Who I am and What I (And God) Believe

[Joey44]

As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible,my Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do. And that is to keep the temple of the living God a clean vessel, untarnished by even a hint of fellowship with the unrighteous.

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 1:9-11). "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

​

I pray that God sends his Holy Spirit upon this Christian Nation and opens up the hearts of other Bible believing Christians so that they will adopt the same Bible-based policy that has kept my church strong for nearly 27 Godly years. For a list of common-sense reasons for keeping unsaved people out of your church

I Believe in the WHOLE Bible. I don't throw out the parts that make me feel uncomfortable, like the book of Leviticus. I bid you greetings, friend. I do not read, eat, consume, digest, or 'try on' any product that is not made and manufactured by born-again, Bible believing, Fundamentalist Baptist Christians, andI would have you know that I condemn anyone that does, and pray as King David did, 'against them' for a quick end and a speedy journey to a very hot place, where they can spend out all eternity honoring our Lord and Maker in a literal lake of fire, Amen.

I believe that when a person first gets saved, the first thing they should do is buy a suit and a tie. If the individual is a female, then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable. Clothing is perhaps the most important thing about being a Christian. If one is not properly clothed and fully representative of what God would want them to appear like... well then, that person is probably not saved. My motto is "get saved, get to a Christian Clothing store, and get fitted for the kingdom." Anyone who does not conform to the dress code at my church will be fined no less than $300.00 a violation. It is a privilege to be a Christian and I believe that it is about time folks started acting like it!

 

[Achilles6129]

As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible,my Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do. And that is to keep the temple of the living God a clean vessel, untarnished by even a hint of fellowship with the unrighteous.

"Untarnished by even a hint of fellowship with the unrighteous"? LOL. Fellowshipping with "unrighteous" people is not forbidden in the Bible. The verse you quoted in 2 John is about false preachers.

"9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1 Cor. 5:9-11

Paul is not at all forbidding fellowshipping with the unrighteous - in fact he says you would have to die not to. What he is talking about is false christians. Just like John in 2 John 9-11 is talking about false preachers.

"10And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." Matt. 9:10-12

Well then my friend, I don't know what church you're going to (yes I know your "church" is sarcastic and doesn't really exist) but apparently Jesus Christ associated with all types of sinners. And again:

" 13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matt. 9:13

By this he meant he did not come to call those righteous in their own eyes, but those who were sinners in their own eyes.

"5Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day." Isa. 65:5

So much for your "fellowship with the unrighteous". LOL.

 

[Joey44]

Also in New Testament times, there also was nothing said about prostitution being wrong and in fact Jesus makes the point that harlots who believed John the Baptist will enter the kingdom of God before the chief priests and elders who rejected John's message (Matt. 21:31-32)

 

[Nazaroo]

I believe that when a person first gets saved, the first thing they should do is buy a suit and a tie. If the individual is a female, then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable. Clothing is perhaps the most important thing about being a Christian. If one is not properly clothed and fully representative of what God would want them to appear like... well then, that person is probably not saved. My motto is "get saved, get to a Christian Clothing store, and get fitted for the kingdom." Anyone who does not conform to the dress code at my church will be fined no less than $300.00 a violation. It is a privilege to be a Christian and I believe that it is about time folks started acting like it!

"How shall we clothe all these people?
we have a few pennies, but it would take thousands of dollars to clothe this multitude."

"You clothe them!" And Jesus had all the people come into the church, and sit down. And when He had clothed them all in white robes, he had the disciples gather together the remaining clothing, and they filled twelve baskets with clothing.

And Jesus said, "Go, and invite the poor, the lame, the sick, the broken-hearted, the outcasts, the unwanted, the abandoned, the orphans, and invite them to the Lord's Table. Let nothing be wasted, and let no dollar remain unused."

 

[livingword26]

As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible,my Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do. And that is to keep the temple of the living God a clean vessel, untarnished by even a hint of fellowship with the unrighteous.

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 1:9-11). "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

​

I pray that God sends his Holy Spirit upon this Christian Nation and opens up the hearts of other Bible believing Christians so that they will adopt the same Bible-based policy that has kept my church strong for nearly 27 Godly years. For a list of common-sense reasons for keeping unsaved people out of your church

I Believe in the WHOLE Bible. I don't throw out the parts that make me feel uncomfortable, like the book of Leviticus. I bid you greetings, friend. I do not read, eat, consume, digest, or 'try on' any product that is not made and manufactured by born-again, Bible believing, Fundamentalist Baptist Christians, andI would have you know that I condemn anyone that does, and pray as King David did, 'against them' for a quick end and a speedy journey to a very hot place, where they can spend out all eternity honoring our Lord and Maker in a literal lake of fire, Amen.

