Kelly2363

4 hours ago, just_abc said:

Agreed.

 

Sorry but I don't understand why the difference?  It is still wrong both ways..?

 

Are you under the Law - then live according to the Law.

In this instant my meaning is that a believing man has authority and a duty to be the head of his own household and when he first marries, his household includes his wife.

Before a man marries he is under his father and mother.

A man doesn't have headship until he marries because his headship is to his wife and his household is his wife - and when they have children then his children also. 

When a believing sister marries an unbelieving man she is coming under authority of her husband just as she was under the authority of her father and mother before hand.

In my own experience from speaking with hundreds of sisters and women I know that the many are naturally inclined to desire a strong husband who is also compassionate and caring.

So the sister who marries an unbelieving man may come under an abusive husband - who may be always contrary to spiritual things - and they suffer because they are a natural women in Christ. 

The believing man who marries an unbelieving women may for all of her unbelief find himself with a natural and reasonable women.

Regardless, the women is always shown mercy and the man is always rebuked. 

Addendum

Just to append the more pertinent possibility when speaking about the unbelieving woman marrying the believing man - we may be able to speak of a Jezebelic effect when we speak of being unequally yoked - because the inequality is a matter of spiritual darkness and spiritual light. Yet even in that instant the man has authority even as Ahab was both the husband and the head of his wife Jezebel. Weak men will always be weak unless they repent and strong women will always be strong with weak men. 

So in my experience of dealing with and provoking realities when I minister to married or nearing marriage couples - I always hold the man to account and the woman to hearing it without abusing her with false accusations.

Let the believing man in this OP speak to his unbelieving wife according to wisdom and not according to a rod. Let those who council do so to their own account before God. 

5 minutes ago, SIC said:

Btw your first sentence is definitely untrue.

You don't know my mind. You are not God and I have not raised 'many issues to do with marriage' in the last few weeks.

But you have raised numerous questions relating to marriage - in regard to leaders of groups marrying one of their group - pastors appointing elders and questioning their age and their lack of children or else having small children - not least your own comments in those questions - and so on. So if I say I know your mind then I am saying what is evident from your own comments. 

In this instant if you cite two prophetic passages of Scripture to answer the fact of a believing man desiring to marry an unbelieving women - then go with your own direction in your own words. No need to be shy about it old bean?

5 hours ago, missmuffet said:

It all depends on the perspective. Is it worldly oriented or is it Godly oriented?

So Miss Muffet - let me ask you an abstract and wilfully meaningless question.

Was Adam naked when he ran in fear and hid from God?

7 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

This is about psychology? It all depends on what kind of psychology a person chooses. There is secular psychology and their is Christian psychology. 

And both are profoundly flawed - But I agree. 

30 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Gen. 2:25 (KJV) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Hebrew Dictionary

H6174 עָרוֹם עָרוֹם `arowm (aw-rome') (or marom {aw-rome'}) adj.
1. nude, either partially or totally

Gen. 3:7 (KJV) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Hebrew Dictionary

H5903 עֵירוֹם עֵרוֹם `eyrom (ay-rome') (or merom {ay-rome'}) adj.
1. nudity

I cannot prove it, but, given the different words used, I strongly suspect that Adam and Eve realised that they were now totally naked, as contrasted with their previous condition of being partially clothed.  There is nothing to indicate that they had physical clothing previously, hence my supposition that their partial covering was the glory of God.

I won't take a stand on this, since it's impossible to prove, but it does seem quite possible, and would explain why highly intelligent people (Adam named all the animals in one day) only now realised that they were naked (because they were not completely naked before the Fall).

Right so the precept in its morphological usage/meaning comes from a Chaldean root.

4636.  מַעֲרֹם maʿărôm, mah-ar-ome´; from 6191, in the sense of stripping; bare:—naked.

6191.  עָרַם ʿâram, aw-ram´; a prim. root; prop. to be (or make) bare; but used only in the der. sense (through the idea perh. of smoothness) to be cunning (usually in a bad sense):—× very, beware, take crafty [counsel], be prudent, deal subtilly.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, with Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek Dictionaries. January 1, 1980

That speaks to the deception issue and its effect of producing nakedness in naked or bare and may explain the direction of Mickelson's usage. I will need to do some more research to establish if that is the case. I could even email him. 

21 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Gen. 2:25 (KJV) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Hebrew Dictionary

H6174 עָרוֹם עָרוֹם `arowm (aw-rome') (or marom {aw-rome'}) adj.
1. nude, either partially or totally

Gen. 3:7 (KJV) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Hebrew Dictionary

H5903 עֵירוֹם עֵרוֹם `eyrom (ay-rome') (or merom {ay-rome'}) adj.
1. nudity

I cannot prove it, but, given the different words used, I strongly suspect that Adam and Eve realised that they were now totally naked, as contrasted with their previous condition of being partially clothed.  There is nothing to indicate that they had physical clothing previously, hence my supposition that their partial covering was the glory of God.

I won't take a stand on this, since it's impossible to prove, but it does seem quite possible, and would explain why highly intelligent people (Adam named all the animals in one day) only now realised that they were naked (because they were not completely naked before the Fall).

His stated ambition was to update and improve on the Strong's concordance but he does use received texts and so I will give him a look over.

An interesting linguist at first glance. The Plough Share Mission. I will do some research and reply back. 

