Human Beings Are The Fallen Angels Who Fought Alongside Lucifer

Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
Can I please ask you to paste what Jah says about the male-female red-blue distinction if its not too much trouble?
Yes. Please see it below.

Screenshot_2020-01-14_19-58-21.png

3:1 To be able to control these evil angels (Jinns/souls - you), even more efficiently; to be able to
discipline you and teach you to be good; God decided to create human-animals, that would blend in
with the rest of nature. These creatures would be living animals, breathing air and having the same
body-functions as the others.

3:111 You can NOT serve God AND be a women’s libber; the two things are TOTALLY
INCOMPATIBLE, because God has said REPEATEDLY that women are NOT men’s equal (Gen.
3:16)(1st. Corinthians 11:1-3 & 1st. Timothy 2:11-15)(Sura 2:228 & 4:34). They are also
incompatible because they are complete OPPOSITES; serving God is based on humility and
accepting His teachings, and women’s liberation is based on arrogance and refusing to accept
God’s teachings.
3:112 MAN and not woman was created in God’s image, and FIRST. All of the great Prophets were
men, and so were ALL of Jesus’ disciples. NOW you know why. Blue for a boy (God’s colour), and
pink or red for a girl (Satan’s colour - RED dragon/serpent). There are clues everywhere in life and
in nature. All of the Prophets were masters of their own households.

3:132 The two sexes, in marriage, are supposed to become one flesh (Gen. 2:24)(Matt. 19:5 & N.B.
1st. Corinthians 6:16), and soul-mates, becoming not only one flesh, but also one soul, making one
complete unified and indivisible body and soul, to help each other spiritually and physically, on their
upwards and homeward climb.
3:133 They are supposed to create a loving, stable environment (Garden of Eden), into which to
bring children, and to teach their children’s souls to be good; unselfish; compassionate; and to have
an understanding of stable and lasting spiritual love.
3:134 This teaches spiritual love, because in a good (God-fearing) family there is no incestual-sex,
only pure spiritual Love.
3:135 There are varying degrees of masculinity and femininity, and in order for the two, together, to
make one perfect whole, and one flesh, they need to be complementary, as well as compatible.
3:136 A man who is 100% male, needs a woman who is 100% female, and a man who is 75% male
and 25% female, needs a woman who is 75% female and 25% male, so that, together, they make
100% male and 100% female, and make one whole flesh (Matt. 19:6 & Mark 10:8).

Screenshot_2020-01-14_19-15-16.png

3:137 The two partners must really be SOUL-mates (that is why Jesus could not find one, because he
was an “odd-man-out”, and did not belong here, in Hell), becoming one soul, striving to be good,
against all the world’s temptations and opposition, clinging to each other, for spiritual survival and
LIFE, until their human-death.
3:138 The family is supposed to cling together, against all odds, “come Hell (Earth) or high water
(Noah).”
3:139 Unfortunately, marriages are now based on material, and therefore superficial-values, instead
of spiritual, pure love-values: so they do not work. The partners stop trying and are tempted by
adulterers, and money-values, and the marriage breaks-down. Both partners must keep God’s
COMMANDMENTS, and help each other to overcome temptation and difficulties.
3:140 The man is supposed to set a good example for the family, and teach them, from his higher
level of spiritual-understanding, and the woman is supposed to learn, from him, and help him to be a
GENTLEman and to teach their children, how to be LADIES and GENTLEMEN. The wife should
NEVER try to undermine, and castrate (metaphorically) her husband, but should do her best
to encourage him to be a man (1st. Timothy 2:9-15).

3:141 A family is like a ship (Ark), and, IF it is going to float and not get wrecked, it has to have a
captain
(father - like in the British Royal Navy) and a good first-mate (wife), cook and crew, etc.
3:142 Just like a good first-mate is invaluable to a captain, a good woman can help to make a good
man, and a bad woman could break him (and vice-versa), if he let her, by loving her more than God
(the Divine navigator, to steer a straight course home).
3:143 That is why a woman should love; honour; cherish and OBEY her husband (unless he is trying
to get her to do wrong), through good and bad times (and not leave a sinking-ship - but help with the
bailing-out), until death, and learn from him, and help and encourage him to be good.
3:144 From arrival in Hell (Earth), to qualifying to go home, everything is designed to teach
unselfishness, by the perpetual crucifixion of “Self”.
3:145 When the “Self” goes; and you are no-longer addicted to material-things, but prefer to be
addicted to God (good) and spiritual joy and richness; the pain goes with it. The pain is attached to
the “Self”, to encourage you to lose it. When you have lost the “Self”, you can go home, where
everyone is unselfish, and everyone loves everyone (spiritually), and you can trust absolutely
everyone -
HEAVEN.

There is more, but have limited it to the above as to avoid having to copy & paste the whole Book and since you asked about the colours specifically. As with any book, it's best to read it completely in order to obtain the complete picture.
 






Last edited:

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Right, thank you, this is all I wanted.
3:112 ...Blue for a boy (God’s colour), and pink or red for a girl (Satan’s colour - RED dragon/serpent). There are clues everywhere in life and in nature....
"In 19th century England, pink ribbons or decorations were often worn by young boys; boys were simply considered small men, and while men in England wore red uniforms, boys wore pink."
Source: St. Clair, Kassia (2016). The Secret Lives of Colour. London: John Murray. p. 115.


