Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.

[amigo de christo]

It doesn’t depress you to read it because “she smiles and doesn’t fear the future.” I don’t know where that is exactly but it describes a wise wife, which when I read it recently I saw it is not really about just womenfolk OR about literally sewing clothing and such. There’s even a verse in it about a wise woman buying a field, which has its counterpart in the NT with a selling all you have to buy a field.

Its in proverbs . i think the last one . thirty one . She has no fear and etc .

 

[stunnedbygrace]

that train wreck is exactly what these folks are about to experience . For the wrath of GOD is revelead from Heaven against all
ungodliness . Folks better start pointing to the biblical Christ

The train wreck was a picture meant to convey meaning, that meaning being that the thread had become derailed from its original topic for you to indulge in one of your personal pet projects of attacking RCC members.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

please see post #357

I already did. I didn’t understand what Clinton was saying regarding a word in English had to do with translation from one language to another.

 

[amigo de christo]

The train wreck was a picture meant to convey meaning, that meaning being that the thread had become derailed from its original topic for you to indulge in one of your personal pet projects of attacking RCC members.

Go back and read the posts . SEE who first came ripping into WHO . as usual bread of life comes in attacking
but as usual some folks just defend the CC . IF you notice i dont respond much to him
Yet he seems to find me . I already warned that man long ago . But when HE comes onto a place
and goes at us , well sometimes i just have to REMIND HIM that i refuse that wicked place called the RCC .
I would leave him alone . FOR i already know i did what i could .
But HE seems to seek me out at times . SO , i had to expose that place for the sake of anyone who might even
be considering it .

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It’s in proverbs . i think the last one . thirty one . She has no fear and etc .

Yes, that’s it! You get a wider lens view of it when you consider if the wise wife might be the church.

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes, that’s it! You get a wider lens view of it when you consider if the wise wife might be the church.

There can be a two fold understanding applied to that . Yes indeed .
SHE TRUSTS IN HER HUSBAND . Just as the lambs , the church TRUSTS IN OURS . YEP .

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Go back and read the posts . SEE who first came ripping into WHO . as usual bread of life comes in attacking
but as usual some folks just defend the CC . IF you notice i dont respond much to him
Yet he seems to find me . I already warned that man long ago . But when HE comes onto a place
and goes at us , well sometimes i just have to REMIND HIM that i refuse that wicked place called the RCC .
I would leave him alone . FOR i already know i did what i could .
But HE seems to seek me out at times . SO , i had to expose that place for the sake of anyone who might even
be considering it .

I will go back and look.

 

[Taken]

Where does it say in Scripture the claims you are making?

The Scripture declares that Mary was the biological mother that the Father, thru the Holy Spirit, caused Mary to become pregnant = 9 months of developement.

AND

i enjoy your many posts as they are beneficial to many on here.......Peace

Posted two scriptures.
TY

God Bless,
Taken

 

[David in NJ]

I already did. I didn’t understand what Clinton was saying regarding a word in English had to do with translation from one language to another.

The point is that he was lying and trying to avoid the lie by bringing into question a two syllable word which had zero impact on the translation/meaning of what he was doing = having sex with his intern.

Same principle concerning those who question what God says when we do not believe what He says.

DO NOT take this as a pertaining to you but only brought forth as an example.

Peace

 

[David in NJ]

Posted two scriptures.
TY

God Bless,
Taken

God instructs us to dwell on Scripture = "chew the cud"

Which is what i am doing.
Thank You and Good Nite Brother

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Same principle concerning those who question what God says when we do not believe what He says.

Once again though, I’m not questioning what God says. I am questioning if perhaps men have not always translated as perfectly as is possible what God has said INTO another language FROM the original language God SAID it in to the man He said it to.

 

[Taken]

and stop sticking your tongue out at me 'pie face' - lol

Oh, oh, oh....that’s not really me. I have greens eyes...LOL

 

[David in NJ]

Once again though, I’m not questioning what God says. I am questioning if perhaps men have not always translated as perfectly as is possible what God has said INTO another language than the original language God SAID it in to the man He said it to.

No problem - God had that all figured out and HE promised that His Message would be conveyed in all aspects as such of that which we need to know.