7 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Regarding the nakedness of Adam and Eve: the first time that they are described as being "naked and unashamed", the Hebrew word translated "naked" can mean "partially covered"; however, after they had sinned, the Hebrew word translated "naked" is different and means "completely naked".

Adam realised that something had changed, so that he was no longer partially covered, but now completely naked.  We cannot be certain, but it's possible that Adam and Eve were partially covered with the glory of God, until they sinned, when the glory departed and they were left completely uncovered.

arom (עָרוֹם, 6174), “naked.” This word occurs 16 times. The first occurrence is in Gen. 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

To the second of your comments to naked 

עֵירֹם [ʿeyrom, ʿerom /ay·rome/] adj n m. From 6191; TWOT 1588b; GK 6567; 10 occurrences; AV translates as “naked” nine times, and “nakedness” once. 1 naked. 2 nakedness.

Expresses the Lemma 

The Greek reference 6557 is from Goodrick-Kohlenberger and in the Septuagint the manuscript says:

καὶ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν δύο, καὶ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι γυμνοὶ ἦσαν· καὶ ἔρραψαν φύλλα συκῆς καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς περιζώματα.

gumnos (γυμνός) Lexical Bare

Your meaning regarding a glory of God precept may be a curious and perhaps even a spiritual precept - but the claim would have to be grounded in more than a claim to a spiritual or even lexical definition - especially seeing that:

 Cites the manuscript and expresses a naked person עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם

וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃

I would need to look at the etymology a little closer to find your meaning.

Do you know where it comes from?

I'll explain my reasoning if you can.

Thanks

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

This post is so long and I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around it. Can you sum up what your problem is with psychology in a few words?

Probably not - but the underlying direction is expressed here:

“He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”” (Genesis 3:10–11).

This verse reveals something very basic about fear. Firstly it is a thing to be experienced in the body because Adam said: “I hid myself.” As far as Adam is concerned his fear came about because he was naked. So the second thing which we see about fear is that it is also linked to knowledge. We can see this because God said: “who told you that you were naked?”. Right from the first moment of sin entering into Adam, there are two consequences outside of the one which God Himself warned about (death). These are that sin affects the body and the mind. When we read about Adam’s sin, we see that this was the case.

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” (Genesis 3:7)

In this verse, we see clearly these two aspects to the effect of sin in Adam and Eve. The words “the eyes of both of them were opened” does not mean that they were blind beforehand. It means that they now understood that they were naked. It is a reference to the mind. Before sin entered into Adam and Eve, we read “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25). This verse also cannot mean anything less than that they could see one another (naked) yet clearly were not affected in any way. In their minds nakedness was not a challenge before they sinned. Afterwards, it was. The act of sewing together a means to cover that nakedness is an emotional response, albeit a reasonable one.

The key precept to my own work is expressed in:

It is certain that Adam and Eve knew that they had disobeyed God, and therefore even before God called out to them, they had this understanding in their minds. In basic psychological parlance, this is called anticipation and forms a pre- experiential basis for explaining why fear occurs. It is a blind use of the idea of stimulus and response. In other fields of psychology, Adam and Eve’s fear would be said to be no more than the sum of its chemical respondents to external stimuli. In this view learned behaviour arises from evolved physiological mechanisms, and amounts to no more than a survival response. Although it may seem implausible, most psychological theories would ignore disobedience, and instead emphasise acquired knowledge, as a positive step forward in evolutionary development. I have to say that such a view is Satanic. And herein lies a serious problem with psychology in general. At its root is a denial of the existence of God, and the whole of its concern is pathological, in the sense that modern psychology is concerned with developmental or learned experience, and not with original causality. In the world of neurology, the concern is with disorders of the nervous system, both central as well as peripheral, including all visceral elements of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, enteric as well muscle systems. The neurologist can opine (give an opinion) on psychiatry, and due to the neurophysiological emphasis of neurology, much of the research that informs psychobiology feeds into generalised psychology and psychoanalytical theories. It is for this reason principally that psychology is limited and eclectic.

And the spiritual warning:

Whereas, The Lord says, “Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.” Revelation 16:15

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

I was not implying that you are, or should be, a coward - not at all.  Holy boldness, succinctness and simplicity fit very well together.

One of the marks of high intelligence, is the ability to make complex matters simple to grasp.  Reducing complex, abstruse concepts to their essentials, and framing them in simple English, will get the points across so that the maximum number of people can understand.  I have quite a high I.Q. and I went to university, so I can read and understand this type of post easily; but I'm thinking of others, who might not have had this kind of education (there are many).

In this case I wrote the main article 9 years ago (from which this one is a parsed text to the introduction) and it was the first in a series of articles to a graduate stock. However, just to show you that I take no confidence in education - my boast in life when I am lecturing these intelligent and often rather socially limited post graduates is to tell them that I was diagnosed as educationally maladjusted in 1969 and attended a special needs school for the following 7 years. That shuts them up - and even if they were inclined to being pedantic they seem to find it difficult to wrestle down the political need not to show bias and at the same time a keen desire to ask me if it is true. The setting was to address the Christian Union of a University I attended back in the 1980's. 

As to why I posted it here - well that has specificity and ease of purpose. 