I believe that when a person first gets saved, the first thing they should do is buy a suit and a tie. If the individual is a female, then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable. Clothing is perhaps the most important thing about being a Christian. If one is not properly clothed and fully representative of what God would want them to appear like... well then, that person is probably not saved. My motto is "get saved, get to a Christian Clothing store, and get fitted for the kingdom." Anyone who does not conform to the dress code at my church will be fined no less than $300.00 a violation. It is a privilege to be a Christian and I believe that it is about time folks started acting like it!

Ok let me see if I got this right. By what you have written here and on your other posts this is what you believe:

1. All the products I use including clothes and food must be made by bible believing christians, if not then I shoud go to hell.
2. Clothing is probably the most important thing about being a christian.
3.Prostitution is acceptable by God.
4. Polygamy is acceptable by God
5. Women have to marry their rapists.

Does this about cover it? My friend, you have no idea who Jesus Christ is and I hope and pray that you will seek and find Him.

 

[Nazaroo]

Also in New Testament times, there also was nothing said about prostitution being wrong ...

If you were blind you would have no sin,
but since you say, "I see.", your sin remains.

This is more important than disputing a few doctrines.

 

[livingword26]

Also in New Testament times, there also was nothing said about prostitution being wrong and in fact Jesus makes the point that harlots who believed John the Baptist will enter the kingdom of God before the chief priests and elders who rejected John's message (Matt. 21:31-32)

The Pharasies beleived that they were saved because they were Gods chosen people and that all gentiles were doomed. Jesus made a specifice point to them that the people they detested the most would enter the kindom of God before them and why?'


Matt 21:32

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him:
KJV

Because they believed. All sexual imorality is sin. All sex outside of one man one woman joined by God is sin. It is a singlular act, one on one.

Matt 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (not wives), and the two shall become one flesh'?
NKJV

 

[Nazaroo]

"..joined to his wife (not wives), and the two shall become one flesh"

Good point. Although it is not airtight:
It could be interpreted to indicate that one can only marry or join to others 'one person at a time'.

For instance, a man could join with one 'wife', and the two would become 'one'. Now this new team would be 'one' already, and joined it to a third, you could say again, the 'two' (meaning the first pair, and the second woman alone = two corporate entities).

But this type of hairsplitting interpretation seems to go entirely against the Spirit and intent of the text.

The original purpose of the Genesis quote seems to be justifying new living arrangements (i.e., the wife now moves out of her father's tent and into her husband's tent).

Jesus does add significantly to the doctrinal implication and therefore the full 'meaning' of the text, which may not have been foreseen by rabbis and others. This case is very similar to the one where Jesus refutes the Sadduces by simply pointing out the phrase, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", which looked at twice contains the implication that these men are still alive, and therefore in some sense resurrected. Elegant and awesome exegesis from the King of Kings.

But I see no way to elegantly find approval or disapproval of polygamy using the methods of Jesus on any known scripture.

 

[livingword26]

But I see no way to elegantly find approval or disapproval of polygamy using the methods of Jesus on any known scripture.

I disagree. To miss the fact that we were designed to be a union of one man and one woman, one has to have an alterior motive It is very clear by many verses. These verses are twisted or have restrictions put on them to allow for polygamy. Example:

1 Tim 3:2
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife , vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
KJV

1 Tim 3:12
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife , ruling their children and their own houses well.
KJV

Titus 1:6-7

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife , having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
KJV

The polygamist says "see, only bishops and deacons can only have one wife". Instead of the obvious implication that they must set an example for others to follow.

Also, as you have noted:

Matt 19:5-6
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.
NKJV

This takes the same kind of twisting to allow for polygamy. There is no mention of additional women becoming one flesh with the heard. All of polygamy is based on "adding to" scripture

 

[Nazaroo]

The polygamist says "see, only bishops and deacons can only have one wife". Instead of the obvious implication that they must set an example for others to follow.

This is a good point, but doesn't have the force one might wish: Obviously the bishops and deacons *ARE* to set the example, and it is not just something to gawk at, but emulate, as an ideal arrangement and a family model.

It goes too far to say however, that polygamy would therefore become 'illegal' in the letter of the law sense. Instead, the New Testament approach seems rather to say, "this is the ideal, and it will not be diluted."

Nonetheless, in the same manner Jesus argued against divorce, though it was a fact of life even back in His earthly ministry. That is, God ALLOWED divorce, BECAUSE of man's inability to be fully loving, and therefore fully responsible. In the same way, God would presumably ALLOW polygamy, to accomodate for man's failure to keep it in his pants.

To put things on practical terms, Christian women both in Paul's time, and perhaps even in ours, are asked NOT to abandon their man, especially most likely if there were children and economic necessities that required continued cohabitation.

