My Conversation with a Pastor

[OttoM]

Yes, but try to convince them of that. Their paycheck is at stake. Not to mention their wife’s peace of mind.

One of the reasons that the present system of a paid leader of the local assembly never was Yah’s plan. It is a leftover from Catholicism. IMO.

Eternity is also at stake. Matthew 5:28 taught in-correctly is a very heavy burden that came from doctrines of men. Not a commandment of Jesus.

They put themselves in this position. They want to be paid preaching the word - but the moment persecution comes they want to back off. They should had calculated what it could cost them before getting into it.

 

[steve]

Eternity is also at stake. Matthew 5:28 taught in-correctly is a very heavy burden that came from doctrines of men. Not a commandment of Jesus.

They put themselves in this position. They want to be paid preaching the word - but the moment persecution comes they want to back off. They should had calculated what it could cost them before getting into it.

I agree.
So what is the solution?

 

[OttoM]

I agree.
So what is the solution?

The pastor should slowly ease his congregation into this doctrine. Perhaps start with the history of the protestant movement. How Martin Luther broke off, and why he broke off from the catholic church. Plant the seed right there that he allowed men to marry more than one wife - as it did not contradict scripture. Then start with the council of trent. Go through what that council decided. Mention they forbid marriage which was prohechy fulfilled of 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

Then show them what Jesus really said in the original Greek for Matthew 5:28. And show how translations before the council of trent correctly translated this (William Tyndale's translation - whom was persecuted to death). But all translations after the council of trent (1563), they all changed it to "woman." So this is a conspiracy against the Holy Spirit. Against the word of God. Against Christendom. They need to decide on whose side they wish to stand on. Do they wish to stand on the side of truth - which is the word - which is King Jesus? Or do they want to stand on the side of the false doctrines of men? If this means he is kicked out of the church - so be it. At least he presented his case, and YAH can open anyone's hearts to this truth that is accepting to it.

People were kicked out of synagogues as well for following Jesus:

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[steve]

The pastor should slowly ease his congregation into this doctrine. Perhaps start with the history of the protestant movement. How Martin Luther broke off, and why he broke off from the catholic church. Plant the seed right there that he allowed men to marry more than one wife - as it did not contradict scripture. Then start with the council of trent. Go through what that council decided. Mention they forbid marriage which was prohechy fulfilled of 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

Then show them what Jesus really said in the original Greek for Matthew 5:28. And show how translations before the council of trent correctly translated this (William Tyndale's translation - whom was persecuted to death). But all translations after the council of trent (1563), they all changed it to "woman." So this is a conspiracy against the Holy Spirit. Against the word of God. Against Christendom. They need to decide on whose side they wish to stand on. Do they wish to stand on the side of truth - which is the word - which is King Jesus? Or do they want to stand on the side of the false doctrines of men? If this means he is kicked out of the church - so be it. At least he presented his case, and YAH can open anyone's hearts to this truth that is accepting to it.

People were kicked out of synagogues as well for following Jesus:

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.

You are preaching to the choir here.
That’s not going to convince the pastors to do it.

 

[MemeFan]

The pastor should slowly ease his congregation into this doctrine. Perhaps start with the history of the protestant movement. How Martin Luther broke off, and why he broke off from the catholic church. Plant the seed right there that he allowed men to marry more than one wife - as it did not contradict scripture. Then start with the council of trent. Go through what that council decided. Mention they forbid marriage which was prohechy fulfilled of 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

Then show them what Jesus really said in the original Greek for Matthew 5:28. And show how translations before the council of trent correctly translated this (William Tyndale's translation - whom was persecuted to death). But all translations after the council of trent (1563), they all changed it to "woman." So this is a conspiracy against the Holy Spirit. Against the word of God. Against Christendom. They need to decide on whose side they wish to stand on. Do they wish to stand on the side of truth - which is the word - which is King Jesus? Or do they want to stand on the side of the false doctrines of men? If this means he is kicked out of the church - so be it. At least he presented his case, and YAH can open anyone's hearts to this truth that is accepting to it.

People were kicked out of synagogues as well for following Jesus:

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.

I'm afraid there is no easing up.

He can say is it not forbidden, instead of it is allowed. Only problem, both mean same thing and smarter ones will figure these is no difference.

Is it like crossing Rubicon.

Best option is Bible allowed, state doesn't, so it very very bad. And then wait will somebody finds a lover or claims taking second wife. Then what? Which side to take? Bible or state? Then game time is up.

Or even better. Divorced man married again. What with divorced women who hasn't taken any other man. This case certainly exists in any larger congregation.

 

[OttoM]

I'm afraid there is no easing up.

He can say is it not forbidden, instead of it is allowed. Only problem, both mean same thing and smarter ones will figure these is no difference.

Is it like crossing Rubicon.