Lastly and not least when it comes to being highly intelligent - that tends to being an Athenian Library moment when walking in and seeing the many scrolls across the walls to suddenly realise that I will have to read ten thousand scrolls and do so within a split second - to which momentary madness the Lord always gives me a pointed and essential means to rebuke.

Ah yes, David, have you ever read humanities theoretical or applied? There are no succinct moments and no access to simple English. Its almost all jargon  

Apart from that - I think we are good. 

No - just saw Justin's contribution - PsychoHeresy Aware - that is only tenuously connected to what I am writing about because my concern is with psychology precisely in the modern meaning of neuropathological and neurophysiological knowledge that gives rise to theoretical schools of behaviourism informing applied psychological therapies in the general church population as it is in the general population. In short a worldly church - and not mistaken formulae that are akin to precepts of the occult - rather a true meaning of what the occult is. Been there before on here and was less than favourably received. 

One school that may link the two precepts together is Dr. Mario Rivera - Theotherapy. I spoke with the UK leading PhD of that training modality here in the UK and enrolled on their graduate course to see what it was all about. 

When I emailed her I said:

My thought is that psychological therapies do have some self evident value when taken in an ordinary meaning of generalised behavioural psychology. It seems to me that the correlation between neurology as a structural model for understanding the sympathetic and para sympathetic nervous systems, as distinct from operant learning and ordinary flight, fight and paralysis responses is a risk when any application of redressing behaviour removes from the physical domain. 

That is where my concern lies and not in a mistaken applied spirituality that tries to combat new age occultism. If you want to see that written up - then succinct is just a shy ambition. 

Addendum:

This what the PhD Doctor of Theotherapy wrote me before inviting me to join the course. I enclose it simply to give her position regarding Theotherapy and not because I practice that modality.

Although a total biblical model it is also neurologically correct. The modality has been developed over several decades by Reformed Theologians one of whom is a medical Doctor with extensive psychiatric and psychological training. Although one of these men has recently died, his son continues to head up the ministry and is a Presbyterian Pastor leading a church.

The modality of Theotherapy itself is neither Freudian or Jungian. I add that it is not cognitive behavioural or humanistic either. It is a unique biblical model. I think you have to agree that the human being created by God is not simply a behavioural creature but pneumapsychosomatic. He is spirit, soul and body each of those aspects making a whole but each aspect unique in its function and nature.

9 minutes ago, David1701 said:

A word to the wise: succinctness and simplicity will be read and absorbed far more than this kind of post, by most people.

Yes I know. I am a fool for Christ David - not a coward. 

Psychology – A Warning

It is important to understand that generalised psychology as a broad subject of systematic enquiry has many roots which have produced a tree of great breadth and height. It has yielded fruits which are food to the natural mind, and is therefore able to make the natural man wise. If this were being written for the natural man it would serve no useful purpose. However if a new creature in Christ reads it and gives thought to the potential of what is being spoken, as well as its reality, then it may produce a good effect. This is because the influence of psychological thinking today, now that the tree is bearing its seasoned fruit, is profound, far reaching, and has serious implications for believers who may be unaware of these things.

The subject and application of psychology as social psychology, emphatically represents a union between men and the prince of the power of the air. It is a union which has its roots at the very dawn of this age, in the garden of Eden. For this reason alone I reject psychology and sociology as a valid basis for ministry. They are of an agreement innocently entered into by one man, Adam, and therefore, are implicitly not of God. The fact that so many believers have grounded their ministries in, and make intellectual assertions taken from psychology and sociology, through books of so-called learning, simply demonstrates that they have eaten the seasoned fruit without either comprehending the fruit, the tree, or its roots. If those who “serve” in this way insist that this is not the case then I would say it is because they may yet be of the same root which they drew upon from their youth. In short they are yet mere men. To add to that premise let me say straight forwardly –  if you hold another view, or if this admission offends you then turn away, as looking here will serve no purpose for you.

I could say that I am grateful for having had an opportunity to study theoretical subjects at university. However this would be a half truth. I discerned a complete mortal contradiction in psychology, criminology and sociology with biblical truth then, in in the 1980’s, and today I comprehend more of its substance. Then it was simply childish faith, today it is a more “patient” man. Then I was willing to speak out, today I am commanded to speak out and must do so without apology, hesitation or let. Therefore if you find this claim of mine to be at odds with your own understanding, and are inclined to press yourself in it with no sense of a need to repent of all that wisdom of men, my advise is depart from here because you will find that you will stumble and fall if you do not. Though you may fall and cry out, it will be found that this man has dug the pit knowingly. With that mind of understanding you can take your choice at your own cost accordingly. Unless you are willing to lay hold of Christ Himself, and at the same time reject the wisdom of men, then there is no benefit whatsoever.

The Roots:

In speaking of the roots of psychology one can easily say that they range from ancient Greek thinkers in the Graeco-Roman world through to the 19th century when psychology took a very different direction from what may be legitimately identified through ancient and near middle age philosophy and medical anatomical literature, to what is now claimed to be more empirically based in observational psychology. It should be noted that animals as well as human beings are interrelated in this schema, so that dogs, rats and chickens are just as valid observational subjects as are little children. Behavioural psychology believes that what is true for a dog is just as true for a man, at least at a psycho-physiological level. It would seem that psychology has ”grown up” as it were, and now thinks itself sufficiently advanced in scientific methodologies to dispense with its roots in philosophy and cognitive reasoning and has become a pure empirical science, producing theories of human behaviour which are “proven” to be true. This is a deception of course but it suits psychologists to believe this as it sets them in a class of their own, and legitimises their self seeking status as “priests” of behaviour.