Peace and Good Nite

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I will go back and look.

I looked.
You posted on page 12, #229 a mention of the “CC.”
He posted on page 16, #315, in response to you.

Yours was the first post he honed in on of the first 12 pages, without making any reply to anyone else that I can find among those first 12 pages. It does appear that he only entered the thread in the first place by searching for posts under your name. It does appear to me that he is seeking you out and following you for any mention of his denomination with which he can carry on a feud.

My unsolicited advice to you is this. I have seen that if a believer is speaking in a bad spirit because that spirit has stirred up their flesh and has them operating from their flesh, there are three things I can do.

1. I can answer their flesh with my flesh, which is what the bad spirit wants to happen. The spirit wants their flesh, which he has stirred and incited, to then stir up my own flesh, which then stirs up the flesh of many others. Since it is the bad spirits goal all along to produce that fleshfest, which prevents and grieves the Spirit of God, and since I do not please God when I walk by, and from, my arrogant flesh, (and certainly don’t help my brother) I do not want to participate that way.

2. I can use the weapons I am supposed to use rather than the weapon of my flesh, mainly scriptures, to tear down strongholds. This weapon only works if I use it without my flesh. So if I need to go away and wait until my stirred flesh is calmed and come back to answer later, I do that first. The result is sometimes that the bad spirit leaves and looks for a different place where his tactics might better yield the results he desires.

3. I can begin to ignore the person almost completely so that I do not engage with the bad spirit that is manipulating their flesh. I go this way if, through previous conversation, I see that the person is so manipulated and controlled that they will just readily consent to being controlled and there is nothing I can do to help shake the spirit from off them. Oddly, this tactic seems to make bad spirits very nervous and agitated. It’s as if the worst possible outcome of their labors, to them, is to be ignored. The reason I know that this is the thing they hate most for me to do is because they then actually manifest. They shake the man’s flesh so much harder than they previously had that he either lets loose an angry tirade that makes it so visibly clear to everyone in the room that they are FURIOUS or they speak with such extreme and arrogant vitriol that the mods step in to reprimand.
Choice #3 is what I liken to handing a man over to satan for the destruction of his flesh. It’s very effective. And if it gets bad enough that he is temporarily banned, he usually comes back (if he hopefully comes back) with an awareness of his flesh and that his flesh is his enemy and that he hates his flesh as he has never before hated anything. So while he waits for God to wean him from his hated flesh and put it under his feet he waits more peaceably towards his brothers, who he sees have this same enemy in them as he does.

I have been seeing and piecing this together by looking carefully at some threads that turned bad over the last few months and only very recently did I test it and learn to stick to it. The tests worked.

 

[keithr]

Well haven’t you been supposing over the hidden parts of an Angel and their angelic biology in human form? You assume they have sexual appendages in human form. That then colors how you read.

When angels take on human form, normal people can not distinguish them from normal men (Hebrews 13:2). There's no reason to assume that if they took their clothes off that they would be revealed as not fully human! There is no need to make assumptions over whether or not the angels took on the form of men but made do without a penis, testicles, prostrate, etc.. Just read what the Bible says:

Genesis 6:4 (WEB):

(4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.​

The expression "came in to men’s daughters" is a polite expression for 'had sexual intercourse' with the women that they forcibly took (Genesis 38:18). It was likely not consential sexual intercourse too. The expression "had children with them" means that the angels in their human form were the fathers of those children. That is what the Scriptures state. Believe the all word of God; don't pick and chose what you want to believe.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The question I asked is a tangent, but I know why I went off on that tangent. (Sometimes I don’t know why I took a tangent and it only becomes clear later, but here, I know exactly why I did.) It’s because I’m balking at something that I can’t find any larger theme of woven throughout the whole Bible. I do find a repeat of the thing at the end of the Bible, so I admit it is a thing and it is a very bad thing, but I don’t trust man’s interpretation of that thing. So…I’m working the problem from different angles.

The only other place I see some sort of repeated theme is at the end of the Bible. I do not pick it up woven throughout the body. And when I do find it again, it has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with a theme I do find woven through the whole body of scripture, which is deception leading to death, being deceived, the serpent deceived me.

