This post, along with at least one more to come, will be about widespread error derived from a hyperliteral interpretation of some of Jesus’ hyperbole in Matthew 5, which He used throughout the “Sermon on the Mount”.(Matthew chapters 5-7) In this post I will primarily try to focus on making fitting sense of the part mentioning lust and adultery.

Hyperbole – is a rhetorical device that uses exaggeration to emphasize a point.

First, I’ll give some obvious examples of Jesus’ hyperbole from chapters 6 & 7 which I won’t actually be covering in these posts. In 6:2 Jesus speaks of hypocrites having trumpets sounded preceding whenever they gave their offerings in the synagogues, which were solemn places for prayer and worship. There is nothing to indicate that was the literal custom and not just hyperbole indicating that the pompous ones wanted to be noticed giving their offerings. Jesus told them instead, when they gave, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Which was also clearly hyperbole. Then in 6:28-29 Jesus says that the wildflowers don’t do exhausting work or spin fabric but that Solomon, in all his glory, was not clothed as finely as any one of them. Clearly that’s also more hyperbole. And Chapter 6 ends with “tomorrow worrying about itself”. Clearly that is more idiomatic humor that was probably far better caught when Jesus delivered it verbally. I suspect that when I read in English, I’m likely missing even more non-literal idioms due to English paraphrasing or dynamic-equivalence translation.

In Matthew 7:3-5 Jesus speaks of trying to remove the speck from your brother’s eye while having a literal architectural building beam stuck in your own eye. Clearly that’s hyperbole. In 7:6, who would give holy things to dogs or throw pearls before pigs? In 7:15, did false teachers really dress up in sheep’s clothing while actually being wolves? No, clearly Jesus was using a lot of hyperbole, sarcasm, and humorous idioms throughout that sermon.

Now also to set the stage for the misunderstanding we will discuss, I’d like to point out that the early church was surrounded by Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Asceticism, and they all treated the physical world, and our fleshly desires, such as one’s sex drive, as things that are inherently evil and need to be suppressed. And the church didn’t want to get outdone by their religious competition. So, the early church took a basically Gnostic idea, that all sex is inherently evil, and ran with it.

While the Bible teaches that a man having sex with a virgin creates a “one flesh” marital union with her which is thereafter to be protected through the enforcing of God’s lawful penalty of death for adultery, yet the Bible is not anti-sex, and does not recommend celibacy within marriage. (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5) However, many early church fathers did try to reduce sex within marriage, seemingly under the influence of their Gnostic culture. So, it should not surprise us that the early church was eager to find ways to render all our fleshly desires to be immoral, like the Gnostics viewed them.

Matthew Chapter 5

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says that he did not come to abolish His Father’s law but to accomplish or fulfill it. In 5:18 He says that not a single dot of God’s law will pass away before heaven and earth pass away. So, Jesus is making it clear that He is not going to revoke or invalidate God’s laws that apply, neither God’s Mosaic laws for Judaism, nor God’s seven Noahic laws for all people, which were each reissued to the church within the New Testament.

In 5:21-22 Jesus references His Father’s Noahic and Mosaic laws against murder, and then He makes a connection between unrighteous anger, or hatred, with the guilt for murder. Jesus wasn’t saying that the unjustly angry or hateful should actually be put to death as murderers, nor was He altering His Father’s good and perfect law, He was only illustrating that even those who thought themselves to be innocent of murder, were still unholy before God having the hatred that is the very root of murder already existing in their hearts. And they all stood in need of a cleansing sacrifice.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be keepers of all the law, and blameless before the law. Jesus was humorously explaining to them that they would all still fall far short of the unapproachable glory and holiness of God, and they would all need a perfect sacrifice to pay for their falling short of the holiness of God.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus wasn’t literally saying that any critic who calls me a “fool” is guilty of murder. He was saying that to speak that way unjustly would be sinful, and that the same unjust hatred that is already in the heart, is also the root of murder, and that even for unjustly calling me a “fool”, they’d be guilty enough to be sent into the fires of hell. That section on hatred and murder is set forth in very much the same pattern as the verses we are now finally going to examine regarding lust and adultery.