In this scenario, a man might have two wives, being relatively well off in business, or somewhat greedy and opportunistic. According also to O.T. principles of "you break, you buy", the man's obligations to previous wive(s) should not diminish, nor would he be allowed to abandon a wife and/or children because he has taken another.

From this standpoint, polygamy is the best option in a bad situation, compared to divorce.

I agree with you however, that this is a big stretch, between what God ALLOWS, and what God CONDONES.

 

[livingword26]

Nonetheless, in the same manner Jesus argued against divorce, though it was a fact of life even back in His earthly ministry. That is, God ALLOWED divorce, BECAUSE of man's inability to be fully loving, and therefore fully responsible .

True enough, however, unlike polygamy, grounds for divorce is clearly laid out in the new testemant. There are no parameters for polygamey, and that coupled with scripture against it gives it no leeway in the new testemant.

 

[Joey44]

True enough, however, unlike polygamy, grounds for divorce is clearly laid out in the new testemant. There are no parameters for polygamey, and that coupled with scripture against it gives it no leeway in the new testemant.

A New Testament Polygamist

1 Corinthians 5:1:
a son had fornicated with his "father's wife".

This does NOT refer to the man's mother. Indeed, the term, "father's wife", is a very specific term.

Leviticus 18:8 refers to "father's wife" as specifically separate from "mother" in the previous verse of Leviticus 18:7.

Indeed, the reference to "father's wife" in 1 Corinthians 5:1 does reveal an actual polygamist identified in the New Testament, i.e., the father of the mentioned fornicator.

 

[urbanlemur2005]

When I first read this person's posts here and elsewhere, something struck me as being very familiar about his stance. When I investigated again, this is what I came up with. Does any of this sound like him?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

 

[Nazaroo]

True enough, however, unlike polygamy, grounds for divorce is clearly laid out in the new testemant. There are no parameters for polygamy, and that coupled with scripture against it gives it no leeway in the new testemant.

hmmm..... before this thread gets locked down, I thought I should make a few more points on this:

There do seem to be *some* parameters for polygamy, in that it is a state or status that is recognised as existing in the Old Testament times, and indeed the Torah provides rules concerning the care of previous/multiple wives and children. Again, it seems to be a matter of degree here.

Secondly, in the New Testament, there is no formal definition of marriage. While there are some clear groundrules for divorce in the NT, there is no exhaustive or complete statement of what is or is not a 'legal' marriage in the first place.

One could and probably should argue that according to the Torah, only a 'marriage' between virgins is a proper marriage (or one between two people who have had no *other* partners, allowing for the 'seduction' statutes).

The implication of this is that perhaps 80% of modern marriages are 'out of bounds' according to Torah, and therefore technically 'adultery'.

Christians themselves (various denominations) have not unanimously or unambiguously defined 'marriage' in a way that is either compatible with the Torah or even 'self-consistent' in terms of New Testament guidelines (we could take the rule of Paul forbidding re-marriage of women for instance while an 'ex-'husband is still alive).

The fact is, Christians have indeed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (one can hope) developed some ways of handling the problems of 'unequal yokes' between believer and unbeliever, the allowance of remarriage in some cases, and ethical arrangements through civil law for the care of children.

We are in the unenviable position that we can neither go backward (to the Torah) because of huge inconsistencies in marriage practice, nor can we go 'forward' into "anything goes" types of arrangements, which quickly deteriorate into or are unrecognizable from simple uncontrolled fornication.

Indeed, the reference to "father's wife" in 1 Corinthians 5:1 does reveal an actual polygamist identified in the New Testament, i.e., the father of the mentioned fornicator.

On the meaning of 'fornication', it is noteworthy to observe that our 'friend's quotation which uses the word to describe sex with a man's father's wife DOESN'T allow for an interpretation that this could be a legitimate form of 'polygamy' as he (Joey12) attempts to claim! It is not clear whether the man's father's first wife (his mother) is dead or alive, or divorced. Nor is it clear the father had two wives at the same time, at any stage in his own marriage.

 

[Joey44]

On the meaning of 'fornication', it is noteworthy to observe that our 'friend's quotation which uses the word to describe sex with a man's father's wife DOESN'T allow for an interpretation that this could be a legitimate form of 'polygamy' as he (Joey12) attempts to claim! It is not clear whether the man's father's first wife (his mother) is dead or alive, or divorced. Nor is it clear the father had two wives at the same time, at any stage in his own marriage.

Leviticus 18:8 refers to "father's wife" as specifically separate from "mother" in the previous verse of Leviticus 18:7.

This same differentiation is observed again in Deuteronomy 27:20,16.