Pink used to be a boy's colour and blue a girl's – here's why it all changed
Jasper Pickering, Business Insider UK Oct 7, 2017, 4:00 AM


Business Insider spoke to writer, lecturer, and colour expert Gavin Evans about the reversal of pink and blue on traditional gender roles.

Read the full transcript below:

"In the early part of the 20th Century and the late part of the 19th Century, in particular, there were regular comments advising mothers that if you want your boy to grow up masculine, dress him in a masculine colour like pink and if you want your girl to grow up feminine dress her in a feminine colour like blue."

"This was advice that was very widely dispensed with and there were some reasons for this. Blue in parts of Europe, at least, had long been associated as a feminine colour because of the supposed colour of the Virgin Mary's outfit."

"Pink was seen as a kind of boyish version of the masculine colour red. So it gradually started to change however in the mid-20th Century and eventually by about 1950, there was a huge advertising campaign by several advertising agencies pushing pink as an exclusively feminine colour and the change came very quickly at that point."

Arbitrary or no?
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,453
If it cannot be picked up by simple straight-foreward reading then it means something must be interpreted. Which leads to subjectivity if not done correctly. Nothing in any of the scriptures you posted say what you do.


Same tactic to cover weak arguments.


This is EXACTLY the point I was making in bringing up male depravity but you STILL cannot answer it. Truth does not fear scrutiny -answer is all I ask. Prove you are a man of higher spiritual aptitude and answer my questions.


Where is this found in scripture?


Does the bible expand on why or are you projecting your hatred of women onto it? It's never stated but could have been for any number of reasons . . . A representative symbol of the 12 sons of Israel? The cultural jurisdiction of the time that would have frowned upon Jesus and his male followers spending a great amount of time with women and in intimate settings? When it comes to his relationship with women, Jesus was a radical revolutionary for his time. He had an intimate conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, even though she was Samaritan and a woman of ill repute. Jesus’ sensitivity to the needs of women and his willingness to talk to them is truly striking in light of the attitude of Jewish men toward women at that time. A number of his closest associates were women and these women funded his ministry. The point is that God does not tell us -the inherently gendered slant is one you make on your own.


Does your doctrine not state that our gendered bodies are restricted to this earth? So why would a gender distinction refer to spiritual roles in the context of not only physically-derived distinctions but the earthly institution of marriage?


Not what I've seen . . . Your friend even posted an extract from the site talking about how women dressing provocatively awakens the baseanimal instincts in men leading to higher instances of r*pe of women AND CHILDREN. Who is more easily led by Satan? Who cannot see the obvious? Same answer.


Alright.


You mean 6000 years of men pillaging, raping, commiting acts of violence against their neighbours and being at the forefront of sexual depravity?


Literally none of them have been answered but okay. I'm used to you running and deflecting from what you cannot answer.


Because virtually none of what you spew is directly from his Word.
You seem to think it is hateful to strive to save someone's real, eternal life, and are convinced you aren't seeing everything upside down and backwards, when you undoubtedly are.

If those spirits in male bodies are not on a higher spiritual level than those in female bodies -- to help those on a lower spiritual level --then why wasn't Jesus a woman?
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
Right, thank you, this is all I wanted.
"In 19th century England, pink ribbons or decorations were often worn by young boys; boys were simply considered small men, and while men in England wore red uniforms, boys wore pink."
Source: St. Clair, Kassia (2016). The Secret Lives of Colour. London: John Murray. p. 115.


Pink used to be a boy's colour and blue a girl's – here's why it all changed
Jasper Pickering, Business Insider UK Oct 7, 2017, 4:00 AM


Business Insider spoke to writer, lecturer, and colour expert Gavin Evans about the reversal of pink and blue on traditional gender roles.

Read the full transcript below:

"In the early part of the 20th Century and the late part of the 19th Century, in particular, there were regular comments advising mothers that if you want your boy to grow up masculine, dress him in a masculine colour like pink and if you want your girl to grow up feminine dress her in a feminine colour like blue."

"This was advice that was very widely dispensed with and there were some reasons for this. Blue in parts of Europe, at least, had long been associated as a feminine colour because of the supposed colour of the Virgin Mary's outfit."

"Pink was seen as a kind of boyish version of the masculine colour red. So it gradually started to change however in the mid-20th Century and eventually by about 1950, there was a huge advertising campaign by several advertising agencies pushing pink as an exclusively feminine colour and the change came very quickly at that point."

Arbitrary or no?
And who suggested that? We can read about it here:

'According to Jean Heifetz, for centuries, all European children were dressed in blue because the color was associated with the Virgin Mary. The use of pink and blue emerged at the turn of the century, the rule being pink for boys, blue for girls. Since pink was a stronger color it was best suited for boys; blue was more delicate and dainty and best for girls. And in 1921, the Women's Institute for Domestic Science in Pennsylvania endorsed pink for boys, blue for girls. (When Blue Meant Yellow. pp. 20 -21)

One could argue that contemporary color symbolism confirms these associations. Blue is considered a calm, passive color, hence feminine. Red (pink derived from red) is considered active hence masculine.