Matthew 5:27(NMB) You have heard how it was said to the people of the old time, You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I say to you that whosoever looks on a wife, lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 Therefore, if your right eye causes you to offend, tear it out and cast it from you. It is better for you that one of your members perish than that your whole body should be cast into hell. 30 Also, if your right hand causes you to offend, cut it off and cast it from you. Better it is that one of your members perish, than that all your body should be cast into hell.

My viewpoint after studying the Greek words in this passage is this: Jesus is not saying that lusting for another man’s wife is literally adultery and should be punished by stoning to death, and that His omniscient Father’s law somehow forgot to ever mention it. Jesus was saying that, exactly like how hatred exists in all men’s hearts, the root of adultery, illicit desire, already preexists in the hearts of all men. And that is why you could even be tempted to look lustfully at another man’s wife in the first place, because, the root of all adultery, illicit desire, is preexistent in your heart. This isn’t a new commandment. God issued no additional stone tablets of law that day. Jesus was just pointing out that lust, the root of adultery, is already preexistent in your heart, and even the hearts of the most legalistic Pharisees who tried to live according to all the law. And so consequently every man will need Him as their sacrificial Savior. No man will be made holy solely by keeping all the law, as the Pharisees were attempting.

However, the church, having syncretized Gnostic doctrines, wants to make all of men’s fleshly sex drive entirely illicit, since it involves a satisfying of our physical being, not our supposedly “higher” mental faculties. Even though as Jesus pointed out, exactly contrary to Gnosticism, it truly is the heart/mind where the wickedness resides. And our physical flesh is innocent of the actual abstract coveting of another man’s wife.

The truth is the church folks, who want you to interpret this passage literally, are hypocrites. They don’t literally tear out their own right eye to prevent inciting their lust, nor cut off their right hand to thereby prevent them from masturbating with it. Tacitly they acknowledge that self-amputating all of your fleshly organs, which might facilitate sinful thoughts, will still never successfully remove all the hate and lust from your heart and mind. And the disciples who were there and heard Jesus deliver the “Sermon on the Mount” certainly didn’t follow that part literally either. There is no record of any disciple’s amputations or eye removals after that message was preached. Jesus wasn’t literally asking us to deface the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ point was just to make the Pharisees and us all aware of our inherent and humanly inescapable sinfulness and our need for His cleansing and salvation.

Additional thoughts:

Hebrews 4:15(AMP) For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize and understand our weaknesses and temptations, but One who has been tempted [knowing exactly how it feels to be human] in every respect as we are, yet without [committing any] sin.

Hebrews 4:14 Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.

Jesus our Savior was a man, tempted in every respect as is common to men, yet without ever falling into sin. So, yes, Jesus had a healthy sex drive. According to Hebrews 4:15 Jesus would have found attractive women to be a source of temptation the same as we might, but He never would have sinned against His father’s law, not even by coveting another man’s wife in His mind.

So, what is the issue?

The problem is that our churches teach a Gnostic/Feminist doctrine that demonizes healthy male sex drives. And they want to extend that demonization far beyond just condemning illicit sex acts, to include any evidence of masculine sex drive or desire to reproduce which they might disapprove of in any given situation. Of course they’re also going to be hypocritical about that too. If the hottest young single man in church indicates a desire for their daughter, they might giggle and smile, but if some neckbeard indicates a desire for their daughter, they’ll call in a mob of cock-blockers to condemn him to hell as an “adulterer” for such “lustful” thoughts.

The Greek word γυναῖκα (gynaika) is most usually translated as “wife”, as it was in the NMB version that I quoted Matthew 5:27-30 from up above, yet most English Bible translations will translate that word as “woman” in that particular verse. They really seem to want to make the sin of adultery apply, contrary to God’s law, to women who are not other men’s wives. That’s just the church’s Gnostic/Feminist cock-blocking showing up again via their anti-hermeneutical attempt to demonize all male sexual attraction into somehow becoming the marriage-destroying sin of adultery.

