tits and asses while at their church.  When the choice is between obeying God and telling women to cover their heads, versus obeying Feminists, who don’t want such a God-ordained symbol of subjection on a woman’s head, to whom does that “church” give the worth-ship to be followed?  The churchians consistently worship women, the creature, above their Creator.

Head is covered

The churches will foolishly fall into Satan’s trap and repeat the sin of Adam and hearken unto the voice of the woman, instead of God, almost every time, even though we are clearly warned against this at the very beginning of the Bible, and the whole earth was cursed because of that very sin.  But that’s no matter to those spiritual retards that mislead today’s whoring churches.  They’ll not only hearken unto the weaker vessels, they’ll go whoring after the government too.

In Kansas our ugly butch-haired Democrat Governess has ordered that all people must cover their faces when in public, presumably to slow the spread of a coronavirus.  And I have no doubt that churchians obediently snapped their face coverings on the very next Sunday after the exalted governess spoke her command.  Whereas these same churches have effectively told God to piss-off, when His word commands that women should cover their heads, and/or veil their faces as the original churches practiced, whenever women might be seeking God’s presence in prayer.  For 1900 years straight every church everywhere throughout Christendom insisted that the women wear head coverings.  But, no longer.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.  6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  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, if God says that the head and visage of a man, who is the image of God his glorious Father, should not be covered during prayer, and the Governess orders men’s faces be covered in public, who do you suppose wins in their church when those orders collide during public prayer?  Did all the men take their muzzles off like they would remove their hats according to godly tradition?   Do we even have to ask whom those apostates obeyed, and whom they scorned?

Satan likes to get foolish men to dishonor God, and humiliate themselves.

Just 100 years ago our ancestor’s wives all covered their heads in obedience to God when they went to church or prayed.  And they also weren’t wearing skintight tops or bottoms.  But now these cowardly beta-male preachers pretend the gates of hell won’t prevail against their whoring “churches”, while their spiritual whorehouse’s doors are hell’s gateway.  Satan has already prevailed over them and is now driving a victory lap, while those ignorant men are praying with their faces covered.  They’re just blind guides, leading other blinded people into the pit.  Unless you also want to worship their hefty whores in skin tight clothes, don’t waste your time attending their apostate woman-hearkening training centers.  Start your own home church, where God is feared.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Honoring the name, Jealous

in the Iris

Malachi 3:13 “You have spoken arrogantly against me,” says the Lord.  “Yet you ask, ‘What have we said against you?’ 14 You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the Lord Almighty? 15 But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’” 16 Then those who feared the Lord talked with each other, and the Lord listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in His presence concerning those who feared the Lord and honored His name. 17 “On the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.

We must not become weary of doing what is right, even though it is usually a seemingly thankless task in this world that is led by the forces of evil.  Yes, we can often see the wicked prospering all around us in this brief life, but we must have the faith to trust that God sees and will remember those who fear Him and honor Him and His name.  We must Fear God enough to avoid taking the easy route that so many people take to their eternal destruction.  I often can’t see hardly any others around me who fear God, even in the churches.

Psalm 36:1 The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

However, the passage above from Malachi 3 tells me that I should not only fear God, but that I should honor God’s name.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Let me define a couple words:
Envy = Wanting that which belongs or is due to others.
Jealousy = Wanting that which belongs or is due to you.

Covetousness and envy are bad. Jealousy is an enduring character trait of God, and Jealous is God’s name. Often times the words “envy” and “jealousy” get used almost interchangeably, even in some Bible translations, and some people will blur the definitions, which leads to confusion, and insults that name of God.

James 4:5 Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”?

We belong to God.  He not only made us, but, He has also redeemed us again, from our waywardness, at the precious price of Christ’s lifeblood.  And God jealously desire’s His own spirit to posses us.  Let’s not tempt the Lord God, whose holy name is Jealous, by envying too long the temporal blessings that He so mercifully gives to the doomed, those unfaithful vessels, storing up His wrath, foreordained to destruction.  Instead let us honor God’s name and delight that the lover of our soul, Jealous, has eternal rest and resplendent reward and joy and good company, including His own presence, prepared for those of us who are truly redeemed.  And let us be thankful that we have been counted worthy to suffer for our Father as His faithful sons and daughters, just as Christ also suffered, so that we could be joint heirs with Christ of our Father’s bountiful heavenly kingdom and His unspoiled world to come.

Woman Trouble

Crazy Woman Maya McKinney

Maya McKinney ~ “transgender” school shooting accomplice

“So what’s gotten into women?”, some of you may be asking yourself.  Were they always this way?  In short, for the most part, I believe women’s nature has not changed.  What has changed is that men’s control over females has been reduced.   Just days before the school shooting, Maya had texted about missing her father who had been deported again.  Apparently through domestic violence charges, divorce, and deportations, Maya’s father had been kept away from her, leaving her one confused and upset 16 year old girl.  Maya felt like she had been bullied at school since she began trying to become one of the boys, and it finally got so bad that bullies even interrupted and put a stop to her school shooting when she was just trying to get even.

News Flash: All women are natural defilers.

Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.  4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.  5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

As God’s word shows us, women are natural defilers.  From Eve in Genesis 3:17 defiling the whole earth by leading Adam into sin, all the way through to the great whore who polluted the entire earth with her sexual immorality in Revelation 19:2.  While the great whore is most certainly not an actual woman, it is telling that this whoring rival of the bride of Christ is personified as another female defiler.

This personification also appears in Daniel 12:1(NASB) “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.”

The word “distress” used there or “trouble” in the King James, 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 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 2,559 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 mess, but that he warned us it would come upon us, before his rescue or deliverance of His people.  God knows our “trouble”.