Hi Reader.  

    Sorry to have taken so long getting to this, but I have been so busy.  And no, you are never bothering me talking about the Scriptures―that is my desire―to work in the Scriptures.  Let's get right into it.  First I'll take your last letter, then answer your general question (from all the letters on this topic, together).

    Regarding your last piece, which you supplied from another author:

    Oh, have we really?  You know that I don't like the jumping through hoops to make a Scripture say what one wishes it to say, by playing Strong's Concordance games.  That is what the author has done with the term "putting-away."  Putting away means to divorce, period.  All the "word-study" gymnastics in the world shall not change that. 

    They wouldn't be committing adultery.  It is not adultery for a single woman to live in a sexual relationship with a man, whether he is married or not.  It is a sin for her however, and it is not moral; for, a woman is to be a virgin for her husband, but it is not adultery.  Adultery is the taking of a married woman by a man other than her husband.  Let's not lose sight of that fact (more on that later).

    Well, more on remarriage in a moment.  The author of the above piece is confusing marriage with sexual intercourse, and he/she does not seem to grasp that male and female have different rules.  This is New Age interpretation, at it's "best."  The blending of male and female and the confusion of gender roles caused in no small part by the ungodly Feminist Movement.

    It is impossible to council a woman on marital issues the same as counseling a male on marital issues―they are both under different standards and rules.  You remember some time back ago I got into a long heated debate with some New Age women wherein I ruffled a lot feathers by stating that in the Scriptures, a man cannot commit adultery unless the woman that he lies with is married to another?  Well, now perhaps you can see why it was so important that I gave not an inch on that.  Let me explain.  And in this explanation you shall also have your answer.

    When a man and woman marry, they become one.  Now some suppose that they both change, but they do not both change; it is the woman who changes.  The author of the above piece left something out, probably because he didn't understand it, where he/she said:

    What is left out, is that when a woman marries, she becomes defiled (spoiled).  When a woman loses her virginity, whether married or no, she is changed.  This is not so with the male.  Observe:

    Chastity (virginity) is godly (and commanded) for women, but for man there is not that admonition in the Scriptures regarding chastity.  Paul says that it is better for a man to be chaste (not to marry), but that, that is Paul's opinion, and not the Law.  Paul states as much: that it is his opinion or recommendation not by commandment (and that is for different reasons, which for confusion's sake, we need not get into here now).

    Regarding the woman, marriage is synonymous (the same) with losing her virginity; and her being unmarried is the same thing as her never having laid sexually with a man.  Today, in our satan-corrupted society, this is not so.  But we cannot interpret Scripture based on contemporary values; rather we ought to interpret contemporary values based upon Scripture.

    Today women have been led to play the whore everywhere.  That is why I get onto them (women) in these question/answers―they are not interpreting the Scriptures or their sexual lives in a Biblical manner―they are abiding by today's lowered moral standards for their positions. 

    It is not that I am trying to point a finger at them, calling them "sinners, sinners;" for, who am I?  That is not my right, perhaps; but that they should know that a sin is sin, is a duty of all who teach Bible.  Many women today have been beguiled into thinking that what they do is of no offence to God, and that their rampant sexual immorality is not a sin.  I am just want that they know that it is indeed sin.  And what they do about that info is between them and God.

     But can men be jumping from bed to bed?  No, they can not:

Heb 13:4
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.  KJV

whoremongers:  Greek word #4205 pornos (por'-nos); from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of NT:4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine):  KJV - fornicator, whoremonger.

Rom 13:12-14
12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.  KJV

chambering:  Greek word #2845 koite (koy'-tay); from NT:2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication, the male sperm: KJV - bed, chambering, conceive.

wantonness:  Greek word #766 aselgeia (as-elg'-i-a); from a compound of NT:1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed selges (of uncertain derivation, but apparently meaning continent); licentiousness (sometimes including other vices):  KJV - filthy, lasciviousness, wantonness.

    So, men; zip it up.  But let's focus on the female, since this is the subject of your question: "Can a woman remarry after being divorced."  But understand that the same rules do not apply to the male.  New Age (and spiritually overthrown) women will be taken aback by such statements, because they feel that they "have every right" to act as whorish as men.  Never realizing the magnitude of the act of giving herself to a man sexually.  It is a very mighty thing that a woman does when she gives herself to a man.  Today this lost.  And that, by satan's design.

    You will notice in Scripture that in marriage, a man marries, but a woman is given in marriage.  i.e., a man takes, and a woman is taken.  In the below Scripture, we see male and female spoken of regarding their roles in marriage.  True, Jesus is speaking of angels, and how when we die we are in our spiritual bodies; but He also refers to the flesh act of marriage today in His analogy. 