If you go to a large church with lots of groups, you’ll likely discover that passage getting applied the most in their “Singles ministry”. They really seem immune to just applying it how Jesus used it, as a blanket proof that all men are sinful, no matter how law abiding we appear on the outside. They much prefer to act as if Jesus was literally issuing a new law to plug a gaping hole in His Father’s presumedly faulty and insufficient collection of laws. But not the statement about hatred being murder, of course, that’s just common sense that bad feelings aren’t equivalent to literal murder.

So, how do these whore serving churches operate? Well, if a woman is caught in the literal act of adultery, they quote a known-apocryphal passage claiming that only the sinless can “cast a stone” at her. But if a man naturally wants to be fruitful and multiply with a heathy young woman, he is the one condemned as an adulterer, unlawfully. If you don’t see the satanic inversion of God’s laws there, then you’re most likely in on it.

Bonus – application instruction for ministers:

So, if you’re a pastor or priest now wondering, how should I apply Matthew 5:27-28 to others, since you’re telling me that I shouldn’t use it as my best cock-blocker verses to demonize men’s natural sex drive, the answer is that you don’t apply it to others. You cannot really see their sins of the heart and mind. Jesus said that poorly translated hyperbole to show repentant men how to spot their own ongoing need for God’s cleansing and forgiveness. Not to teach Pharisees how to permanently cleanse themselves of all lust according to some new law. Jesus came not to condemn men for their humanity, by issuing new laws, but to turn them to repentance and eventually to acceptance of His substitutionary sacrifice, in our place, for our sins. That’s His Gospel.

Globalists want to dissolve our nations to reassemble a united godless order like the one that God Himself first scattered at Babel by dividing their languages.

There is nothing new under the sun. Not even the New World Order. It is the same old wicked tyranny started by Nimrod (whose name meant “we will rebel”) who founded Nineveh and was also a hunter (murderer) of men. His evil kingdom was soon ruled by his crafty long-lived queen, Semiramis. Who was the world’s first female ruler, allegedly a sorceress, and the first person to castrate and make eunuchs of men.

Semiramis founded Babylon, and to justify continuing to rule over men after Nimrod was killed (which I suspect she arranged once he suspected her of cheating) she created the first polytheistic religion which worshipped a trinity of herself, her dead husband, Nimrod, and eventually her son, Nimrod, who was born later, well more than nine months after her husband died and supposedly became the god of the sun. Yet her son was still purported to be his heir through divine conception, and to actually be the first Nimrod reincarnated through his rays from the sun impregnating Semiramis.

Semiramis was also the first to legalize parent-child sexual relations, and then she married her own son, “her reincarnated husband”, to keep on ruling as queen. She was the first to be called the “Queen of Heaven” and the “Mother of god”. Her Babylonian mystery religion was designed to hide God’s originally revealed truth, with Semiramis’s family acting as a counterfeit trinity. Her religion was then spread throughout the world with the dispersion of people from Babel.

The Rev. Alexander Hislop in his book “ The Two Babylons” shows how most ancient religions contain those same counterfeit characters who were basically functioning as mimics of Adam(God, the Sun), Eve(Venus, the Moon), The Last Adam(Adonis, Mars) and also Satan(Kronos, Saturn) just with different names in different languages, and how elements of that same Babylonian mystery religion also got infused into Christianity by the papacy in Rome.

God commanded mankind to: “be fruitful and multiply”.

Satan’s Globalist lackeys want to:
1) Murder 15/16ths of mankind
2) Have enforced eugenics
3) Reverse what God did at Babel, Etc.

You can claim it is a “Brand New” World Order if you want to. But it is just recycling the same world-uniting rebellion that God broke up the last time humankind united to rebel against God. The global kingdom wasn’t founded to liberate men from God’s laws, and to rule them by men’s own rules, as promised, but to enslave men through a woman’s craftiness. Satan and his servants want us to be ruled over by women. It is a bait & switch. The old Whore of Babylon will again offer “peace & freedom” and again will deliver murder & tyranny and again have women emasculating and ruling men. The new living language is mainly to help with the deception by making people illiterate of their past. Don’t take the bait. Resist! Cherish your patriarchal heritage.

