What do you guys say about the following:
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160410/news/304109916/
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160410/news/304109916/
Archbishop of Canterbury "not embarrassed" over new father
- Thread starter Gurucam
- Start date
Sonnet
New member
Not sure there is much to say is there?
genuineoriginal
New member
I say that website has so many ads on it that I couldn't find the article.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ews/304109916/ :
This is the 'ads-less' message:
" LUSAKA, Zambia -- Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, says he is not embarrassed over the revelation that he was born from an extra-marital affair between his mother and one of Winston Churchill's assistants.
Welby, in Zambia for the 16th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the news should not change his status in the church.
"It certainly does not invalidate my consecration. We did check the rules," he said. "It does not make a shred of difference. People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not my genetic makeup."
Welby said he is "not embarrassed in any way" by the news that he was fathered by Sir Anthony Montague Browne, not by Gavin Welby who raised him. "It has not changed me in any way. ... I have the same life history I had before, the same friends I had before. Nothing has changed. ... I am who I am in Jesus Christ and nothing more or less than that. Nothing changes."
After hearing that genetic testing determined that he was the son of Montague Browne, the archbishop said he called his mother the next day. "My mother is someone who is extraordinarily courageous. She is one of these people who look facts in the face. She said if that is reality then we had better deal with it. She was obviously shocked. She said that in her own statement. So we then sat down and looked at how we would deal with it."
Welby said he has the same feelings for the man he thought was his father. "It has not changed my view of him ... Life with him was quite messy, often quite complicated, because of his alcoholism ... I was always aware of his very deep love for me and that is something you don't discard."
"
Last edited:
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was justified by God?
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was justified by God?
What is the little that you perceive that can be said? Care to share?
Did Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother have God given freedom, liberty and justification to transgress the law of sin and death and ignore her husband and have an extramarital (procreating) lover because of:
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Did Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother leave her husband and procreated with another man so that she could bring forth a fruit onto God (i.e. a child of God)?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Is it that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was in a marriage under lust and the law and in that marriage she would bring forth only fruits onto death (i.e. children of the flesh)?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Is it that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was liberated from the old ten commandment law of adultery and fornication so that she can ignore her husband and serve in the newness of spirit and so procreate with another man so that she can bring forth a child of God?
Is this it?
Don't you want all those people in unfortunate law based (loveless) marriages to know that they can leave their old spouses and go get new spouses (i.e. new procreating unions) that are founded on love (spirit) and not laws (like the law of sin and death, i.e. ten commandments).
Don't you want others to have this God given freedom, liberty and justification to stop bringing forth children of the flesh and start bringing forth only children of God?
Is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby a Love child? And since God is Love, he is a child of God?
1 John: 4 King James Version (KJV)
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
It this it.
Don't you aspiring Christians want to know if the 'church' knew things and did not tell you.
Don't you want to know if the 'church' knew how to stop bringing forth children of the flesh and start bringing forth only children of God?
Would you guys (both man and woman), who perceive that you are Christian, step out of your marriage, and fornicate, commit adultery and have an extramarital (love motivated) union so that you can bring forth a child of God like Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby?
The above revelation clearly confirm that this is how couples bring forth children of God.
Did you see the movie 'Braveheart' staring Mel Gibson?
It is a story about a kingdom in bondage under a tyrannical King called Longshanks. Mel's character was William Wallace, a brave and capable worrier who came to free that kingdom of tyrannical rule.
It is very important that William Wallace was very brave. In fact the name of the picture, 'Braveheart' is very important. William Wallace was man whose heart was not not waxed gross and he was also very brave. To be brave is to be without fear. The absence of fear is the presence of God. Therefore William Wallace was a child of God, like Issac. The King was a child of the flesh, like Ishmael.
It seemed that King Longshank's marriage was under law and loveless. Therefore in that marriage only children of the flesh can be brought forth.
In that kingdom children of the flesh were already persecuting children of God. This would continue under any offspring that the King and the Queen had.
The Queen did not love or even like the King. The King seemed love-less (his heart was waxed grossed). At any event he was already old and dying. Apparently the queen fell in love with William Wallace. In the dead of night she secretly went to William Wallace' tent and she fornicated, committed adultery and had an extramarital procreative encounter with him. She was impregnated.
Then the kingdom was to be left in the hand of a future leader who is a child of God. That is a child who was brought forth out of a sexual procreative act that was an expression of love between the Queen and William Wallace.
This child was not brought forth through a sexual procreative act that was done under law. This child was to be a savior of sorts.
This was to end the persecution of children of God by children of the flesh in Longshank's kingdom.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh (children of the flesh) persecuted him that was born after the Spirit (children of God), even so it is now.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was justified by God?
What is the little that you perceive that can be said? Care to share?