In fact, what the fornicator had done as 1Corinthians 5:1 was the same sin as that of Jacob's firstborn son. Reuben had committed the identical sin with Jacob's wife, Bilhah, in Genesis 35:22. Bilhah was Jacob's wife see Genesis 37:2. And for Reuben's act of "uncovering his father's nakedness" by fornicating with his "father's wife", Bilhah, Reuben lost his birthright as firstborn. 1Chronicles 5:1 reveals that this was because Reuben had "defiled his father's bed".

 

[Romanseight2005]

When I first read this person's posts here and elsewhere, something struck me as being very familiar about his stance. When I investigated again, this is what I came up with. Does any of this sound like him?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

These were my thoughts exactly! I came accross that website before, and many of his statements are on that site. Also, he claims baptist as his denomination.

 

[Nazaroo]

Leviticus 18:8 refers to "father's wife" as specifically separate from "mother" in the previous verse of Leviticus 18:7.

This same differentiation is observed again in Deuteronomy 27:20,16.

In fact, what the fornicator had done as 1Corinthians 5:1 was the same sin as that of Jacob's firstborn son. Reuben had committed the identical sin with Jacob's wife, Bilhah, in Genesis 35:22. Bilhah was Jacob's wife see Genesis 37:2. And for Reuben's act of "uncovering his father's nakedness" by fornicating with his "father's wife", Bilhah, Reuben lost his birthright as firstborn. 1Chronicles 5:1 reveals that this was because Reuben had "defiled his father's bed".

Finally, again you don't seem to get it.

No one is denying that 'polygamy' was rampant in patriarchal times, or that many of the patriarchs themselves engaged in various forms of 'polygamy'.

The Israelites led out of Egypt by Moses were in fact a motley crew of adulterers, fornicators, liars, skeptics, and thieves. Of this Holy Scripture attests.

So it can be no surprise at all that Moses and his appointed legislators would have to make judgements and rulings that involved cases of ongoing 'polygamy' and other less savory living arrangements among the people of Israel.

Just because God did not kill them all, and Moses did not choose to stone them to death, does not mean that God or Moses approved of the general behaviour of the Israelites. Don't confuse mercy with sanction. Don't confuse patience with the condoning of unsatisfactory behaviour.

Just take the case of the two women and the baby that Solomon had to judge: He ruled in favour of giving the baby a home where it would be loved. This doesn't mean he approved of prostitution or that single parenthood was a satisfactory way of raising children.

Get over it.

 

[Joey44]

Finally, again you don't seem to get it.

No one is denying that 'polygamy' was rampant in patriarchal times, or that many of the patriarchs themselves engaged in various forms of 'polygamy'.

The Israelites led out of Egypt by Moses were in fact a motley crew of adulterers, fornicators, liars, skeptics, and thieves. Of this Holy Scripture attests.

So it can be no surprise at all that Moses and his appointed legislators would have to make judgements and rulings that involved cases of ongoing 'polygamy' and other less savory living arrangements among the people of Israel.

Just because God did not kill them all, and Moses did not choose to stone them to death, does not mean that God or Moses approved of the general behaviour of the Israelites. Don't confuse mercy with sanction. Don't confuse patience with the condoning of unsatisfactory behaviour.

Just take the case of the two women and the baby that Solomon had to judge: He ruled in favour of giving the baby a home where it would be loved. This doesn't mean he approved of prostitution or that single parenthood was a satisfactory way of raising children.

Get over it.

Yes, but God approved of polygamy

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 clearly reveals it.

 

[Nazaroo]

Yes, but God approved of polygamy

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 clearly reveals it.

No. God ALLOWED polygamy for kings only.
At the same time, and from the very beginning,
God did not even want to give Israel a king at all.
But God allowed that too, to teach the Israelites
that the way of earthly 'kings', lording it over them was evil.

The passage of I Samuel 8:10-22 clearly reveals it.

"But it upset Samuel when the Israelites said,
'Give us a king to judge us!',
and Samuel prayed to the LORD:
And the LORD said,
"...They have not rejected you,
but they have rejected ME,
that I should not reign over them myself!...
...therefore show them the manner
of the kings that shall rule over them!'"
(I Samuel 8:6,7,9)

"Nevertheless the people REFUSED to obey the voice of Samuel;
and they said, 'NAY, but we WILL have a king over us!'" ( I Samuel 8:19)



​

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (for mortals).


Do you consider yourself king over Israel, Joey?

The book of Samuel also clearly says this:

"Talk no more excessively proudly!
Let no more arrogance come out of your mouth:
For the LORD is a God of KNOWLEDGE,
and by HIM actions are weighed.
...
"The Adversaries of the LORD shall be dashed to pieces.
Out of heaven He shall thunder upon them.
The LORD shall judge the ends of the earth;
He shall give strength unto His TRUE KING,
and exalt the Crown of His Messiah!"

(I Samuel 2:3, 2:10)



​

 

[Joey44]

No. God ALLOWED polygamy for kings only.

So is it a sin or not?