But then, what does it say next? Read for yourself:


On the other hand, the idea of associating blue with male babies may stem back to ancient times when having a boy was good luck. Blue, the color of the sky where gods and fates lived, held powers to ward off evil, so baby boys where dressed in blue. In Greece a blue eye is still thought to have powers to ward off evil. The idea of pink for girls might come from the European legend that baby girls were born inside delicate pink roses.

https://www.colormatters.com/the-meanings-of-colors/pink

So, the pink for boys was not all that ancient (1921) at all and only for a relatively short time period (because women suggested it?) Queen Victoria was also a woman and the soldiers in her days wore red/scarlet uniforms.

Now it's 2020, and it's blue for boys and pink or red for girls.
 






Last edited:

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
You seem to think it is hateful to strive to save someone's real, eternal life, and are convinced you aren't seeing everything upside down and backwards, when you undoubtedly are.

If those spirits in male bodies are not on a higher spiritual level than those in female bodies -- to help those on a lower spiritual level --then why wasn't Jesus a woman?
I think that God loves people enough to have included this doctrine of yours in His Word plain enough for everyone to read and observe and not have to take a pen to add their own notes to what has already been given.

Fulfilment of prophecy? Why was Judas a man? Or Saul? Or Herod? Why is Satan described with male descriptors? Where God stays silent on an issue -you choose to speak for Him. Brave indeed.
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
And who suggested that? We can read about it here:

'According to Jean Heifetz, for centuries, all European children were dressed in blue because the color was associated with the Virgin Mary. The use of pink and blue emerged at the turn of the century, the rule being pink for boys, blue for girls. Since pink was a stronger color it was best suited for boys; blue was more delicate and dainty and best for girls. And in 1921, the Women's Institute for Domestic Science in Pennsylvania endorsed pink for boys, blue for girls. (When Blue Meant Yellow. pp. 20 -21)

One could argue that contemporary color symbolism confirms these associations. Blue is considered a calm, passive color, hence feminine. Red (pink derived from red) is considered active hence masculine.


But then, what does it say next? Read for yourself:


On the other hand, the idea of associating blue with male babies may stem back to ancient times when having a boy was good luck. Blue, the color of the sky where gods and fates lived, held powers to ward off evil, so baby boys where dressed in blue. In Greece a blue eye is still thought to have powers to ward off evil. The idea of pink for girls might come from the European legend that baby girls were born inside delicate pink roses.

https://www.colormatters.com/the-meanings-of-colors/pink

So, the pink for boys was not all that ancient (1921) at all and only for a relatively short time period (because women suggested it?) Queen Victoria was also a woman and the soldiers in her days wore red/scarlet uniforms.

Now it's 2020, and it's blue for boys and pink or red for girls.
See how colour is little more than social construct? If they stayed permanently gender-fixed then you'd have an argument. Can you trace back to where the first colour designations began?
 






JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,150
You're trying to argue that up is down, and black is white and that good is evil, and it will NEVER work.

Here is the natural order of this planet, according to our Creator (please note well that this is NOT just a "single scripture"):-

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.

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.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the communities: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith The Law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for women to speak in the community.

Ephesians 5:22-29
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the community: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the community is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the community, and gave himself for it;
5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of [Living] water by the Word,
5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious community, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the community:

1 Timothy 2:11-15
2:11 Let the woman learn in SILENCE with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over the man, but TO BE IN SILENCE.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

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

1 Peter 3:1-6
3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without the Word be won by the conversation of the wives;
3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
3:4 But [let it be] the hidden Man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Isaiah 3:12 [As for] My people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and lead thee astray, TO THY DESTRUCTION.

-------

Our Creator gave us His Perfect Law of Liberty, found in the first five books of the Bible, namely: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Those that remember who and what we are (spiritual-Beings), and are willing to humble themselves--by returning to keeping our Covenant Promise to God to obey Him and His Law ONLY--will live. Those who don't, won't (Mal. 4).

Anyone who tries to argue differently (i.e. the exact opposite, for their master Satan) does NOT have the Love of God/Truth in them.
As usual you are using the fake bible that deluded John Anthony Hill has created PLUS no attempt to keep it in context.

Scripture twisting methods of the cults - Apologeticsindex.org

The commandment for a woman to submit to her husband does not extend to submitting to all men.
(KJV) Ephesians 5:22-31
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
The commandments for men to love their wive is much more detailed, showing God has genuine concern for women to be looked after properly by their husband etc - that shows equal value.

The commandment for women to remain silent in church does not extend to keeping quiet at all times.
1 Corinthians 14: 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The commandment for only men to be leaders in church does not extend to women never being leaders in any situation.
e.g. The woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 in some aspects certainly sounds like a leader in her household and community.

First half of 1 Peter chapter 3 is specifically addressed to women with to a non-believing husband.


READ A REAL BIBLE in context A.Freeman.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,453
I think that God loves people enough to have included this doctrine of yours in His Word plain enough for everyone to read and observe and not have to take a pen to add their own notes to what has already been given.
John 7:16-17
7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
7:17 If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.
Fulfilment of prophecy? Why was Judas a man? Or Saul? Or Herod? Why is Satan described with male descriptors? Where God stays silent on an issue -you choose to speak for Him. Brave indeed.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
2:11 Let the woman learn in SILENCE with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over the man, but TO BE IN SILENCE.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Titus 2:4-5
2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their [husband's] children,
2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, THAT THE WORD OF GOD BE NOT BLASPHEMED.