    In His reference, we see Him clearly and painstaking differentiate between the male and the female, regarding the marital act.  The below Scripture, by the way, is one of the few places that specifically come right out and say that women shall be in Heaven.  We know that they shall, of course, but that they shall not be female any longer.  Many ungodly feminists take objection to the preponderance of male gender terms in the Bible; they even have rewritten the Scriptures into a new Bible version that uses gender-neutral terms, making God an "it" or a "she;" just like the Gay-Rights movement and Social Engineering is making our sons into 'she' and 'it.'  They shall pay hell for that.  I suspect that the author of your piece above has subtle feminist leanings and/or sympathies.  Which is not say that it is a female writer, many (most) men today are socially and mentally nuetered.

    But anyway, aside from tampering with the Holy Scriptures (not a little sin by any means), they also do not realize that in God's eyes, in the eternity, we are all, the male and the female, sons of God.  But anyway.....  Observe the below Scripture for my points:

    I'm going to start shortening this up a bit, for we could write a thirty page study on the matter and still not have left nothing undone.  You may feel free to write back and ask for an expansion on any particular issue.

    What the Scriptures teach, is that when a woman has sexual intercourse with a man she HAS married him!  The sexual act is what consummates a marriage, not some piece of paper (or papyrus, or slate, or whatever).  The term "bill of divorcement" was not some legal tendered document, not some paper that the divorcee carried in her pocket to show perspective new husbands; it was PERMISSION to go and be another man's wife.  It was a loosing, a release from contract.  It was the man's (who rules over the woman) legal way of saying that he does not want her anymore―and that she is free to go to another.

    Before Moses, such a woman was then left alone till she died.  For the woman is for the man, not the man for the woman.  She was his property, they did not belong to each other.  She was below, he above.  She was his and he owned her.

    Today that almost sounds insane, I know, by today's satan-degraded standards.

    But Moses showed mercy of God in that he ordained the "bill of divorcement" wherein such a put-away woman could have another man.  But she was never again a virgin, and was spoiled goods.  For even the Levitical Priesthood (in Ezek 44) could not defile themselves by marring a divorced woman―unless she was at the first divorced from another Levite Priest.  The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this subject.  (And no, Ezekiel chapter 44 [or any part of Ezekiel, for that matter] is not about the Millennium, as is commonly supposed.) 

Mark 10:4-9
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.  KJV

    But the point is that when a woman marries (has sexual intercourse with a man) she is changed, she is defiled by him.  So long as she is with him she is not defiled, because the two became one, but if and when he casts her away (divorce), she has been forever defiled by him before another.  You can only lose your virginity once.  And men are never spoken of in the Bible as virgins.  Only females are referred to by their sexual status (baby, virgin, betrothed, married, widowed, adulteress)

    But none of this answers your question, does it?  Well, a little background was necessary to understand the answer.

    You want to know if you, a woman, having once been married, and now are divorced, can remarry―and be OK in God's eyes.  You want to know if your are sinning every time you lay (sexually) with your second (or third, etc.) husband.

    Well, the answer has two parts.  One, is it a sin?  Two, can you be forgiven?

    For the second, any and all sin can be forgiven in Christ Jesus, period!  There is no debate on this, Christ's blood is able to wash your sin.  I choose to not go into the "unforgivable sin," and there is an unforgivable sin, because it has absolutely nothing to do with any sexual matter). 

    But you want to know if you must repent every morning after you have sex with your new husband the night before.  The answer is no, for you are not married to another, you are married to him.  You are his, and by Law are to be his wife and obey and please him.

    If there were any sin in this situation, it would not be the remarrying to the new husband, it would be in the divorcing of the first.

    But once you are a man's wife, you are not sinning in your sexual conduct with him.  That is your responsibility to him.  When woman marries, she gives herself to the man.  When a man marries, he takes the wife.  These gender roles must not be confused (though today they are hopelessly intertwined and blurred and corrupted).  That is why today, almost as many (or maybe as many) woman cheat on their husbands as men cheat on their wives.

    Technically, in the Bible, a man (except for church officials--Deacons and Pastors) is free to marry more than one wife.  However, this does not apply to us today because we are told to abide by the laws of the land wherein we live (Rom 13).  And in America, and the rest of the free world, a man may only take one wife legally; and for a man have sex outside of that marriage is illegal by civil law, and grounds for divorce―thus man may not take other women to bed in America, because it breaks civil law and brings shame upon the Lord (Christianity is shamed by what appears to be immoral acts committed by self-professed Christians).  So while for the man it is called adultery in our courts when he cheats on his wife, but it is not adultery by Biblical standards. But once again, Paul taught us that we are to live by the civil laws of our nation. 

     A word must be said here for all the men who think to love em and leave em. Teaching this (the true meaning of adultery) can cause much grief because some men take it to mean that they can have sex with other women other than their wives.  But they do not understand that in the Bible, when a man had a second wife (concubine) he was required to keep her and care for her for the rest of her life.  This is not what most one-night-stand'ers like to do.  So they are twisting Scripture if they think that they can have "love-em-and-leave-em" relationships all over the place. 