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

Created equal

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what does the Bible say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“She never had kids. She never worked. She lived the ideal life, where everything is handed to you on a silver platter. As a make-work challenge, she scaled to the peaks of the tallest mountains in her western state.”

John Chrysostom wrote: “God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of human life into two parts and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matters to the woman. God’s plan was extremely desirable for us, on the one hand because of our pressing needs and, on the other, so that a woman would not rebel against her husband due to the inferiority of her service.”

Well, as we’ve seen childless liberated women now can and do rebel, despite often living a life of eating bonbons and watching TV, and perhaps occasionally being expected to load a washing machine or load an automatic dishwasher.

“Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what many feminists think that women deserve, though perhaps also with a cushy career. Clear sailing, everything awesome-ish.”

Yes, but I think you’re underselling the point. Feminists worship themselves as goddesses just for having a cunt hole, and they think men should also worship every woman just because they have a life-incubating front hole. Most women feel that they deserve everything they can get away with, and more. But Feminism isn’t about what women deserve. Nor is Feminism about getting a comfortable role for women, or else the Feminist’s “holy grail” would be women achieving contentment by staying at home and playing with their babies.

No, the Feminist agenda has nothing to do with what women deserve. The Feminist agenda is about what its satanic leaders want. They want to smash (abolish) God’s holy order of patriarchy. They want to displace men from their God-assigned more important and more necessary jobs. They want to make women masculine and make men feminine. They want to completely invert God’s holy order and make men, who are the image of God, serve and obey women.

Satan’s Feminist plot is not new:
And unto Adam He said: “for as much as thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying: see thou eat not thereof: cursed be the earth for thy sake.”

As Sigmund Freud deduced, Feminists are acting out their unresolved penis-envy. They want that God had made them men, and nothing in the world can satisfy that unresolved envy. They have to be taught to cast aside their envy and content themselves within their predetermined role, and to find joy in what they can do. (by having men’s children and mothering them, in service to God through serving God’s likeness)

“Wisdom of Solomon” 14:17 When people could not honor monarchs in their presence, since they lived at a distance, they imagined their appearance far away, and made a visible image of the king whom they honored, so that by their zeal they might flatter the absent one as though present.

God fashioned men into His own image, (1 Corinthians 11:7) and commanded that people make no other graven images to serve, nor to bow down to.
For wives, that is really what their husband is, an earthly living image of God in heaven, and they can work out their salvation (faith) by doing good works for their husbands like “childbearing” (fulfilling maternal and wifely duties) for their husbands and reverencing their husbands. (Ephesians 5:33)

Matthew 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Feminism is Satan’s plot to degrade and dishonor us brethren who walk about as images of God. And also, to deconstruct and defile God’s holy patriarchal order for families, because that God-directed order funnels all glory up the chain to God, the Father of all spirits and all flesh. Wives honor their husbands who honor their Creator (Jesus Christ) who honors His Father. When wives won’t honor their husbands and won’t bow their knees to him, then glory destined upwards to God’s Son is short-circuited at its starting point. Men are less likely to praise God for making them in His own image, if all they get for it is the constant blaming, contempt, and implacable malice, of envious women, and their self-serving gynocratic society.

That’s Feminism explained for you.

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

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

——————————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

——————————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

Patriarchy, meaning “father rule”, is the natural and ideal state of God the Father’s created world.

Yet Feminists and similar fools are prone to pridefully thinking that they can improve on the ways of God.  Feminists smear all men, their fathers, brothers, and sons, as being unfit to preside over anything, from governments right down to families.  Female Feminists and their male pushover accomplices instead try to get men to hearken unto the voices of women, to be led by them, clearly ignorant of the fact that hearkening to a woman, instead of his Father, was the crux of Adam’s original sin.

Genesis 3:17 Also to Adam he said, Because thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, (whereof I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it) cursed is the earth for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

Yet silly women still presume themselves fit to rule, and silly men still seek to obey women.  However, God teaches us that it is fitting that men should rule.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

But Feminist fools destructively fight against God’s perfect plan and keep trying to sully men’s divine credentials for leadership over women and children.  The silly airheads seem to think that by tarnishing men’s reputations they will be uplifted.