Revelation 14:1-4
14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the Mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many "waters", and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
14:3 And they sung as it were a New Song (Isaiah 42:10) before the Throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that "Song" except the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the Earth.
14:4 These are they which were not corrupted by women; for they are pure. These are they which follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb (obeying God NOT women).
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,453
As usual you are using the fake bible that deluded John Anthony Hill has created PLUS no attempt to keep it in context.

Scripture twisting methods of the cults - Apologeticsindex.org

The commandment for a woman to submit to her husband does not extend to submitting to all men.
(KJV) Ephesians 5:22-31
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
The commandments for men to love their wive is much more detailed, showing God has genuine concern for women to be looked after properly by their husband etc - that shows equal value.

The commandment for women to remain silent in church does not extend to keeping quiet at all times.
1 Corinthians 14: 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The commandment for only men to be leaders in church does not extend to women never being leaders in any situation.
e.g. The woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 in some aspects certainly sounds like a leader in her household and community.

First half of 1 Peter chapter 3 is specifically addressed to women with to a non-believing husband.


READ A REAL BIBLE in context A.Freeman.
Excerpt below from: http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/ecclesia.htm

THE CORRECT MEANING OF "ECCLESIA"
Now, let's look at the word, "ecclesia". This Greek word appears in the New Testament approximately 115 times. That's just in this one grammatical form. It appears also in other forms. And in every instance, except three, it is wrongly translated as "church" in the King James Version. Those three exceptions are found in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. In these instances the translators rendered it "assembly" instead of "church." But, the Greek word is exactly the same as the other 112 entries where it was changed to "church" wrongly.

In Acts 19, "ecclesia" is a town council: a civil body in Ephesus. Thus, the translators were forced to abandon their fake translation in these three instances. Nonetheless, 112 times they changed it to "church." This fact has been covered-up under centuries of misuse and ignorance. The Greek word "ecclesia" is correctly defined as: "The called-out (ones)" [ECC = out; KALEO = call]. Thus, you can see how this word was used to indicate a civil body of select (called, elected) people.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

In the New Testament, "ecclesia" (signifying convocation) is the only single word used for church. It (ecclesia) was the name given to the governmental assembly of the city of Athens, duly convoked (called out) by proper officers and possessing all political power including even juridical functions.

Obviously, in Greece an ecclesia had no resemblance to a church. An "ecclesia" was a civil assembly in Athens even before the writing of the New Testament. In the Oxford Universal English Dictionary (considered the standard for the English language) the word "ecclesia" is listed in its English form as used by our English forefathers. (Nowadays, only forms of the word appear - like, "ecclesiastical").

Quoting from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on the word "ecclesia":

Ecclesia [mediaeval Latin, and Greek - from : SUMMONED] -A regularly convoked assembly, especially the general assembly of Athenians. Later, the regular word for church.

Thus, two of the most prestigious word resources in the English language confirm the fact that an "ecclesia" was originally a select civil body, summoned or convoked for a particular purpose. What, then, did the writers of the New Testament mean when they used the word "ecclesia" to describe a Christian body of people? We can assume that they intended to convey the original Greek meaning of the word: a body of Christians called out of the Roman and Judean system to come together into a separate civil community. It meant a politically autonomous body of Christians under no king but Jesus; under no other jurisdiction but that of Jesus. No man ruled them! Only Christ. And that was the reason these same Christians ran into trouble with kings and rulers; were arrested, crucified and martyred. They dropped Caesar as their King and took up Christ.

In Acts 17, verses 1-6 we see that Paul and Silas had a reputation that preceded them. They were "turning the world (system) upside down." What was their inflaming message? Were they telling the people to find a minister and support him; go to church every weekend; be nice to their neighbors? Could this have been the message that set the city fathers against them? Or maybe they were asking people to send their tithes to them so they could build a nice church or develop a Christian recreation center? No? What then? What were these guys doing that was "turning the world system upside down"? The answer is found in verse 7:

"Whom Jason hath received (into his house): and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus."

Now is that clear? Do you see what they were doing? They were announcingANOTHER KING! Not Caesar! This was a king who was bigger than Caesar. They were forming civil bodies that no longer looked to Caesar as their king. They were forming civil outposts for Christ's conquering army! They were at war!

Paul and Silas weren't "church builders" like preachers today claim. They weren't proselytizing people from one church or synagogue to another. They were kingdom builders! They were dethroning rulers in the minds of the people and alienating them from the mental hold Caesar had upon them through heathenistic (central) government. They were teaching the principles of Christian government. They were putting forth the call of God to whomever would hear and obey, and those whose hearts responded to the call became citizens of Christ's kingdom and joined themselves to the ecclesia, or community of believers.

CHURCH AND STATE DESTROY LIBERTY
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
See how colour is little more than social construct? If they stayed permanently gender-fixed then you'd have an argument. Can you trace back to where the first colour designations began?
An early references is found in the book of Numbers, where the Israelites were told about making a ribband of blue (fringes - Deut. 22:12) on their garments and this (and therefore blue) is specifically being associated God and with remembering and keeping God's Commandments.

So here, we have a specific instance where the colour blue is associated with God and the keeping of His Commandments - the blue ribband/fringes that were to serve as a reminder to think of and keep The Law.

Numbers
15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the Commandments of the "I AM",..

So we do see blue being directly associated with God and as a reminder to keep God's Commandments in this way, and it's also the colour of the sky ("the heavens") as opposed to red, which is among other things, the colour of blood, and also in some places (as you may know) the earth itself can be red too, as in red dirt.