     Actually, they could be guilty of adultery, in that, if he has her, then casts her aside, then another has her; the original cheating husband is guilty of the adultery of the "lesser wife" (in this case, the one night stand) when she sleeps with another man.  That is what Jesus meant in the below, and explains a difficult verse:

Mark 10:11
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. KJV

Matt 5:31-32
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.  KJV

    Depending upon how old you are, you may remember a different time in America and the free world; It used to be that women acted better than men in matters of sexual morality.  But then satan entered, and with Women's "Liberation" and Social "Justice" ideologies things changed forever, for the worse.  Woman didn't bring us (men) up, they stooped down lower than we.  And now look at the state of marriage today!  In Bible times, the average "today's woman" couldn't find a husband who would stoop so low as to take her.  And in Bible times, the at least half (maybe 60-65%) of woman today, who are adulteresses, would be taken to the city gates and stoned to death.  Do they deserve any less?  To say they do is call God's judgments unfair.

     The below is the perfect definition of adultery.  Observe the conditions, they all hinge on the woman's marital status.  And notice also that both adulterer (the man, married or unmarried) and the adulteress (the married woman) are BOTH to be killed.  Not like the unjust Jews who just wanted to punish the unfaithful married woman (adulteress) in John 8:3-11, and not the adulterer (the man who lay with her).

Lev 20:10
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.  KJV

    Harsh?  Well, God knows that after one public stoning, there would be a whole lot less adulterers and adulteresses in the land―a whole lot less of these heifers sleeping around to "live life to the fullest and to be all that she can aspire to be."  The sexually 'liberated" woman of today thinks that she is "spreading her wings, soaring to new heights, tasting of the cup of equality;" when in reality, they are profaning themselves before their Lord God in ways they cannot yet fathom.  The message of Eve is lost on today's whorish women.  The same for Homosexuals as well―Sodom escapes their comprehension.  Well, God is not so lax. 

    "OH, but you don't understand, brother Nick, God winks and smiles at today's immorality; it's not like it was in those strict old mean Bible days," some fools will say.  Well, to them I say: that God is the Great "I change not" (Mal 3:6).

    But satan will have none of that―he will not have any of God's Law in his new world.  The same goes for satan's other great advance―the Gay Rights Movement―with the end result of that, today we have a land filed with sodomites and immoral women.  By Biblical Law, there would be a lot of activity at the stoning gate.

    But yes, Jesus came to save sinners; but He didn't come to make sin not to be a sin; He came to die for the sin. 

    Sin is, and will always remain, sin.  Jesus didn't remove sin, He subjected Himself to it's penalty―death.  Sin is sin, and sin kills; but for the Christian, that death was paid―if they repent upon His Holy Name.

    Jesus died for our transgressing of God's Law; though not a one of deserves it, and quite a few make abuse of His sacrifice

That brings us to the first part: is divorce a sin?

    For the woman, the sin in divorce is not the cessation (end) of being married, it is the taking of another husband.  It all comes back to the sexual act, regarding the woman.  To be married IS for her to have sexual intercourse, for her to have sexual intercourse with man is tantamount (amounts to) to her marrying him.  The marriage certificate that you get from the Church or the County Office today is nothing to God (as you see, soon Homosexuals and Lesbians shall have that same certificate framed and hanging on their wall that a man and a woman can have today); what makes you married in God's eyes is when you lay with a man.

    When you get divorced from that man, you have the right (by God, for our weakness) to remarry another man.  You are free to be another man's wife.  Once you are a man's wife, you are his, and are to live your life free, as his wife, enjoying all the luxuries of a wife to her husband. 

    You may not return to your old husband because you have been defiled by another man (you new husband).  But then, all in Christ can be forgiven; so that even divorcing your second husband and remarrying your first husband is permitted through repentance of the defilement of the first and second husbands.  Oh what folly today's immorality has wreaked upon us. 

    It is so very, very important, for a woman to read the Bible from the first verse in Genesis till the last verse in Revelation.  Any woman who does this shall have no misunderstanding on how her Creator expects, no, demands, that she act.  But women today have been ripped away from the Scriptures, starting in the schools, and turned unto the teachings of vile man.  And us men are guilty in that we like to defile women as often as we can.  Therein lies our sin.  For like Adam was chargeable for Eve (though Adam went even further and sinned himself), so too are we men today charged for the whoredoms of our women (and we also, like Adam, go further in our own sin).  I wonder if I made sense of that?