Did Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother have God given freedom, liberty and justification to transgress the law of sin and death and ignore her husband and have an extramarital (procreating) lover because of:
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Did Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother leave her husband and procreated with another man so that she could bring forth a fruit onto God (i.e. a child of God)?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Is it that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was in a marriage under lust and the law and in that marriage she would bring forth only fruits onto death (i.e. children of the flesh)?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Is it that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was liberated from the old ten commandment law of adultery and fornication so that she can ignore her husband and serve in the newness of spirit and so procreate with another man so that she can bring forth a child of God?
Is this it?
Don't you want all those people in unfortunate law based (loveless) marriages to know that they can leave their old spouses and go get new spouses (i.e. new procreating unions) that are founded on love (spirit) and not laws (like the law of sin and death, i.e. ten commandments).
Don't you want others to have this God given freedom, liberty and justification to stop bringing forth children of the flesh and start bringing forth only children of God?
Is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby a Love child? And since God is Love, he is a child of God?
1 John: 4 King James Version (KJV)
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
It this it.
Don't you aspiring Christians want to know if the 'church' knew things and did not tell you.
Don't you want to know if the 'church' knew how to stop bringing forth children of the flesh and start bringing forth only children of God?
Would you guys (both man and woman), who perceive that you are Christian, step out of your marriage, and fornicate, commit adultery and have an extramarital (love motivated) union so that you can bring forth a child of God like Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby?
The above revelation clearly confirm that this is how couples bring forth children of God.
Did you see the movie 'Braveheart' staring Mel Gibson?
It is a story about a kingdom in bondage under a tyrannical King called Longshanks. Mel's character was William Wallace, a brave and capable worrier who came to free that kingdom of tyrannical rule.
It is very important that William Wallace was very brave. In fact the name of the picture, 'Braveheart' is very important. William Wallace was man whose heart was not not waxed gross and he was also very brave. To be brave is to be without fear. The absence of fear is the presence of God. Therefore William Wallace was a child of God, like Issac. The King was a child of the flesh, like Ishmael.
It seemed that King Longshank's marriage was under law and loveless. Therefore in that marriage only children of the flesh can be brought forth.
In that kingdom children of the flesh were already persecuting children of God. This would continue under any offspring that the King and the Queen had.
The Queen did not love or even like the King. The King seemed love-less (his heart was waxed grossed). At any event he was already old and dying. Apparently the queen fell in love with William Wallace. In the dead of night she secretly went to William Wallace' tent and she fornicated, committed adultery and had an extramarital procreative encounter with him. She was impregnated.
Then the kingdom was to be left in the hand of a future leader who is a child of God. That is a child who was brought forth out of a sexual procreative act that was an expression of love between the Queen and William Wallace.
This child was not brought forth through a sexual procreative act that was done under law. This child was to be a savior of sorts.
This was to end the persecution of children of God by children of the flesh in Longshank's kingdom.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh (children of the flesh) persecuted him that was born after the Spirit (children of God), even so it is now.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, it does not make a shred of difference.
You misquoted me as follows:
You made-up that statement and somehow posted it (in post # 6) as coming from me. I did not make that statement. I am not aware that "he was fathered by Sir Anthony Montague Browne, not by Gavin Welby who raised him."
However you are saying that it makes a shred of difference that he was fathered by Sir Anthony Montague Browne, not by Gavin Welby who raised him.
I must ask you, in what way do you believe that, it make a shred of difference that he was fathered by Sir Anthony Montague Browne, not by Gavin Welby who raised him?
. . . seeing that the Lord Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit and raised by Joseph and we are speaking about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
Should we not take the Lord Jesus' life as some kind of Christian example?
Is it not a matter of genetics? He was fathered by a 'Sir' and raised by an 'ordinary' man. The only advantage (and/or intent?) must be genetics. (same as the Lord Jesus, only not as divine?)
Why would Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seem to says that, genetics does not count or matter (to people)?
It would not be the same if Jesus was born of Mother Mary and an ordinary Jew. Genetics seems to matter, most definitely and especially in Christianity.
. . . especially when it is possible, for human sexually procreating couples, to bring forth either children of the flesh or children of God.
Abraham had two sons. One was born a child of the flesh (Ishmael). The other was born a child of God (Issac). This was done through normal human sexual procreative sex. They had different mothers. You can't easily beat or change 'born with' dispositions. The child of the flesh persecuted the child of God.
A billion strong traditional Christians do not seem to know that humans can bring forth either children of the flesh or children of God, through their sexual procreative act.
However, the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seem to know and have this truth, which is revealed in the KJV N.T.
A billion strong are called to change from being children of the flesh to being children of God, only a few make it. Children of the flesh always persecute children of God.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh (children of the flesh) persecuted him that was born after the Spirit (children of God), even so it is now.