So blue is associated with heaven and red with the (blood-soaked) earth.

In Revelation, Lucifer is associated with the colour red:

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

While this of course doesn't mean that things like tomatoes are evil, because they are red, it can be seen from scripture, that blue is associated with God (Numbers 15:38-39) and red is associated with the dragon (Rev. 12:3).

The communists (athiests) also use red.
 






Last edited:

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
John 7:16-17
7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
7:17 If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
2:11 Let the woman learn in SILENCE with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over the man, but TO BE IN SILENCE.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Titus 2:4-5
2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their [husband's] children,
2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, THAT THE WORD OF GOD BE NOT BLASPHEMED.

Revelation 14:1-4
14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the Mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many "waters", and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
14:3 And they sung as it were a New Song (Isaiah 42:10) before the Throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that "Song" except the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the Earth.
14:4 These are they which were not corrupted by women; for they are pure. These are they which follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb (obeying God NOT women).
This will be my last reply to you because clearly this is going nowhere.
1. Jesus' doctrine never ever included subjugating or looking down on women as lesser spiritual beings. He never taught that.
2. We've been through the context of the Corinth church in which Paul was speaking already. If women were not allowed to speak ever or even before an assembly then why would God give women the gift of prophecy? Why would Anna have been allowed to share the gospel with all those who were seeking? It doesn't specify that she spoke to other women only . . .

Luke 2:38
"And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem."

Even in the OT, Deborah's prophesies were shared with men of power who had to present themselves to her . . . A lowly woman.
3. Again with using marital structure to dictate general gender behaviour -it doesn't say every women be obedient to every man. It speaks to husbands and wives and you conveniently leave out the instruction to the husband to love and cherish his wife like his own body. Nothing to do with spiritual value. Where does it say that all women are to submit to all men?
4. The 144000 are not "corrupted" by women in the sense that women were responsible for spiritually influencing them - This seems to be a reference to virginity (or perhaps in line with the figurative langauge and symbology of Revelation, a reference to those who have not defiled themselves with false religion as religion and the church are typically represented as women). Unless you want to argue that having sex with women in and of itself is also a bad and sinful thing, in which case you might want to rethink your stance on homosexuality. ;)

An early references is found in the book of Numbers, where the Israelites were told about making a ribband of blue (fringes - Deut. 22:12) on their garments and this (and therefore blue) is specifically being associated God and with remembering and keeping God's Commandments.

So here, we have a specific instance where the colour blue is associated with God and the keeping of His Commandments - the blue ribband/fringes that were to serve as a reminder to think of and keep The Law.

Numbers
15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the Commandments of the "I AM",..

So we do see blue being directly associated with God and as a reminder to keep God's Commandments in this way, and it's also the colour of the sky ("the heavens") as opposed to red, which is among other things, the colour of blood, and also in some places (as you may know) the earth itself can be red too, as in red dirt.

So blue is associated with heaven and red with the (blood-soaked) earth.

In Revelation, Lucifer is associated with the colour red:

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

While this of course doesn't mean that things like tomatoes are evil, because they are red, it can be seen from scripture, that blue is associated with God (Numbers 15:38-39) and red is associated with the dragon (Rev. 12:3).

The communists (athiests) also use red.
My question was where can you prove that colour designations are gendered. Where did God say "blue for boys and pink for girls". That's the social construct.
 






Last edited:

JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,150
Excerpt below from: http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/ecclesia.htm

THE CORRECT MEANING OF "ECCLESIA"
Now, let's look at the word, "ecclesia". This Greek word appears in the New Testament approximately 115 times. That's just in this one grammatical form. It appears also in other forms. And in every instance, except three, it is wrongly translated as "church" in the King James Version. Those three exceptions are found in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. In these instances the translators rendered it "assembly" instead of "church." But, the Greek word is exactly the same as the other 112 entries where it was changed to "church" wrongly.

In Acts 19, "ecclesia" is a town council: a civil body in Ephesus. Thus, the translators were forced to abandon their fake translation in these three instances. Nonetheless, 112 times they changed it to "church." This fact has been covered-up under centuries of misuse and ignorance. The Greek word "ecclesia" is correctly defined as: "The called-out (ones)" [ECC = out; KALEO = call]. Thus, you can see how this word was used to indicate a civil body of select (called, elected) people.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

In the New Testament, "ecclesia" (signifying convocation) is the only single word used for church. It (ecclesia) was the name given to the governmental assembly of the city of Athens, duly convoked (called out) by proper officers and possessing all political power including even juridical functions.

Obviously, in Greece an ecclesia had no resemblance to a church. An "ecclesia" was a civil assembly in Athens even before the writing of the New Testament. In the Oxford Universal English Dictionary (considered the standard for the English language) the word "ecclesia" is listed in its English form as used by our English forefathers. (Nowadays, only forms of the word appear - like, "ecclesiastical").

Quoting from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on the word "ecclesia":

Ecclesia [mediaeval Latin, and Greek - from : SUMMONED] -A regularly convoked assembly, especially the general assembly of Athenians. Later, the regular word for church.