Despite this maturation, psychology is still an infidel as far as truth is concerned because it is only able to address that which its philosophical roots were able to conceive of, and to which it is irrevocably tied. This being the dichotomy of a man as soul and body, rather than a true understanding arising from Scriptural revelation and knowledge that a man is Spirit, Soul & Body. In my presentation, historical psychology has three principle divisions out of which a fourth can be identified. The fourth being implicit in the formal development of psychology as an independent empirical subject attending to its effect, as well as Satan’s ambition to be worshipped as true God. In balance, one would have to say that psychology is a contributing factor and not the sum of this effect. Other subjects have been cross informed and in their own right have contributed to the wickedness of the day we live in.

Western Time Line

• 1. Graeco-Roman World & European Renaissance 6th Century BC – 14th Century AD
• 2. Emergent Modern World 14th Century AD – 18th (1774) Century AD
• 3. Industrial Age 18th Century (1750) AD – 1859 AD
• 4. Post Industrial – Emergent Post Modern World – The Fullness of Lawlessness.

It is important to understand that these time line distinctions are merely to provide a framework for thinking about the subject matter. They do have significance beyond providing a frame work in which to work, but this significance is better drawn out as a separate presentation because it is a spiritual significance and attends to the prince of the power of the air and the god of this world, and not just the world itself. Although it is inevitable that one would have to allude to this “spiritual” implication, the actual business of presenting spiritual truth is better done non-apologetically. The fact that we live in this present age and not in the past demands that we look at the historical claims of psychology to better understand its scope of reason and enquiry. This is because psychology is academically presented today, as having longevity and therefore by implication integrity for asserting that its roots lie in the ancient world where pure science existed and where thoughts about humanity; which is the principle subject of psychology, are empirically, and therefore scientifically valid. It is possible to say that psychology does have its roots in the ancient Roman world with Greek philosophical thinkers, but it would be spurious to say that in essence this claim presented by historical psychology is as valid as the similar claim, that pure science,  such as mathematics, physics, or else astronomy are themselves valid. These also have their roots in many of the same thinkers. In fact, it would be necessary to assert emphatically that in so far as the psuche (soul) is concerned, the ancient world was in this regard interested in the soul principally, and by reasonable deduction of the soul in attendance to the physical body, they were also interested in anatomical and philosophical physics.

For example; whilst mathematics as a cognitive and empirical science has developed throughout the ages, the basic underlying cognitive reason and subsequent empirical evidence of mathematical theory from the ancient world, still remains true today. It is also true to say that the historical roots of psychology arising from the philosophies of the ancient world, still remain in the air, and are still implicit in every fabric of its foundation, its emphatic denial of the reality of God, and its dichotomous presentation of man as being soul and body, rather than Spirit, Soul & Body.

Regarding Pure Science:

The Pythagorean Equation is just as true now as it was when it was first expressed. The Pythagorean equation relates the sides of a right triangle in a simple way, so that if the lengths of any two sides are known the length of the third side can be found. Another corollary of the theorem is that in any right triangle, the hypotenuse is greater than any one of the legs, but less than the sum of them. A generalisation of this theorem is the [[law of cosines]], which allows the computation of the length of the third side of any triangle, given the lengths of two sides and the size of the angle between them. If the angle between the sides is a right angle, the law of cosines reduces to the Pythagorean equation.

This same empirical and theoretical validity can be seen across all pure sciences and most have their roots in the ancient world. Only technological advances in observational instruments such as varieties of scopes, measuring devices, as well as the use of mechanical computational instruments has made a significant difference in the last 500 years to the breadth and development of pure science, particularly since 1939 and the start of the development of computer architecture. Although all human sciences claim this same integrous link, the true root is a philosophical one and not an emphatic empirical one so far as behavioural psychology is concerned. As a matter of academic reality the claims that early philosophical thinkers were empirically based in physiology is absurd.

The Tree

It is necessary to recognise that we ourselves must not take our present understanding or else the intended meaning of psychological thinking today precisely from the historical root. What is widely accepted today as legitimate psychology bears almost no resemblance in purpose or character to what was by reason of the subject material (Body & Soul) of the early thinkers in their day. However, psychology does have philosophical as well as empirical roots in the past. This includes ancient as well as renaissance thinkers. In reality I would say that what is called behavioural psychology today did not begin to emerge until the 18th century. This can be principally attributed to Dr. Franz Anton Mesmer. This is a subject in itself and I will post it separately. It is equally necessary to resist a teleological attitude when looking at historical thinkers and writers and attribute to their words modern meanings and understandings. In short, psychology if it is to be proven reasonable, must not falsely draw on ancient philosophies as justification for present claims in the same way pure science can. Nevertheless behavioural psychology was laid on a foundation of beliefs in the ancient world and middle world which had as much to do with Athenian Theism (atheism or the denial of God himself) as it had to do with valid philosophical enquiries in an age in which God Himself had already established the shadow of things to come in the full visibility of the nations (Israel).