Best option is Bible allowed, state doesn't, so it very very bad. And then wait will somebody finds a lover or claims taking second wife. Then what? Which side to take? Bible or state? Then game time is up.

Or even better. Divorced man married again. What with divorced women who hasn't taken any other man. This case certainly exists in any larger congregation.

You don’t need the state to get married - you get a commitment ceremony. It’s perfectly legal in all states. That’s zero issue. If in the western world transgenders and homosexuals are getting marriage done with commitment ceremonies - then what’s the problem with followers of Jesus for polygamy. The western world cant have it both ways.

And the divorced man can take another wife. But the divorced woman can not. She is to reconcile with her husband or stay un-married. No man can divorce a wife unless for sexual immorality; so the Christian wife is well protected under YAH’s Holy Law; she has to commit something like fornication with another man for the husband to let go of her.

 

[MemeFan]

Road is narrow brother. Love of money is root of all evil. People love the respect and honor such positions bring. Scripture fulfilled. That’s what it is - seeing God’s words come to life. They become like the Pharisees that they preach to their congregation about. And the Pharisees in Jesus’ time were preaching against those that killed the prophets.

This has nothing with love or money, respect or honor. You aren't asking for pastor's bravery where there is reasonable assumption something good can be achieved.

You are asking for pastor's societal suicide which makes your ask idiocy from their perspective. It is same reason Catholic Church isn't able to remove Mary worship. Even if somebody figures out it is bad, there is too much existing infrastructure, beliefs etc... for easy change.

Both situation are asking for cultural transformation. And polygyny may be worse since there is no role model (West won't copy African societies).

Only good solution is start new church from zero with correct beliefs.

 

[MemeFan]

You don’t need the state to get married - you get a commitment ceremony. It’s perfectly legal in all states. That’s zero issue. If in the western world transgenders and homosexuals are getting marriage done with commitment ceremonies - then what’s the problem with followers of Jesus for polygamy. The western world cant have it both ways.

And the divorced man can take another wife. But the divorced woman can not. She is to reconcile with her husband or stay un-married. No man can divorce a wife unless for sexual immorality; so the Christian wife is well protected under YAH’s Holy Law; she has to commit something like fornication with another man for the husband to let go of her.

If you want easing up then best option it is forbbiden because state says so. Which when think throught isn't good idea at all.

Easing up requires polygyny is truth, but we won't practice it. You need excuse for why not practice it.

Do you even have real life experience converting women to polygyny? You can just bring revolution to her. It requires time for her to accept idea, to think a little. Congregation needs same.

 

[OttoM]

This has nothing with love or money, respect or honor. You aren't asking for pastor's bravery where there is reasonable assumption something good can be achieved.

You are asking for pastor's societal suicide which makes your ask idiocy from their perspective. It is same reason Catholic Church isn't able to remove Mary worship. Even if somebody figures out it is bad, there is too much existing infrastructure, beliefs etc... for easy change.

Both situation are asking for cultural transformation. And polygyny may be worse since there is no role model (West won't copy African societies).

Only good solution is start new church from zero with correct beliefs.

Starting a new church that is pro polygamy in a world that is moving more satanic each day - isn't a wise move either.

We're living behind enemy lines in this world where the god is satan:
2 Corinthians 4:4

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News.

Be wise as a serpent - gentle as a dove. Best way is to get out of this human idea of a church system - and grow the church from within via families. Teach the children that Jesus is the Master, Lord, Teacher, and God. The Lord being the firm Rock foundation. Give daughters and guide the sons to other families that aren't seduced by demonic doctrines (1 Timothy 4:1-3). So the next generation can continue to grow in the true faith of Christendom. Not the modern day religious bondage, and heavy burdens of the current christian church (Matthew 5:28).

 

[MemeFan]

Starting a new church that is pro polygamy in a world that is moving more satanic each day - isn't a wise move either.

We're living behind enemy lines in this world where the god is satan:
2 Corinthians 4:4

Only if you living in very blue city in USA or Canada. Situation is still normal in most of world.

Woke is very good at activating disgust circuits in brain. West, and especially USA is less affected by disgust since it has originated here and society was more primed for acceptance.

But in West there is hard resistance which implies there is even more in rest of world.

And, don't assume that society must become more satanic. This would imply that Lord's kingdom must be losing power in history. This would be a little strange.

 

[OttoM]

Only if you living in very blue city in USA or Canada. Situation is still normal in most of world.

Woke is very good at activating disgust circuits in brain. West, and especially USA is less affected by disgust since it has originated here and society was more primed for acceptance.

But in West there is hard resistance which implies there is even more in rest of world.

And, don't assume that society must become more satanic. This would imply that Lord's kingdom must be losing power in history. This would be a little strange.

It’s not strange if you know where we are in the Biblical timeframe:

2 Timothy 3

The Dangers of the Last Days

1You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!


“If you love this world and the things in it - then the love of the Father is not in you.”