    So, if you are divorced from another man, and remarried to a new man―go and be a good wife to him―Christ washed you of any sin in your first marriage when you repented of it; and Moses, by God, allowed that you become another man's wife in good standing before the Lord.  God knows that we are weak, and He knows what every woman knows: that a woman, once having lost her virginity, shall ever long for that touch.  A virgin has not that same strong longing.

    So while it is not a particularly great thing in God's eyes for a woman to get divorced and take another husband―it is allowed, due to our weakness, which He does understand fully.  But it is better to make the first marriage work.

    Does that answer your question?

A (female reader) asks:

"Hi Nick!!
May God keep on blessing you for your work. It has helped me a lot!!
I have a question: is it really a sin to have sex before marriage? Let me
explain. I was not a virgin anymore when I met my husband, because I was 24
when I gave my life to Jesus. Before this I had other boyfriends with whose
I had sex. After I became a Christian I changed a lot, of course and spent
many years without sex.

I lived together with my husband for 3 months before
we got married because we are from different countries. You can be sure that
we were not using each other, but we really wanted it and we had a serious
relationship.  He's not a Christian yet, but we have a blessed marriage and
he listens to me when I talk about Jesus. The fact that we had sex before we
got marriage didn't affect my spiritual life. On the contrary, I felt myself
better than never and also sure that I could spend the rest of my life
beside him.

The problem is that there are many people in my previous church
in my homeland that knew about this and started to say (among other terrible
things) that my marriage couldn't be blessed because I had sex with my
husband before we got married and, according to the bible, it's a sin.
Curiously, many (really many) of these "saint couples" got married according
to the statements and divorced a few months later. What's the truth about
it? I really don't know what to think about it, if it's really a sin or not.
I'm sorry if it looks more a "testament" than a question, but I wanted to
give you as many details as possible in order to make you understand me
better. I'm not trying to justify any bad act (in case I had committed one)
but I would really like to get an explanation about it. The comments I've
heard about my moral conduct have shocked me.
Thanks for everything and God bless you."

 

Answer:

Hello, you asked:

    I know the natural "temptation" is to embellish the Scriptures to supposedly keep people "good."  This is one of the sins of the Catholic Church.  But I am not going to lie to you.  To answer your question, I will say this (and weigh my words carefully, don't let a misunderstanding of my answer be a cause to sin):  It is a sin for a woman to have sex before marriage with someone that doesn't become her husband.  Let me explain.  When a woman has sexual intercourse, she IS married in God's eyes.  Sex is the marital act, marriage is consummated (made complete) in the sexual act.  Sadly, women today have many husbands by virtue of the fact that most all women today have (had) many sex partners. 

    You said:

    While I like your optimism is the usage of the word "yet" in your above, this matter concerns me more than the premarital sex issue.  The reason being that many times an unbelieving husband can draw a Christian wife away from her first love, Jesus Christ. 

    For instance, if your husband is a Jew, then he may try to make you convert to Judaism (which requires that a Christian spit on a Crucifix during the conversion).  Remember that the next time you have coffee with an ex-Christian who has converted to the religion of the so-called "chosen of God peoples," Judaism: that abomination to God false religion of the Babylonians!  This is why these ex-Christians are called two-fold the children of hell [Matt 23:15]).  Ok, enough of that.

     And if your husband is a Muslim, he may try to make you worship the false god, Allah.  Imagine your horror if he raises-up the fruit of your womb to be spiritually dead!  The Bible advises women not to marry non-Christians for this very reason.

    But if he is listening to you about Jesus and the Gospel, then that is a good first step.  I am not saying to go out and divorce him, for the Scripture speaks in another place that a believing wife may help save an unbelieving husband:

    But if this becomes a problem later on, and if he refuses to convert to Christianity, or he tries to make you leave off of Christianity, or tries to make idolaters out of your children: then you can divorce him according to the Bible (but not in the Jewish controlled Courts Systems--no mention of God is allowed wherever the Jew is in control, and idolatry is not a legal reason for divorce in these courts--everything else is, but not God and Jesus Christ!). 

    It is better to be a divorced Christian than a married blasphemer.  Oh boy, should I go there?  Yes, I will; but please understand that I making an analogy to the great woe in rejecting Christ after having once known Him: It is better to be a Christian prostitute, than an ex-Christian virgin.  My point, which I hope isn't lost in the admittedly crude analogy, is that spiritual sin is a far greater thing than the sins of the flesh.

You said:

    Well, you can tell them that I said that they can't be blessed because they are lying in God's name.  There is no Scripture that says that it is a sin to have sex with your husband before some Preacher or County Clerk tells you that you are married.  You are married in God's eyes the first time you have sexual intercourse.  And besides, If those so-called Christians in your so-called church knew one wit about the Scriptures: they would know, that in an instant, Christ can forgive you of any and all sexual immorality; but that a heathen husband may be a snare unto you, by which satan may attempt to draw you away from Christ Jesus. 