Thus, two of the most prestigious word resources in the English language confirm the fact that an "ecclesia" was originally a select civil body, summoned or convoked for a particular purpose. What, then, did the writers of the New Testament mean when they used the word "ecclesia" to describe a Christian body of people? We can assume that they intended to convey the original Greek meaning of the word: a body of Christians called out of the Roman and Judean system to come together into a separate civil community. It meant a politically autonomous body of Christians under no king but Jesus; under no other jurisdiction but that of Jesus. No man ruled them! Only Christ. And that was the reason these same Christians ran into trouble with kings and rulers; were arrested, crucified and martyred. They dropped Caesar as their King and took up Christ.

In Acts 17, verses 1-6 we see that Paul and Silas had a reputation that preceded them. They were "turning the world (system) upside down." What was their inflaming message? Were they telling the people to find a minister and support him; go to church every weekend; be nice to their neighbors? Could this have been the message that set the city fathers against them? Or maybe they were asking people to send their tithes to them so they could build a nice church or develop a Christian recreation center? No? What then? What were these guys doing that was "turning the world system upside down"? The answer is found in verse 7:

"Whom Jason hath received (into his house): and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus."

Now is that clear? Do you see what they were doing? They were announcingANOTHER KING! Not Caesar! This was a king who was bigger than Caesar. They were forming civil bodies that no longer looked to Caesar as their king. They were forming civil outposts for Christ's conquering army! They were at war!

Paul and Silas weren't "church builders" like preachers today claim. They weren't proselytizing people from one church or synagogue to another. They were kingdom builders! They were dethroning rulers in the minds of the people and alienating them from the mental hold Caesar had upon them through heathenistic (central) government. They were teaching the principles of Christian government. They were putting forth the call of God to whomever would hear and obey, and those whose hearts responded to the call became citizens of Christ's kingdom and joined themselves to the ecclesia, or community of believers.

CHURCH AND STATE DESTROY LIBERTY
What has a link about the word "ecclesia" got to do with what I typed about? No matter what translation or word-games you try to use, the verses are all related to the women's position/ silence in the CHURCH, religious meeting or any other term you try to substitute for "church".


P.S. For once you gave a non-John Anthony Hill related website. It was quite amusing that you didn't check the website's positions on certain subjects. http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/articles.htm

ALONG CAME MUHAMMAD! -Did Muhammad Copy The Jews?
PSALM 22: A PROPHECY ABOUT CHRIST? -Refuting Islam, The Bible Is Not Corrupted!

The most recent articles are all about how incompatible Islam is with Christianity. http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/14 New Articles -October, 2016/14 new articles - Oct. 2016.htm

That website totally contradicts John Anthony Hill's position. People should read those articles from the link, they are actually quite good in parts. HOWEVER the website is anti-Israel, some conspiracy ideology present, some "prophecies from the (alleged) Lord" in other links - be discerning and use the bible (a real translation)!
 






Last edited:

JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,150
My question was where can you prove that colour designations are gendered. Where did God say "blue for boys and pink for girls". That's the social construct.
The closest bible verse I can think of :

(KJV) The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God.

And male versus female clothing is different from country to country, culture to culture.
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
The closest bible verse I can think of :

(KJV) The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God.

And male versus female clothing is different from country to country, culture to culture.
I'm waiting for the verse where it's commanded men wear blue and women wwar red/pink. I know different colours carry different symbolic meaning. . . I just don't recall the bible ever assigning genders different colours.
 






JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,150
I'm waiting for the verse where it's commanded men wear blue and women wwar red/pink. I know different colours carry different symbolic meaning. . . I just don't recall the bible ever assigning genders different colours.
And I doubt the Q'uran or any other Islamic texts would say a thing about blue clothes for men versus pink clothes for women either.

Therefore it has to be either John Anthony Hill's imagination or the UFOs or whatever source he gets his "inspiration" from.
 






Last edited:

JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,150
Weird question here but just in case:
Bible Student, Phithx and A.Freeman, do you know who Jediknight is?
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,453
What has a link about the word "ecclesia" got to do with what I typed about? No matter what translation or word-games you try to use, the verses are all related to the women's position/ silence in the CHURCH, religious meeting or any other term you try to substitute for "church".


P.S. For once you gave a non-John Anthony Hill related website. It was quite amusing that you didn't check the website's positions on certain subjects. http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/articles.htm

ALONG CAME MUHAMMAD! -Did Muhammad Copy The Jews?
PSALM 22: A PROPHECY ABOUT CHRIST? -Refuting Islam, The Bible Is Not Corrupted!

The most recent articles are all about how incompatible Islam is with Christianity. http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/14 New Articles -October, 2016/14 new articles - Oct. 2016.htm

That website totally contradicts John Anthony Hill's position. People should read those articles from the link, they are actually quite good in parts. HOWEVER the website is anti-Israel, some conspiracy ideology present, some "prophecies from the (alleged) Lord" in other links - be discerning and use the bible (a real translation)!
It is the Greek word "ecclesia" that has WRONGLY been translated to "church", when it actually means COMMUNITY.

Christ condemned the churches (Matt. 6:5-8), and their priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, etc. (Matt. 15:1-14, Matt. 23), and the Apostles likewise made it crystal clear that any and all temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. are SATANIC (Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24). So it is absolutely preposterous for anyone to believe that any of Christ's Disciples or the Apostles were building churches.

Of course the Koran likewise condemns the building of mosques, but the anti-Christ "Muslims" do it anyway, just like their anti-Christ "Christian" and anti-Christ "Jewish" counterparts.