And no one would be deceived if angels appeared in their actual form to human eyes. And if they appeared as human (which yes, they can do) and deceived women that they were human in order to have sex with them, that goes beyond tempting to mistrust and disbelief of what God has said and into an entrapment from which no woman could have protection or an evading of. So I do not buy it. God has given the women no way out and that’s not how God works. God stacks the deck for us, not against us, which we see if we begin to trust Him.
(It’s not even how Satan works either, probably because he knows the case would be thrown out immediately.)

 

[David in NJ]

When angels take on human form, normal people can not distinguish them from normal men (Hebrews 13:2). There's no reason to assume that if they took their clothes off that they would be revealed as not fully human! There is no need to make assumptions over whether or not the angels took on the form of men but made do without a penis, testicles, prostrate, etc.. Just read what the Bible says:

Genesis 6:4 (WEB):

(4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.​

The expression "came in to men’s daughters" is a polite expression for 'had sexual intercourse' with the women that they forcibly took (Genesis 38:18). It was likely not consential sexual intercourse too. The expression "had children with them" means that the angels in their human form were the fathers of those children. That is what the Scriptures state. Believe the all word of God; don't pick and chose what you want to believe.

imho - "came into" is very direct and to the point since it is a biologically male-in-female factual statement

 

[stunnedbygrace]

When angels take on human form, normal people can not distinguish them from normal men (Hebrews 13:2). There's no reason to assume that if they took their clothes off that they would be revealed as not fully human! There is no need to make assumptions over whether or not the angels took on the form of men but made do without a penis, testicles, prostrate, etc.. Just read what the Bible says:

Genesis 6:4 (WEB):

(4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.​

The expression "came in to men’s daughters" is a polite expression for 'had sexual intercourse' with the women that they forcibly took (Genesis 38:18). It was likely not consential sexual intercourse too. The expression "had children with them" means that the angels in their human form were the fathers of those children. That is what the Scriptures state. Believe the all word of God; don't pick and chose what you want to believe.

If it wasn’t consensual then God would not punish the women and their offspring the way He did. God does not condemn women forced into something like that. If He did, I would hate Him rather than love Him. God does not punish a woman for someone else’s wickedness. He punishes unbelief and mistrust of what He has said to favor what someone else says.

 

[David in NJ]

The question I asked is a tangent, but I know why I went off on that tangent. (Sometimes I don’t know why I took a tangent and it only becomes clear later, but here, I know exactly why I did.) It’s because I’m balking at something that I can’t find any larger theme of woven throughout the whole Bible. I do find a repeat of the thing at the end of the Bible, so I admit it is a thing and it is a very bad thing, but I don’t trust man’s interpretation of that thing. So…I’m working the problem from different angles.

The only other place I see some sort of repeated theme is at the end of the Bible. I do not pick it up woven throughout the body. And when I do find it again, it has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with a theme I do find woven through the whole body of scripture, which is deception leading to death, being deceived, the serpent deceived me.

And no one would be deceived if angels appeared in their actual form to human eyes. And if they appeared as human (which yes, they can do) and deceived women that they were human in order to have sex with them, mistrust and disbelief of what God has said and into an entrapment from which no woman could have protection or an evading of. So I do not buy it. God has given the women no way out and that’s not how God works. God stacks the deck for us, not against us, which we see if we begin to trust Him.
(It’s not even how Satan works either, probably because he knows the case would be thrown out immediately.)

You have the availability of discovery in front of you - now you need the Holy Spirit to open your understanding.

CLUE #1 - use your own evidence as you clearly stated "deception leading to death, being deceived, the serpent deceived me."

CLUE #2 - You made a flawed judgement = "that goes beyond tempting to and into an entrapment"

CLUE #3 - The angels took the women as wives

CLUE #4 - women being entrapped thru rape and human trafficking has always been sin sin entered the world and is at an all time high right now = therefore your assesment is missapplied to the Scripture

CLUE #5 - Proverbs 30:5-6

CLUE #6 - there is sufficient evidence given by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, including the Book of Daniel

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Sir, I am having a hard time taking you seriously.