Did the apostle Paul try to overthrow the Roman and Greek governments? No - he preached the word and whomever YAH opened the hearts for - they were lead to Paul and he preached salvation through Christ Jesus. He didn’t start mega churches. It was always a small crowd - outside of the institutions of men:

Romans 16:5
Greet also the church that meets at “their house.”

 

[MemeFan]

It’s not strange if you know where we are in the Biblical timeframe:

2 Timothy 3

The Dangers of the Last Days

1You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!


“If you love this world and the things in it - then the love of the Father is not in you.”

Did the apostle Paul try to overthrow the Roman and Greek governments? No - he preached the word and whomever YAH opened the hearts for - they were lead to Paul and he preached salvation through Christ Jesus. He didn’t start mega churches. It was always a small crowd - outside of the institutions of men.

And again as in previous threads, for last days we have to be centralization love. Only elite is there.

This is real current trend:

Fragmentation

Following article by Gary North shows what our elites see as their greatest threat: https://www.garynorth.com/public/22345.cfm So Putin is globalist as most of our ruling class. He is for more world integration and state participation in all parts of society. What makes him seen as a...

biblicalfamilies.org

 

[MemeFan]

Good question. You have to show me in scripture that a man can break a vow made to God that was based on a lie - and I will gladly accept it. Even if he can - it's good the first wife is submitting to the man's will, and they are "one flesh" on this goal.

Only Gibeonites are example. Are Israelis forgot to ask Lord for release of wow because of Gibeonites deception, so we can't know.

On paper - it looks easy, because the wife is instructed to be submissive to her husband. But because of the conditioning of the modern day church and social norms - this is like climbing a mountain.

You are so much into Bible quoting that you have forgot to check how women actually behave. They all get very desirious for good romping in presence of dominant man. Greater dominance, greater desire.

And since attraction generation is subconsocious process, there is nothing culture can done to block process, only how to handle it. And with biological imperatives far stronger than culture, it is clear who is the winner here.

So problem isn't in women, it is men who are so brain damaged than they don't listen to their instict to lead. If men lead it will overrun everything else in women's brain. If your women doesn't share your politics and worldwiev, you are dominant enough.

Yea, unmarried 30/40 are political problem for us because they don't husband whose conservative positions they will copy.

You obviously didn't seen women crazy in love for you. Because if did, you would know how darling's satisfaction for women is way more important that cultural norms. They will all lie to their girlfriends about girl power and monogamy is cool, while actually being submissive kitten practicing man-sharing.

 

[NBTX11]

YAH’s Holy Law;

Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.

 

[NBTX11]

Less important. And question is do you have to keep wow based on lie.

When I asked this question a few weeks ago, the consensus on this forum was that a man did have to keep all his vows, regardless if it was based on truth or not. You could do like I did, educate your wife, and then ask her to release you from this unbiblical vow made in ignorance. Mine did.

 

[NVIII]

Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.

It's a club, bud. And you ain't in it.

 

[NBTX11]

It's a club, bud. And you ain't in it.

LOL figured it was either that, or something to do with God's name that I was unaware of.

 

[frederick]

When I asked this question a few weeks ago, the consensus on this forum was that a man did have to keep all his vows, regardless if it was based on truth or not. You could do like I did, educate your wife, and then ask her to release you from this unbiblical vow made in ignorance. Mine did.

I have a question regarding this matter of vows/oaths made to forsake all others. I don't wish to derail this thread, so if things get a little too diverted, maybe @FollowingHim can create a separate thread out of this.

Question, Do the principles from Leviticus 5:4-5 apply to the man who swore a foolish or thoughtless oath to forsake all others? In Lev. 5:4-5 we read; Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it—when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters. ‘And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing.

If a man realises he has spoken thoughtlessly, swearing an oath that he never should have made, is it a sin? If so, confession and repentance apply and the sin is dealt with at the cross. Thoughts...?

 

[OttoM]

Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.

Most times I will use Heavenly Father. Sometimes YHWH. Sometimes Yahweh. And even little YAH. I do the same with Jesus. Sometimes Yeshua. Sometimes King of Kings. They know whom I'm referring to Revelation 3:12 talks about a whole new name:

Revelation 3:12
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

Colossians 2:17
These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

[NBTX11]

Most times I will use Heavenly Father. Sometimes YHWH. Sometimes Yahweh. And even little YAH. I do the same with Jesus. Sometimes Yeshua. Sometimes King of Kings. They know whom I'm referring to Revelation 3:12 talks about a whole new name:

The point is, all of those that you mentioned are legitimate names for God and Jesus, not abbreviations of names.

Yah isn't, it's an abbreviation.

Why? What's the point of abbreviating? His name is Yahweh (among other names).

I know I am derailing this thread and I don't want to. I just don't get why 80 percent of people here abbreviate to Yah. Do you abbreviate Yeshua to Yesh?