The link that was previously shared for the article about "ecclesia", was cited to make it simple for you to understand why the King of kings' Bible has it RIGHT, and all of the versions that translate the word "ecclesia" as "church" have it WRONG. Perhaps if you spent as much time humbly thinking about the TRUTH of what's been shared for everyone's mutual benefit as you do trying to argue against it, you might actually overcome your ignorance.

God Bless.
 






JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,150
It is the Greek word "ecclesia" that has WRONGLY been translated to "church", when it actually means COMMUNITY.

Christ condemned the churches (Matt. 6:5-8), and their priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, etc. (Matt. 15:1-14, Matt. 23), and the Apostles likewise made it crystal clear that any and all temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. are SATANIC (Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24). So it is absolutely preposterous for anyone to believe that any of Christ's Disciples or the Apostles were building churches.

Of course the Koran likewise condemns the building of mosques, but the anti-Christ "Muslims" do it anyway, just like their anti-Christ "Christian" and anti-Christ "Jewish" counterparts.

The link that was previously shared for the article about "ecclesia", was cited to make it simple for you to understand why the King of kings' Bible has it RIGHT, and all of the versions that translate the word "ecclesia" as "church" have it WRONG. Perhaps if you spent as much time humbly thinking about the TRUTH of what's been shared for everyone's mutual benefit as you do trying to argue against it, you might actually overcome your ignorance.

God Bless.

Strong's Concordance
ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Original Word: ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ekklésia
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-klay-see'-ah)
Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Usage: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
HELPS Word-studies
1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.

[The English word "church" comes from the Greek word kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" (kyrios). 1577 /ekklēsía ("church") is the root of the terms "ecclesiology" and "ecclesiastical."]

You are using distraction tactics via word definition games.
It doesn't matter whether the word is congregation, meeting, assembly, church or any other word - it refers to the place of worship and preaching.

Throughout your entries you have suggested that the bible said women were to be silent at all times, to never be in any type of leadership and to be subservient to men in all types of situations and settings. You were proved wrong.

P.S. Do you know who Jediknight is? I have found his blog.
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
My question was where can you prove that colour designations are gendered. Where did God say "blue for boys and pink for girls". That's the social construct.
It's the way that people naturally tend to choose, despite some people having tried to turn it around (Is that what you are trying to do?) which is why it's called a "clue". It means look around you and then, if you want, you could "see" the clues and learn something, instead of trying to fight against it (and learn nothing). When girls wear pink clothing there's nothing wrong with it, but it does not suit men. Your own eyesight tells you this, or at least, it should.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,453
This will be my last reply to you because clearly this is going nowhere.
Thank-you, although it remains to be seen whether you have any honour and keep your word. Of course it would be much better for you to remain silent, as you've been COMMANDED to do.

1. Jesus' doctrine never ever included subjugating or looking down on women as lesser spiritual beings. He never taught that.
You are arguing against direct quotes from Jesus, trying to tell everyone what you believe they mean and making a fool of yourself in the process, instead of remaining silent. Jesus taught The Law. The Law makes it crystal clear that men are to RULE over women, because, being closer to Satan, WOMEN ARE MORE EASILY DECEIVED, just as Eve was.

You've already been provided the verses (more than once) which prove you to be in error, but you continually ignore them so you can continue to argue from a point of ignorance, to stroke your massive ego, which helps no one (especially you).

2. We've been through the context of the Corinth church in which Paul was speaking already.
There was no "church" in Corinth; only people.

If women were not allowed to speak ever or even before an assembly then why would God give women the gift of prophecy? Why would Anna have been allowed to share the gospel with all those who were seeking? It doesn't specify that she spoke to other women only . . .
Now you're questioning the verses themselves, ignorantly arguing against God's express COMMANDS that women are to be silent and submissive to men, because in your mind you know better than God. HOW ARROGANT!

Arrogance/ignorance belong to Satan. Humility and Wisdom belong to God. There is no true Wisdom without there first being HUMILITY.

The dangerous thing about arrogance is that it blinds one to their own ignorance. Even the ignorance of their own arrogance.

Just as it is doing with you, as you attempt to argue why you're supposedly right and why God and His Word are supposedly wrong. Shame on you.

Luke 2:38
"And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem."

Even in the OT, Deborah's prophesies were shared with men of power who had to present themselves to her . . . A lowly woman.
Luke 2:37-39
2:37 And she [was] a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from The Temple, but served [God] with fastings and prayers night and day.
2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spoke of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
2:39 And when they had performed all things according to The Law of the Lord, they [eventually] returned into Galilee, to their own region Gennesaret (after the wise men had been to see them; they had been in Egypt and Herod had died - Matt. 2:1-16).

Does it say Anna regularly spoke? No. It says that under the very special instance of meeting Christ face-to-face, she understandably spoke of Him. The rest of the time she served God with FASTINGS and PRAYERS NIGHT AND DAY. So Anna was serving God by her example.

You keep bringing up Deborah, as if her serving as judge in Israel is somehow in contradiction to God's COMMANDS. It isn't. Clearly if God put her in that position, then she was the best one at that time.

Do you not realize that you are continually and contentiously arguing against what God actually says in the Bible, while hypocritically attacking others for pointing these things out to you? Who do you think it is that gets you to argue that God is wrong and that you're somehow right if not Satan? Are you not proving why women were COMMANDED to learn in silence every time you post your anti-Biblical nonsense?