Sirach 3:10 Do not glorify yourself by your father’s dishonor, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you.  11 The honor of one’s father is one’s own glory, and a mother dishonored is a disgrace to her children.

A popular phrase says: “A rising tide lifts all boats”.  So accordingly, a lowering tide lowers all boats.  When satanic Feminism sets out to sully and demote men from their patriarchal role as rulers, they not only drag men down into the muck, but they also degrade everybody else along with the men, who nonetheless, remain anointed by God to rule over all women.  Feminist women curse at men, who bear God’s image and glory, but by doing so they also debase their own sex and prove their inferior role to be divinely fitting by their clearly inferior behavior accompanied with their vain conceit.

Psalm 2:3 They say, ‘We will not accept their authority over us!  We will get free from their power!’  4 The Lord who sits on his throne in heaven laughs at them.  He says that their plans are useless.

——————————————————————————————————————

“The manosphere is dead”, the trolls say .  “People hate you and ridicule you and say all manner of things against you”, they say .  “You’re losing!  You’ll never be able to turn the tide”, they say.  Their catastrophism makes me laugh.  Some of our naysayers had formerly been trying to ignore us.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

I believe those two quotes basically describe the same pattern for ideological change:

1) firstly, they ignore you, and try to keep your message from gaining the notice of other truth-seekers.

2) secondly, they mock you and denigrate the truth as being unpopular, laughable, or wrongheaded.

3) thirdly, they engage in fighting against you and the truth, which you promote, as best they are able.

4) fourthly, they accept the new knowledge, claiming they had always sensed it was true.

Often these steps overlap and our detractors my hop back and forth from one steppingstone to another, but despite the erratic nature of their opposition, their path to conversion is a progression.  The middle region (steps 2 &3) is quite fluid and slippery but at both ends it is easier to see the incremental progression.  Once they quit ignoring our impact, and respond to it, it is hard for the trolls to return and stay hiding behind their shroud of ignorance.  And once they finally accept some part of the truth it is hard for them to relish mocking or opposing that part which they then realize to be true. 

One should not forget that like sheep, most people are herd followers and not mavericks or leaders. At first those who head into the new ideological territory will only be the boldest and those motivated by a severely compelling reason to leave their previous beliefs behind. The mass of herd followers will want to stick right where the ideological majority are, it is comforting for them to be in the largest group. But they will see that some have gone over to the other side. They will notice every additional one that drifts over towards those who first left their group. Soon there may be a trickle of migration across the ideological divide. And perhaps at some point the thronging ones will sense that their flock is gradually moving over to the new area, and then, not wanting to get left behind, like a school of fish, those who once refused to see the truth may almost in unison all bum rush together over to be where the more courageous thought-leaders currently have stationed themselves.

I can’t predict the future, but that is how ideological transitions can take place.  1% then 2% then 4% then 10% then suddenly 80% and after that the remaining holdouts begrudgingly straggle over to rejoin the herd.

In my estimation the manosphere has gone from being ignored, to being ridiculed, and now there are even some folks taking aim at us and fighting us.  Don’t be surprised when we become public enemy number one.  The US government is running out of White Supremacist groups to demonize, to the extent where the government is now forming their own White Supremacist groups and staging their own White Supremacy rallies.  The public will eventually catch onto that, and the powers that be will need a new boogeyman.  Currently our media is demonizing male chauvinist Andrew Tate in ways that they never smeared child-rape pimp Jeffrey Epstein.  Our legacy media will gladly carry water for pedophiles, but they’re not going to take kindly to folks working to restore God’s holy patriarchy. 

Today the ideological battle is between the imagined sexual equality of Feminism and the natural male superiority which morally justifies the all-male rule of God’s holy order of patriarchy. Without a societal belief in male superiority, you’re left trying to push male headship as a divine fiat requested by an unjustifiably sexist God. Whereas if men are acknowledged to be the better half, then it only makes sense that a loving and righteous God would fittingly choose the better half to be placed in control of leading the weaker vessels, in the best interest of everyone involved.