    Am I advocating that women sleep with a man before they marry him?  No, I am not; but I know that today many put off marriage till later for various reasons, and I also know the ways of mankind.  But if you sleep with him, and then you two break-up, then you messed up.  Hence it is better to wait till you got the ring.  And I know that it isn't lost on you that men lie to get women into bed―especially non-Christian men.  Which is another of many reasons to stay with your own (Christians).

You said:

    It's not "curious" to me, I know that a lot of those busybody, nosey, hypocrite old biddies in most churches today seem to be long on forgiving and forgetting their sexual past and sins, and short on doing do so for others.  Let's just call them "lumberjack eyes," and dismiss them as ones who speak with no wisdom. 

    So in closing, regarding the sex with other men before your husband, repent of it, and it is then forever gone.  Jesus Christ paid that price upon the cross, so that all believers (Christians) who repent of their sins in His name are forgiven and washed white. 

    Regarding your selection of a heathen to be your husband and the father of your future children?  I think that you made a bad judgment call there, for he may prohibit you from teaching your children Christianity―maybe even going so far as to make them into Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or whatever he is―condemning them.  And I wouldn't recommend other Christian women do the same as you have chosen to do.  But perhaps God has you there to bring your husband to Christ.  I don't know, only God knows.  It is not my place to make judgment here. 

    What I do know is, that women today really need to do a lot more thinking before they choose their mates, than they seem to be doing.  For, if their choice of the husband is a poor one, their children suffer every fate along with them.  As you know, men lead the family, especially in non-Christian families (satan is attacking the Christian unions) and they carry heavy sway with the children in matters religious.  If the children see you praying to God and Jesus Christ; and then they see their father, say, falling to his knees chanting worship to Allah; or Mother Mary and other dead people; or a stone or a tree or an animal; or whatever religious system he is in; then they may be led astray into the idolatry of their father. 

    Pray for the Lord to touch your husbands heart.  Peace to you.

Answer:

     Well, no, that isn't what I am saying, exactly.  I am not saying that "thinking about gay sex is a sin," per se, I am saying that when a man has lusts for another man, there is definitely some kind of problem going on. 

     You seem to be distancing the lust for gay sex, from the actual act of gay sex.  But only gay men lust to have sex with other males―right?  So where is the difference?  I understand that if you don't have a homosexual sex act, then you have not committed the sin of sodomy.  I get you there.  But to say a man isn't "gay" when he is simply in abstention (not "doing it"), but is desirous to do it, is a little gratuitous. 

     For instance, if I lust to murder: OK, true; I am not a murderer, per se; but my heart is consumed with murderous thoughts.  Will I then be judged as a murderer?  No, but I may be in danger of one day acting out on those perverted lusts.  The Gay man or woman who is simply abstaining from all sex, is equally in danger of slipping into sinful homosexual behavior. 

     So lusting after gay sex is not sodomy.  But let's not forget that lust itself is a sin; it is the Tenth Commandment.  So in way, he is sinning―by virtue of that.  But I am not here trying to accuse him personally. 

Rom 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.KJV

So then, to covet is to lust.  What "law" was Paul referring to?

Tenth Commandment:

Ex 20:17
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.  KJV

     Many people mistake this Tenth Commandment for adultery.  It is not adultery, adultery is the Sev34nth Commandment.  The Tenth is lusting for things, the Seventh is laying with another man's wife.

Seventh Commandment:

Ex 20:14
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.  KJV

     I write in general, to a general audience, about a general problem/issue.  So understand, that while I write in answer to you, my answer was tailored to a wider audience (which is why I went into areas that you didn't even bring up―but someone else might be interested in that aspect). 

     I believe that homosexuality is a spiritual assault.  I also believe that many forms of insanity are spiritual assaults, and that the psychotropic drugs that we give to people with "mental problems" simply numb that part of the brain which evil spirits interface with.

     I am wondering if that is the same area that God interfaces with us by―if so, that would explain why the Jewish psychiatric apparatus is putting so many of our children unnecessarily on psychotropic drugs lately [Ritalin, etc.], to numb them for the purpose of separating them from God as best that they can; for our children are to be their slaves in the endtime―so they would think.  Jews are taught in their "holy book" [the Talmud] that at the time of the end, when they come into their kingdom, each Jew will have 2800 Goyim [human cattle―Gentile] slaves. 

Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

     Most Christians don't realize that the kingdom that the Jews speak of, is the kingdom of antichrist.  the Jew's god is Lucifer, their lord is money―yet beguiled and fooled Christians today call them "the chosen of God people."  Anyway, see article excerpts below for our over-medicated and drug-controlled children. 

     Didn't you ever wonder why, whenever Jesus dealt with a possessed person (insane?), He cast out a demon; and didn't instead heal some "chemical imbalance?" 