The distinctions between the four ages I have drawn represent in the first three, distinct ages in continuum, both in human history as well as correspondingly in the development of human sciences as opposed to pure science. This gives rise to a fourth age in which we now live and this age is by my reasoning and calling, the age of the revealing of the man of sin. Intellectually it is called post modernism, in occult circles it is the age of Aquarius and in biblical revelation it is the age of lawlessness. The connection of the ancient world, the renaissance world and the industrial age is implicit by virtue of empirical knowledge taken from ancient philosophers, renaissance contributors and industrial rationalist and thinkers. Whilst these three ages are uniform with regard to their roots in ancient Greek philosophical thinking, and are easily investigated, a conceptual paradigm of thought, by reason of their effect and intentions in each age, has produced an outcome of distinct effect. This forms a “new” paradigm and needs careful analysis. One could say that this fourth effect or paradigm is the age of the Fullness of Rebellion against God.

It would be possible to say that the ancient world of Socratic, Platonic and Aristotelian thinking was primarily philosophical and emergent empirical-rational. The renaissance world was philosophical, pseudo-rational as well as emergent-individualistic, and the industrial world was essentially rational, individualistic and increasingly empirically deterministic. These three constructs which I have developed have given rise to the present post industrial world in which we presently live. Everything has changed in the last 60 or 70 years beyond any possible chronological recognition, even taken from the best empirical insights into ancient artefacts and texts. To arrive at an understanding of what is believed today in human sciences, and why it is necessary to comprehend in simplicity the three ages as stated; as well as their links in ancient philosophy in particular, and the subsequent rise of philosophical reason and enlightenment, it is necessary to at least observe the relevant links as claimed by academics themselves as well as to demonstrate that the link is more often in the minds of men, than in true knowledge. The assumption here is that the science of humanity had chronological integrity and validity in the same way pure science has. My simple point being that this is not the case.

The Fruit

This introduction is not intended to have academic merit. It does not have academic merit nor should anyone imagine it to have. Although I have drawn upon a recollection of resources which are themselves academically competent, it is not my intention to present a particular academic view. The sole purpose is to extract an understanding which would reasonably amount to a way of looking at generalised theories. The motive is to claim that human sciences are not fact in the same way pure science is fact. It is to simplistically draw from the example of pure science the chronological continuity of its substance in human societies across the ages. This is something which cannot be done or said of human sciences other than by reason of the underlying paradigm which philosophy has provided. Human sciences affect our thinking and therefore behaviour, in context of our beliefs about life and self, more than is easily understood. In the end it is to reference this world of darkness and thereby draw attention to the kingdom of light, by exposing the fraudulence of this world, and to declare the wonderful truth and validity of Christ and His Kingdom.

Every element of the visible and invisible universe belongs to God. It is only in the vanity of men’s minds that this world is comprehended as light, and in this light, (which is in truth darkness), blackest darkness has taken a fuller position in this age. The outworking is an unchallengeable feeling that man is the centre, and God is completely excluded from this process. If this was simply a matter of understanding the world in which we live, it would be of little merit and would be better set aside in favour of a heart desire to know God’s will and to comprehend His purposes. Indeed for this man, and many others as well, it is already set aside in favour of truth. If such an enquiry however serves to give rise to a need to be taught of God, it will produce a life of obedience. In this we will see that even the very fabric of our bodies and minds are flawed and cannot comprehend God or His ways. We may observe angels and have visions yet these too will not produce obedience or prove a faithful outcome.

Grievously, the churches are saturated in worldly thinking, whilst believing that God is unconcerned, and even pleased with our efforts. Until we understand that the world is the darkness, and the light is Christ Himself, in us by faith, we may never see the imperative to repent of that way of thinking, which to our natural minds seems quite reasonable and profitable. Even though we are light in this darkness of the world, if Christ is in us we may still nevertheless walk in the darkness of our natural minds, and never truly know how to walk in the light of Christ. This is not judgement, but discernment. It is not condemnation, but a desire to show mercy and the love of the Father through Christ. It is my assertion that the key to understanding, in a reasonable mind, the deeper truths of faithful sonship, requires the understanding of the truth that a man is made of three distinct yet unified parts. These are Spirit, Soul & Body. The world which we have so easily loved denies this and its denial is implicitly woven into every fabric of western civilisation so that from our first breath we have been taught it. In this sense having been taught of the world we may still walk as of the world and not dress in readiness for the Lord Jesus and His coming kingdom in visibility.

The Hope

There is coming a day when it will not be necessary to even speak of this world at all because some at least will speak so as to provide an end time compulsion to obedience and true faithfulness according to God’ calling. Until that hour comes we have to settle for the crumbs. May the fullness of time soon be upon us so that we may all know the liberty of the sons of God and the true substance of our purpose and present calling in Christ Jesus, as servants and not lords. If we cannot set aside our affection for that which is enmity with the Father in heaven, we will suffer loss. If we do not receive by way of a heavenly witness the true condition of the flesh and its implications for being yet taught by the prince of the power of the air, we are already suffering loss. That loss of ours is more Christ’s loss because He loved us even unto death in order to purchase us and to preserve us spirit, soul and body until the day of the Lord. Simply speaking the truth will not produce its fruit without obedience. Knowledge will not produce obedience at all. Only the revelation of God will convince us that this world, and all its men, are wrong unless they have spoken according to that which is true according to God and not the ruler of this present darkness. All the men we need to take note of in simplicity are written in the Scriptures and if we read what they were able to write by God’s grace and purposes, we will have sufficiency. In that knowledge, our own spirits will bear witness with our mind’s and our mind will agree to the putting to death of the body by the removal of Christ’s own body on the cross. If not then our very mind and body will be yet evidence of our once father of disobedience and rebellion, even yet working in us.