3. Again with using marital structure to dictate general gender behaviour -it doesn't say every women be obedient to every man.
Where does it say anything about husbands and wives in 1 Corinthians 11:3 please? Or 1 Corinthians 11:7? Or 1 Corinthians 14:34? Or 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Or Isaiah 3:12?

It speaks to husbands and wives and you conveniently leave out the instruction to the husband to love and cherish his wife like his own body. Nothing to do with spiritual value. Where does it say that all women are to submit to all men?
Do I? Or is it you conveniently ignoring the five previously quoted passages, which say absolutely NOTHING about husband and wives, while -- on the subject of husband and wives -- overlooking the story of Adam and Eve, of Abraham and Sarah, and even of the obvious fact that every wife should be subservient to her husband, as the husband has been COMMANDED to rule over them?

If women are supposedly on the same spiritual level as men, as you are advocating, then why are their lineages not tracked throughout the Bible? Only the male lineage is tracked, so that Jesus (the second Adam) could trace His lineage back through king David to Adam, to make it obvious that the men are to lead spiritually.

How obvious does it need to be for you to "see" it?

Do you think God COMMANDED the man to rule over the women for no good reason? And who are you trying to convince that God's COMMANDS have nothing to do with spiritual value, as if He just decided on a whim or by accident to place certain Souls inside of stronger, faster and larger bodies (which are more difficult to control) and others into weaker, slower, smaller bodies? You perhaps? Or, more correctly stated, it's Satan who gets your "self" to keep repeating that LIE in the hopes that the more you repeat it, the more likely you are to believe it.

4. The 144000 are not "corrupted" by women in the sense that women were responsible for spiritually influencing them - This seems to be a reference to virginity (or perhaps in line with the figurative langauge and symbology of Revelation, a reference to those who have not defiled themselves with false religion as religion and the church are typically represented as women).
Here you go again, attempting to explain why you are right and why God and His Christ are wrong. When will you stop doing that please? Will you ever?

Original Greek:-
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/14-4.htm

defiled

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
de·file 1
(dĭ-fīl′)
tr.v. de·filed, de·fil·ing, de·files
1.
To make filthy or dirty; pollute: defile a river with sewage.
2. To debase the pureness or excellence of; corrupt: a country landscape that was defiled byurban sprawl.
3. To profane or sully (a reputation, for example).
4. To make unclean or unfit for ceremonial use; desecrate: defile a temple.
5. To have sexual intercourse with (a woman who is a virgin).

The fall of man occurred when Adam listened to Eve, who was deceived by Lucifer/Satan/the serpent, instead of God. It's the very first story in the Bible, and apparently, after 6000 years, you still don't understand its spiritual meaning. It should be self-evident that the ONLY Way to reverse the fall of man is for the men to return to listening to God and His Christ INSTEAD of listening to and doing what women tell them, since women are more easily deceived by Satan, just as Eve was.

Unless you want to argue that having sex with women in and of itself is also a bad and sinful thing, in which case you might want to rethink your stance on homosexuality.
There is no personal desire to argue at all, nor is there any personal "stance", as you keep deceitfully repeating. Nor has anything been said against marriage between a man and a woman, as long as the man is serving God and NOT the women, as most men do today.

God's COMMANDS (not someone's personal stance) regarding homosexuality being a capital offense are likewise crystal clear (i.e. requiring no "interpretation").

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [homosexuality] [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

So what does Satan do? He quite easily manipulates your ego/"self" to say/write "you might want to rethink your stance on homosexuality", as if anything what's been shared on the subject is my personal "stance" (which is a LIE), while at the same time getting you to encourage me to become a homosexual should I decide to abstain from sexual intercourse with women in Christ's Service.

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for The Kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

And you don't see how spiritually devolved one would have to be to even make such a statement, encouraging others to commit a capital offense against God. Shame on you again for being so evil.

At least you've now completely exposed yourself as a glove puppet for Satan, while at the same time proving the very point that you've been arguing against: that the man is supposed to be the spiritual leader in every family, leading them by thought, word and example to obey God and His Law ONLY (Acts 5:29), so that all of them can become more Christ-like.

My question was where can you prove that colour designations are gendered. Where did God say "blue for boys and pink for girls". That's the social construct.
Why does God need to put that in writing for you to get it (which is really just another strawman argument Satan has had you introduce)? Are you really going to continue to pretend that pink isn't a girl's colour, or that "little boy blue" is somehow a foreign concept throughout Israel (the U.S., U.K. and the Commonwealth, etc. - the English-speaking countries of the world)?

Dating back to the 16th century England “Little Boy Blue” is a traditional nursery rhyme, first published in 1744, in Tommy Thumb’s collection, the Little song book.

“Little Boy Blue” Lyrics
Little Boy Blue come blow your horn,
The sheep’s in the meadow the cow’s in the corn.
But where’s the boy who looks after the sheep?
He’s under a haystack fast asleep.
Will you wake him? No, not I – for if I do, he’s sure to cry.


As the British and American people are Israel, it makes perfect sense that they would know from God that blue is a boy's colour and pink is a girl's colour. Did God not make women pink on the inside? Only a contentious female spirit, controlled by Satan, would argue against pink being a colour for girls and blue being a colour for boys. No wonder you're so confused.

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the "I AM" thy God.
 






Last edited:
Top