     And didn't you even wonder why we don't see so many "possessed people" running around here today, as were in Jesus' day?  I mean, Jesus healed more possessed people than people that He raised from the dead. 

     Where are all these possessed people today?  And why don't we see insane people in the Scriptures?  I believe that we do see insane people in the Bible, and that we do see possessed people on Earth today; but that we do not understand that they are one in the same. 

     So what I am saying is revolutionary, indeed; for I am implying that mental illness can be healed by casting out evil spirits.  If I am correct in this, then homosexuals can likewise be healed (cleansed). 

     Look at the conversions of homosexuals to "strait" lifestyles: the Jews don't want you to believe that a homosexual can be made strait, because it is part of their plan.  But every Gay that has gone on to become a Strait was "healed, cleansed" in a CHRISTIAN Ministry.  What does that tell you regarding evil spirit manifestations?  Answer: They cannot abide in a strong Christian setting.  It makes perfect sense.  These people in these Christian recovery groups are, unknowingly, being cleansed of evil spirits. 

     As far as gender-disinformation at a young age, and to what degree that figures into a man or woman becoming homosexual; I can only say this: Whatever tragedy had shattered their psyche is only the door-opener; once that door is open, evil spirits can take advantage of that broken person.  Not all sexually abused children or fatherless children go on to become homosexual or lesbian, but most all Homosexuals/Lesbians are these children. 

     Consider this: The rate at which we are seeing increased incidences of homosexuality (and other mental illnesses, I might add), is in direct proportion to the rate at which Christ is being left out of the world.  We are in the 2000s, but back in the 1960s and 1970s, schools began teaching evolution, denying God, and began forbidding the mention of God or Christ in the schools.  Not to mention that most children hear little mention of God or Jesus Christ at home, save for Christmas and Easter times.  The result is that today, some thirty to forty years later; we have children coming into adulthood (and sexual maturity) two generations removed from God and Jesus Christ.  How could we expect that there would not be consequences because of this? 

     Over-medicated children articles below signature line.

 

The "other trees" in the Garden of Eden

 

"You state that all of the other trees in the garden of Eden were fruit trees, but after reading Ezekiel 31:9, this could not be true.  In this chapter of Ezekiel, God is comparing Pharaoh to the Assyrian(Satan) and is pointing out how all of the other "trees" envied him in the garden of Eden.  Mere wooden trees cannot envy each other, so obviously, the trees being spoken of here in Ezekiel 31 are actual people."

Answer:

    Not so.  Ezek 31 is a parable.  And it isn't speaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  And it is about Pharaoh, not satan. Also, it is gratuitous to say that an Assyrian is always satan everywhere found in the Bible.

    You can't take a parable and have it to negate clear descriptive narrative.  Below are the "other trees" in the Garden of Eden.  People don't "grow out of the ground"; and while some are certainly "pleasant to the sight", people generally aren't "good for food"; unless of course, you are a cannibal.  :o)

    Was God telling Eve that it was OK for her to commit adultery?

    Well, if she wasn't being told to commit adultery, then was she being told to be a cannibal?  I mean, she's doing something with these other trees!

    Or, was God telling Adam to have sex with a lot of people?

    And finally, were all these other people that you see in Eden, subhuman?  Why was not there a help meet for Adam?  Why did God make animals to keep Adam company if there so many other people walking around?  Why was Adam "alone" if in a crowd?

    Back to the drawing board.

    What you are doing is taking a parable, and equating it to actual events elsewhere in the Bible, OUTSIDE of the parable!  A parable is only true within itself.  You are taking a parable and interpreting plain Scripture by the cryptic message of an unrelated parable.  Great error occurs by this very manner.  Below is an example of what you are doing:

    Jesus is the bread that came down from Heaven, He even said so.

    The bread that came down from Heaven was called manna, and men ate it; the O.T. says so:

    Therefore, the Israelites were cannibals for years during their wanderings in the wilderness.  "Says so in the Bible."

    Do you see where you are going wrong?

________________________________________________________________________
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ's name!
Nick Goggin

	The Christian President, George W. Bush?

Ecumenism

President Bush signs Executive Order (# unknown) regarding
religion, and refers to all religions being the same and equal:

     The alleged Christian, President George W. Bush (Bush II) mentions a little-known event, his signing of a Presidential Executive Order (supersedes Congress), that he signed, in regards to universal religion:

"So I called on Congress to join me in passing laws that would allow the -- open up the federal treasury to faith-based programs, and they balked. They got caught up in the process. So I signed an executive order, an executive order that instructed all federal agencies not to discriminate against religious groups. Cabinet Secretary -- soon to be Cabinet Secretary Jackson now knows the call. One reason he's the Cabinet Secretary is because he already heard it, however, and that is that we're not going to discriminate against faith-based groups when it comes to housing initiatives. (Applause.) "― Official White House website, "President Speaks with Faith-Based and Community Leaders," Remarks by the President to Faith-Based and Community Leaders, Union Bethel Ame Church, New Orleans, Louisiana. (Office of the Press Secretary January 15, 2004.)