Knowledge is vain if it is not met with a mind of obedience in truth.

Written by Rhomphaeam in 2009 to answer a question about the validity of social psychology in ministry.

10 minutes ago, SIC said:

But the principle holds. You let people know that they are enroute to disobeying. Whether they take it or not is upto them. But they cannot say that they have not been warned.

Ezekiel 2:5

And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them.
 

Then prophecy to him and be accountable for your own words.

27 minutes ago, SIC said:

I see a lot of stories of how things worked out alright. God in His Mercy may enable things to turn out alright and often times He does turn things around for many couples.

BUT the point is God has explicitly forbidden marrying an unbeliever. Marrying an unbeliever is an act of disobedience.

I believe this is the guiding scripture :

¹⁸ If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for^[d] his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. ¹⁹ But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

If people are enroute to disobeying God's word your job is to let them know that they are disobeying God's word. What they do with their life is between them and God. You have done your job in telling them.

If that Scripture were to have any semblance of meaning to whether a believing man marries an unbelieving women then he would have to perish for no more reason than by doing so. That is what I mean by pious christianity. He is not a city - he is a man. 

On 10/8/2021 at 7:01 PM, SIC said:

In your opinion if a believer you know well gets engaged to an unbeliever what should be the right response? 

I am personally of the opinion that the right response would be to show the believer those verses in the bible that speak against marrying an unbeliever and then pray for God to change their heart. After all God's word has power mine don't. 

Some others in church believe that would be 'hitting them on their head with the bible'. 

What do you all think is the best way to respond to a believer you know well getting engaged to an unbeliever? 

 

 

Leave them alone. Let your friend be the judge of his own choosing if he is a believer. No one other than his father and mother have any authority to advise their son. No pastor and no brother unless he asks. Leave him alone. 

Pius Christians are as much a cause of stumbling than whores who garner men by licentious means. If he loves her and desires to marry her, then leave him alone. He is doing nothing more than obeying the first purposes of God. Let him bring his wife to Christ and if she loves him then he will. 

One of the most pernicious undertakings which we have witnessed over the past thirty years or so has been an increasing presentation of Christ to the unsaved in terms which amount to a false gospel. This gospel focuses on individuals’ sufferings in life and presents Christ as a remedy for the pain this suffering has caused. The true Gospel, however, focuses on the sufferings of Christ to redeem wicked and sinful men from the consequence of their sin, and not from the pain of having been sinned against. It is no wonder that in casting such a net of influence countless men and women have embraced the name of Jesus, and yet do not produce any true fruit of repentance. Nor is there any evidence that the meaning, power and consequence of sin is comprehended by these same men and women. The fact that they come into the buildings which bear the name church does not in any way mean that they have come into the true Church. The meaning of the true church is predicated on a life relationship with Christ; not whether you go to church or desire to be seen and understood as a Christian.

An Egyptian can be in Goshen, but an Egyptian cannot become a Jew simply by living in Goshen. Clearly, living in Goshen, proved to be an advantage to those Egyptians who chose to live amongst the Jews and put their trust in God on the night of the Passover. If there is any hope at all on this day, then it is in this possibility - that those who are not born again, who dwell in the dominion of the Kingdom of Heaven, by aligning themselves to the Church, will put their trust in Christ, to an effect of being born again.

1 minute ago, David1701 said:

Umm... thanks, I think; but I'm not Justin.

No you are not Justin. But Justin nevertheless gave him the thumbs up to his comment to you at page 19 comment 4. What is said behind the veil is whispered in the open. 

15 hours ago, David1701 said:

The "man of sin" is the office of the so-called "Pope".  He sits in the temple of God (the professing church), having titles of blasphemy (e.g. Holy Father and Vicar of Christ), claiming to be instead of Christ, claiming to have authority to change God's times, seasons and precepts, claiming headship over the church, at the head of an organisation that is disgustingly rich, drunk with the blood of the saints, full of false doctrine and deception, ruling over kings of the earth, etc, etc.

All the skillful men among those who were performing the work made the tabernacle with ten curtains; of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet material, with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman, Bezalel made them. Exodus 36:8

The truth David, is that unless we are likely to know what the prophetic meanings of God are - we are inclined to see only one thing in the day it is revealed and miss that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Whereas the prophet must see what God sees and declare what God desires to be known. Rome and Jerusalem are as though a single place - yet they are two cities. In the end of this age their effect shall be clear and it will be God who raises Israel up from her sickbed and Rome who will be removed from her whoring. 

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

2 Cor. 6:14-18 (WEB)

14 Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
15 What agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?
16 What agreement has a temple of God with idols? For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 
17 Therefore, “‘Come out from among them, and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Touch no unclean thing. I will receive you. 
18 I will be to you a Father. You will be to me sons and daughters,’ says the Lord Almighty.” 

Is. 52:11,12 (WEB)

11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.
12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward.