A few male chauvinists are doing more to rebuild the foundation of God’s holy order of patriarchy, than all the woman-obeying pastors, on whose watch our society daily plumbs new depths of moral depravity. Keep boldly proclaiming the truth. We’re making progress, as every day more men in our society are starting to see that women aren’t goddesses, as they were taught, and that those weaker vessels should not be empowered to lead us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, so then what’s the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lately I’ve noticed far too many legacy-media articles which try to stereotype men who are involuntarily celibate (now branded “incels”) as budding terrorists. I won’t link to any of the many articles since they are generally overwrought woke propaganda employed to normalize sexual immorality while unduly shaming and pathologizing millions of good men who remain undefiled by women. They undeservedly vilify these virgin men, portraying them as a major problem plaguing our society, instead of recognizing that the promiscuous society that they have championed has been disregarding and disenfranchising these disadvantaged men, and that their own articles are bound to increase that malice towards these underdogs.

The legacy-media authors have scoured the whole globe to come up with a few cases of incels who committed multiple murders, in an effort to manufacture a defamatory stereotype to portray these innocent male virgins as likely terrorists.

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

These sexually undefiled men have statistically been more morally faultless than other men. As best I can piece the data together, in the last 20 years here in the USA incels have been blamed for the multiple-murder deaths of about 20 people. That averages to exactly one person per year. If you assume that around 5% of U.S. men are involuntarily celibate, then there would currently be 8.3 million male incels in the USA. That yields an annual male incel multiple-murder rate of 0.012 per 100,000. By comparison the annual Black male aged 16-64 murder rate is 95.5 per 100,000. While that is the rate for all the solved murders instead of just the solved multiple-murders, you can see that the one rate is around 8,000 times higher than the other. They’re not even in the same ballpark.

I don’t believe anybody is publishing statistics yet on individual murders by involuntary celibacy status. So, I can’t directly compare apples to apples yet. But if you’re looking to address the violence in the USA and you’re somehow focusing on incels, you’re manifesting an extreme prejudice against incels that is in no way based on factual data and is in fact contrary to the available crime data.

To be quite honest if incels were criminally violent they wouldn’t still be incels, they’d be rapists. The fact that incels have denied themselves their natural sexual urges for their whole lives proves them to be upright law-abiding citizens who have shown vastly better impulse-control than is typical of criminals, and their self-control clearly exceeds the median.

I’ve just provided overwhelming statistical evidence that incels as a group are far less violent than another group whom the media mouthpieces would naturally leap to defend. Any honest person possessing a commonsense knowledge of human nature would have already surmised that incels, as a group, are better stereotyped by social timidity and meekness than by violence and a will to dominate others.

No, incels clearly aren’t the violent bad boys whose unrestrained masculine dominance women are subconsciously attracted to. They are more often socially awkward, not possessing the silver tongue of those skilled at guile, they are more likely to try to attract women by outmoded gestures of chivalry. Incels generally are the downtrodden and unpopular men whom society scorns and tries to give the brush off.

Isaiah 53:2b-3 (CEV) He wasn’t some handsome king. Nothing about the way he looked made him attractive to us. He was hated and rejected; his life was filled with sorrow and terrible suffering. No one wanted to look at him. We despised him and said, “He is a nobody!”

So, why are the worldly mouthpieces of the legacy-media so intent on libeling and demonizing these poor disadvantaged gentlemen, when their primary unifying feature is merely that their natural sexual desires have gone entirely unmet, keeping them virgins. Doesn’t it seem strange that our Marxist media isn’t staging protests demanding that a ration of sex be reallocated from the “Haves” to the “Have Nots” to affirm and empower the disadvantaged and thereby helping to level the playing field?

Why are the legacy-media so unjustifiably prejudiced against these incel men and willing to construct untruthful stereotypes to denigrate them even further?

Share your answers and thoughts on this below.

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

He wrote:

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

For your reference:

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

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

I responded as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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