     The crowd in the above (pictured at left) applauded because they thought they were going to be getting something for nothing―more free housing in this case―this is the manner which by many (minority) Christians are beguiled and bought-off.  President Bush delivered the above address to the African American Union Bethel Ame Church (a Baptist denomination), and they naturally thought that this was good for  Christianity, and that President Bush was showing his deep Christian roots.

     Nothing could be further from the truth!  What Bush did was to nail another spike into the coffin of Christianity, by blending the Christian faith with all other (false) religions; thus making Christianity just another valid choice among many.  This is not a good thing for the Christian faith, for it reduces Christianity to the level of anything that chooses to call itself a religion―instead of what Christianity really is―the only "religion" sanctioned by God, and the only way that man may be reconciled to God and eternal life (i.e., salvation.).  What the members of the church failed to see was that Bush is dismantling their Christian Faith, not helping it be strong.
 

"Faith"-Based Programs Dismantle Christianity

     Bush said moments earlier in that same above speech:

"There is the miracle of salvation in our -- that is real, that is tangible, that is available for all to see. Miracles are possible in our society, one person at a time.  But it requires a willingness to understand the origin of miracle. Miracles happen as a result of the love of the Almighty¹, professed, by the way, taught, by the way, by religions from all walks of life, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu -- people who have heard that universal call to love a neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself, and then surround someone who hurts with love. Love is powerful. Love is soul-changing. Love doesn't happen because of government; love happens because of the inspiration of something greater than government. That's what we're here to talk about -- programs based upon faith.  Right here in this church, there are faith-based programs. Any program emanating out of a church or a synagogue or a mosque is a faith-based program." ― President George W. Bush; ibid.

     In the same speech, President Bush clarified that he believes that Christianity is not unique, and that all religions are valid ways to God, having the Word of God:

"There's nothing better, by the way, than a faith-based program to provide hope. Again, I don't care what religion it is. Nothing more hopeful than the Word. " ― President George W. Bush; ibid.

     Shame on "Reverend" Brown of the Baptist congregation, Union Bethel Ame Church of New Orleans, Louisiana: for letting this blasphemy against Jesus Christ happen within his church walls, from his pulpit, on his watch.  That church is now defiled.

Hello Chase:  You state/ask:

    I love Pastor M, he is one of the best, but I also disagree with him some matters.  Not on salvation matters, though; my main disagreements are along the lines of prophecy interpretation.  It is Ok to disagree even with a teacher that you respect.  We are not to be in lock-step.  We are to think for ourselves searching the Scriptures daily.  I have no bad words for PM.

    I also appreciate the respectful and kind manner that you 'questioned me.'  And I do not begrudge you of questioning anything that I write or say.  I encourage debate where facts must rise to the top, but only in an environment where the Scriptures are esteemed as the written Word of God.  Without that common ground we have no foundation for reaching or determining immutable fact.  I trust that you trust the Scriptures of Life.

    I disagree with PM regarding the end times, specifically regarding the Tribulation.  He and I envision two very different worlds at that time, as you have noticed and brought forth.  Have you seen our: Scriptural Evidences That Christians Shall Die In The Great Tribulation

    The Scripture 'in question':

    Reading the Scripture in context, we see anything but a 'chicken in every pot,' peace and love-fest time.  We see a time of great trouble for God's people:

    I understand that "some" try to 'spiritualize-away' the impact of this Scripture, but I cannot see in any context, where one could deduce that this is not a literal overthrow of God's people.  Especially since Revelation shows the completed (past tense) of this very Scripture:  "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Rev 13:7).

    And regarding wherein you state that PM says, "Pastor Murray teaches that Satan comes on the scene peacefully and prosperously," I offer Scripture that speak to some of the events preceding the antichrist.  You have the Scriptures, you decide if it is either "peaceful" or "prosperous":

________________________________________________________________________
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ's name!
Nick Goggin

"Forgiveness in Christ Jesus" means what?  And What does it mean to "believe upon Jesus Christ?"

A Reader asks:

Answer:

    Well, let's see, Deuteronomy 22?  We have pre-marital sex in verse 21, adultery in verse 22, rape in verse 25, and incest in verse 30.  You could have found worse sins in the Bible elsewhere, though I do not minimize any sin.  just that you aren't the worse of the bad.  So then, the question is really: which of those sins isn't Jesus Christ's sacrifice able to cover?  You know the answer; even little Christians, Sunday School kids, know the answer to that one!  All sin can be covered by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  All.  That's all.  But...what about...this one...or that one..or...?  ALL!  (Except the unforgivable sin, which is not in Duet 22.  And that's not because He can't forgive it, but that He won't.  See our: The Unforgivable Sin)

    It is not because we are worthy of forgiveness, none of us are; it is not because we could somehow atone for sin, none of us could; it is not because we deserve to be forgiven, none of us do.  It is because Jesus Christ deserves, Jesus Christ is worthy, Jesus Christ was the perfect propitiation (payment in full) for sin.  And this same Jesus Christ made a way for us to be forgiven and saved from the death that all sin deserves, if we would simply believe upon Him, and repent in His name to our Heavenly Father.