Rev. 18:1-4 (KJV)

1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.1 
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Mystery Babylon is Roman Catholicism (there are also "harlot daughters").  It is this system and its offshoots from which we must depart.

The rulers brought the onyx stones and the stones for setting for the ephod and for the breastpiece. Exodus 25:7

For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. Hosea 3:4

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. John 19:15

The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, Revelation 17:4

It is a simple matter to see Rome in Purple and Scarlet it is much more difficult to see Jerusalem at the end of this age and often more difficult than that to see Babylon in Nations and all of them in a Mystery of Iniquity and a Man of Sin.

2 hours ago, Michael37 said:

And the message is . . .

Speaking to yourself personally - albeit with a broader meaning.

That allegory was written just over nine years ago.

I joined a discussion forum that was hosted in the USA but was in the responsibility of a brother from Canada. I was obeying a leading of the Holy Spirit and for the first time in my life I exposed myself to public ridicule. Not that I wasn't accustomed to being ridiculed - just not visible on line. The reason I joined wasn't to say something, rather it was to ask a question. And the reason I needed to ask that question was because despite the fact that I have always looked to Europe to answer my own calling I had received a strong burden for the United States almost 15 years previously that I had no way to answer.

That burden came with a waking vision and the vision was Ezra coming out of Babylon and uncovering the foundation of the Temple and repairing the walls and setting the Gates of Jerusalem. That was difficult to understand for me because when I say that I look to Europe I mean Rome and I mean Jerusalem - almost as though the same city.

The greater difficulty is because I had spent the preceding fifteen years watching the harm that was coming into the churches in the UK out of the USA. So to have the Lord give me a waking vision of the USA in the terms I have stated was difficult to make sense of as it spoke of being rebuilt - if rebuilt meant the church. So when I joined the discussion forum I did so then as an obedience to having that vision awakened again and seeing Madonna on the cover of a British Newspaper when she did the Super Bowl in 2012. It was an appalling Babylonian visage that was so striking - the Lord used it to stir my spirit and the Ezra vision came alive again. Then I came across that very subject of Madonna and the Super Bowl on the website I joined. 

The reason I say this is in a very real sense personal to yourself has to do with New Zealand. 

After spending a few months trying to answer that question I had for those believers - and receiving almost nothing but confusion and madness - I began to wonder if some madness had gripped me. But when I took a sword and began to strike away the madness and confusion I saw that part of the Allegory which speaks to a few of a little flock. The madness speaks of the many of the little flock.  And the Great City speaks of the Nation in which they live. 

A brother came onto the site onetime and wrote a rambling prophecy that was so difficult to read that I prayed about it and the Lord quickened me to give it a form that was in keeping with the words therein - but could be read properly. That brother was so touched that I had transposed his difficult and poor language into a meaningful form of words that he thanked me for preserving his vision. That is the Scroll in the thicket. 

Yet he could not take the scroll in a prophetic manner and so I simply wrote the Allegory and posted the Scroll onto the forum at that time and left it with the Lord.

New Zealand had to do with a dream that the Lord gave me just a few days before he posted his prophecy and in that dream I was in a city and there had been a terrible earth quake. I was walking about and crossing over chasms that had been riven in the roads. I then saw a woman and a man walking over a temporary road covering almost as a bridge but too wide to be a bridge. Then the dream ended. In the dream it was Australia that kept coming to my mind and so when the Australian brother posted his prophecy and I wrote it up in a scroll and tied it with a golden chord (a reference to gifting the site $3000 US dollars) I assumed that the Earth quake was a reference to Australia. A few months later just before posting my Allegory I discovered the detail of the Christchurch earth quake in 2011. When I first came onto this forum I saw your Avatar and immediately thought of both the Earth quake and the Allegory. 

There is a meaning that remains pertinent to my being here now - and it is in the same semblance of the Allegory. But it is not my place to speak what the Lord has not asked me to speak about other than in an Allegorical way. You are a Moderator so you can seek the Lord yourself and you may be able to speak yourself. I could share very plainly what the Lord has shown me - but I would be throwing Pearls before Swine - And so I have simply replied REPENT to your question. 

47 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

And the message is . . .

Repent

An Allegory: Written 2012/6/4 

Babylon the Great City of Men!

Some time ago a strange thing happened. A man, who held a certain country in contempt because he saw that it had become Babylon, the Great City, began to feel a burden for the people who lived in that City. Not a concern for a City, but a concern for the little flock that lived in that City. The feeling of contempt was so strong that he even warned others in his own country to avoid it and flee its influence.

He knew though that the influence was already great and that simply speaking against it would do little to answer his concerns. So he joined a few, of a Little Flock, so that he could ask them what they thought. In a short season it became clearer that they also knew with a greater certainty than he did, that their City had become a Vanity, and a Blasphemy. On the journey, which was at times confusing and difficult to understand, one here and one there from amongst those he journeyed with, spoke of their concerns over the City they lived in. Ah he thought to himself! Now if it pleases God I will be able to understand.

Pressing on against the tide of confusion he began to understand that living in Babylon, the Great City was a difficult thing for a few of the little flock. Not only did the citizenry mock them, but they began to hate them also. To a great perplexity the man also saw that even a greater number of the little flock were mockers, with a mind of their own. The warning of a few, to the many brethren, was met by disbelief. Sometimes it was met by ridicule. In the end it will be met by violence.

“Why has God allowed this?” The man asked himself! “The fathers of this country from its first vision were themselves established on a Rock. How could God have allowed the building of a Great City, Babylon, upon the foundation of men? The fathers had left their own country, to this place, for freedom to serve God. Now, everyman was free to serve himself.”

With a great sadness and a need to know, the man determined to see if there was a way to show his new friends how to escape their City. Yet in the end he saw and understood that they were preparing themselves for a day of misery and retribution. He didn’t try to persuade them because he had nothing to persuade them with. There was no map to draw - Saying! Go here! Look! Go over there! He could only accept with a heavy heart that a few, of a little flock, were right in their estimation of their City.

They made a declaration “The Great City, Babylon, is already fully built and a report had gone to the Mighty King, Who has determined to judge this wicked City.”

As the man turned back to his own country he saw in the thicket, a scroll. Written upon it were the words, “The Purposes of the Great King”. So he read it and was amazed. He cried to his friends “whose scroll is this? It was lost! See I have found it”. Who will take it?

No one was able to take it. A man, who was far off, he was willing to take it. Yet he could not. He was the one who had placed the scroll of the Great King in the thicket. It is written in the scroll that his country is also become as a Great City. Babylon.

In His judgement the Great King showed mercy and said, “Remain” to these few. I saw that for this cause they would stay. I saw that they loved their brethren and they loved the Great King. They would also stay for the citizens of that Great City. Babylon. Hoping faithfully that by speech they could serve the citizens of that place who would suffer a greater loss than their own if they were not shown the Way to please the Great King who had written “I will Judge”.

The man said in his heart “I cannot cast the scroll back into the thicket. It is a scroll of the Great King. I will clean it and wrap it in a golden chord and deliver it myself to the few. They will take it if I make it plain to them in privacy. ” So he did as it seemed right to him in his own heart. He has now returned to his own country, where a false king is rising in the place of the Great King. He went with trembling.

Rhomphaeam

2 hours ago, Amigo42 said:

So what of unborn children and those who have mental disabilities?

My first born son was conceived in his mothers body on the 26th July 1987 on the night of my wedding. The Lord spoke to me in my spirit and told me that my bride had conceived and gave me his name. So I told my wife that she was with child and gave her the name of my first born son. 

I spoke of him in this OP and made reference to his broken body. Yet in truth not only is his body broken but so also is his mind. He is severely disabled and neurologically brain injured. He cannot speak and he cannot direct the course of his own life in any part. When he was 3 months old he was dedicated to God in the church and nine members of the church prophesied over him. Some spoke with compassion seeing that even then his injuries were visible. Others spoke in a spirit of knowing the heart of the Father and so they spoke more meaningfully into why my son was known of God - yet in the sight of men he was broken.

When I speak to my son - by praising God in his hearing - he lifts his hands and agrees. When I ask him as one asks a small Child - "where is Jesus?" he places his hand on his heart and groans - because he cannot speak with his mouth. 

When the midwife wheeled his life support machine out of the theatre after he was born she said to me "congratulations - you have a son." So I said to her "his name is Daniel." Then I committed him to the Lord knowing that if the Father gave me his name on the night he was conceived - then whether he lived or died - he belonged to God.

So it is with all men who are born - who die in the womb or in childbirth or in infancy - but not so with you or with any other in possession of their own minds and in charge of their own bodies. Fear God - because to him you shall give an account - as we all shall give an account. 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

We were looking of how Jesus Christ is going to deal with those who died and they  were never told that Jesus died for the forgiveness of their sins.

Those people died without refusing to believe in Jesus Christ. 

All the scriptures who are calling upon those who have heard the Gospel to believe in Jesus Christ and naming the consequences if they do not believe and die in their unbelief do not apply to those who lived and died after the Cross. 

Those who died before the Cross are distinguish from those who lived and died after the Cross. 

The people who have not heard the Gospel and died this way all of them lived and died after the Cross and that's how we distinguish them from the people before the Cross. 

So in your teaching brother, Abel is a seeming easy matter to settle. But what of Cain? How do we settle that matter of him being in Sheol as his brother Abel was in Sheol -  whom he murdered - yet whilst in the fertile land to which his father, Adam was sent by God to till the land for his bread - Cain was given an opportunity by God to please God and being warned that sin was crouching at the door - he murdered his brother. 

How will we address that, brother? How will Cain receive the message of Christ' sacrifice on the Cross and his shed blood when he knowingly refused God?

Why does Cain appear in three post Accession accounts in the New Testament Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12 and Jude 11 - as a warning to others if Cain was by then already forgiven and his sins were as far from God as the East if from the West - to be remembered no more? Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the prophetic Word - of faithful Apostles to bear witness of that which by then was already forgiven? When do we read that God condemns Abraham - even though he was a sinner? - Being according to your doctrine waiting in Sheol with Abel and Cain. Yet Cain is called a child of the devil!

3 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Genesis 4: 4-10 

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Save for one thing, brother - you are alive. Whereas, Abel who was a real man and a prophet bears witness against his brother. If the patiently waiting is measured by the days of the flood and in the meaning specific to the passage from Peter then you say that Abel was saved when he heard Christ speaking in Sheol?

He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.