    What does it mean to "believe upon Jesus Christ?"  It means that you believe what the Bible says of Him, how that He was the Son of God, crucified for the sins of the world, died, resurrected again to life, and is now in Heaven.  If you believe that, then you are a Christian; and as a Christian, you are covered by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ when you repent of any sin.  All other study and teachings are secondary to that.  Belief is the principle thing, after that, we learn obedience, we learn His ways, we learn how to live a life that pleases Him.

    You are correct that we need to repent in the name of Jesus Christ to God.  And you have done that.  So you are free, why do you yet keep yourself in bondage?  That is not by my word, but by Scripture, as we shall see below in Hebrews 2:9-3:1.

     You can never take away what you did, but Jesus can.  You are not bound so long as you have repented in Jesus Christ's name, whom you believe upon, to our Heavenly Father God.  Jesus freed us from the sting of (eternal) death.  And whom Jesus Christ frees, is free indeed.  There is no more payment for a sin after Jesus pays for it, neither in the flesh or in the Heavens.

    So while certain sins in the Bible are Capital Offenses (death penalty): once forgiven, there is no sin to perform sentence upon.  It is paid for, it goes away, it is gone.  No trial, no death sentence, it is paid for.  Now, man's legal system may extract punishment for a crime, as that is the duty of a government, but once forgiven of a sin, God requires no such punishments any longer.  Man and governments will do to man what they will, what we need to be concerned of is getting right with God.

    What the Scriptures are saying is that through Jesus, we that believe, can all be reconciled back to God.  We need reconciliation, we need to be reconciled back to God (made clean, admitted back); because sin separates us from God, and because God is so against all sin, not just the ones in Duet 22, not just the ones in the Old Testament, not just the ones in the New Testament--but all sin. 

    The bottom line is this:  When we sin, and we all do sin sometime, we deserve eternal death.  But God, not willing to lose us all, made a provision that we may be saved, even though we have sinned.  So how could God save us when He declared that all who sin should be killed?  He sent Jesus Christ, a perfect man, who had not sinned even one sin in His 33 years on this Earth. 

    This man, Jesus Christ, but so much more than a man, the Son of God even; was a worthy sacrifice for us because He was perfect.  There is no sin that this perfect sacrifice was unable to pay the price of.  So, through Jesus Christ: those whom believe upon Him, those who accept God's offer of a second chance, can be saved from the second death of Rev 20:14 which we commonly refer to as "going to hell."  So because of this new way, God does not have to lose all His children whom He loves.  He doesn't want to lose any of His beloved children, but He made rules and they must be obeyed.  God, in His mercy, gave us a way to saved even though we don't deserve anything other than death.  He sent us Jesus Christ that we may be made whole in His eyes.  What a mighty gift!  And one that we could never repay, never earn, never deserve.

    When you were a child, you may have stolen a candy bar from the store, and ate it; it was good, the fruit of your crime was at the time good to you.  Then suppose the man at the store catches you and holds you for the law.  But your father, having heard of what was going on, comes to the store and acts to intercede for you with the store owner, because your father doesn't want you going to the judge with a crime charged against. 

    Peace to you, friend.  Now go onward, and live a life that you don't have to be ashamed of before our Lord, our God, our Saviour.  But when and if you fall, and sin some sins (and you shall err, for we all mess up), then repent of the sin, and stop doing it.  Simple, no?  Why does man complicate what our Lord, through Himself, has made simple?

    Below we see the promise made by God, way back in the Old Testament (Old Covenant-- "Testament" means Covenant--it is a contract, a binding declaration; it is a promise from God to man).  And God doesn't lie, "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2).  In His promise below, He tells how that someday He would send a new Covenant (Jesus Christ with the New Testament/Covenant) and that by this Covenant, man could be forgiven of sins.  You also notice how God feels about sins that are forgiven (verse 34):

    In the New Testament we learn how that the New Covenant was extended to all people who believe upon Jesus Christ.

    But since God purposely forgets your repented-for sins, why can't you?  The price has been paid.  Surely you believe that Christ Jesus paid the full sum, that He paid enough?

Of course He did.

Peace to you, prayer for you; and I'll see you in Heaven some day, God willing; in Jesus Christ! 

________________________________________________________________________
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ's name!
Nick Goggin