Children of the flesh are born that way. It is in their genetic make-up. Genetics seem to matter.
Why would or should anyone want to bring forth a child of the flesh? If a couple cannot bring forth a child of God, it seems wise for them to not bring forth children of their own. Instead they should have someone who can bring forth a child of God, father or mother a child with one of them and then they raise that child as their own. This seems to be the Christian way. However it is total foreign (and taboo) to the billion of traditional Christians.
May be this new information about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (and the long acceptance of this information by the church), will help to purify, in these last days, what passed erroneously, for Christianity for millenniums among the masses.
1.) It is not wrong (in fact it is divine) in Christianity to have a love motivated extramarital affair, especially if a child is brought forth out of such an affair. At all events only children of God are brought forth out of love motivated procreative sex. God is Love. When God as Love motivates your sexual acts, God is present and participating. If procreation result from such sex, only children of God are brought forth.
2.) Actually, in Christianity, it is a sin to have sex and/or procreate with your spouse or anyone else, if it is not motivated by passionate love. Love-less sex is purely carnal. If it results in procreation, only children of the flesh are brought forth.
Fact is 'children of the flesh' will not inherit earth together with 'children of God', in the fullness of time when God's kingdom of heaven comes to earth.
If this new information about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby can lead to the confirmation and acceptance of the above Christian truth (re 1. and 2. above), then a truly divine purpose would have been served.
This would add to the purification or correction of the corruption which passed for Christianity, up to this time.
False prophets who came in Jesus' name have misled the billion strong traditional Christians for the past 2000 odd years. They have been denied truth. This is changing now. The fullness of time is at hand. Now all previously hidden or covered things are surfacing for all to know, in absolute plainness and clarity.
Seems that all traditional Christian churches will be reduced, very soon, to zero, so as to give way to authentic Christianity. This is the fullness of time promise/prophesy.
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
I think your interpretation of Romans 9 regarding flesh and the promise is wrong. And also, Jesus said that divorce was only permissible for marital infidelity - you appear to be advocating extra marital love unions for the sake of a child supposedly born of God.
Where in Romans: 9 does it speak of flesh and the promise?
I do not 'interpret'. I simply accept the KJV N.T. revelations, 'as is'.
What about Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.:
Abraham had two sons. One was born a child of the flesh (Ishmael). The other was born a child of God (Issac). This was done through normal human sexual procreative sex. They had different mothers. You can't easily beat or change 'born with' dispositions. The child of the flesh persecuted the child of God.
Clearly humans can bring forth either children of the flesh or children of God through normal sexual procreation. Romans: 7 verses: 4 to 6 KJV N.T. are simply confirming how each of these (procreations) are accomplished.
Human procreation that is done under obedience to the law of sin and death (i.e. the ten commandments) brings forth only children of the flesh. Those who ignore and transgress the law of sin and death and are led to procreate by urging of love in their spirits bring forth only children of God.
A billion strong traditional Christians do not seem to know that humans can bring forth either children of the flesh or children of God, through their sexual procreative act.
However, the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seemed to have known and had this truth, which is revealed/confirmed in the KJV N.T.
A billion strong (traditional Christians, like you) are called to change from being children of the flesh to being children of God, only a few make it. ('Many are called but only a few chosen').
Traditional Christians do not seem to know that: they do not have to bring forth children of the flesh and then seek to have them be transformed to children of God. None seem to know that they can start by bringing forth only child of God.
Children of the flesh always persecute children of God. Children of the flesh are not destine to inherit earth together with children of God in the fullness of time.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh (children of the flesh) persecuted him that was born after the Spirit (children of God), even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Where did Jesus say that and to who?
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
The quote is from your post, don't blame me because you don't format your posts well.
You should have read the quote you posted.
Here is your post, with the words I quoted highlighted.
Now, for the stupidest thing you said about my post:
:rotfl:, wrong again, bucko.
I agreed with Welby that is does not make a shred of difference whether he was raised by someone that was not his genetic parent.
O.K. I see your point, bucko.
It would have been expedient to indicate that you are quoting from something which I quoted. By not doing this you ascribed that which I quoted to me. That is totally wrong. Simple protocol in 'Use of English' require that you make that distinction. You did not do so.
Fact is I simply use that information on face value. I accept that it is correct on simple face value. I cannot and do not wish to identify with the quote article in any other way. This is why I chose to put the entire article in red and enlarged inverted comers.
I am sorry if I read your other statement wrong.
You said: "I agreed with Welby that is does not make a shred of difference whether he was raised by someone that was not his genetic parent". Is you opinion founded on any or one or more revelations in the KJV N.T.?
For Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, this conclusion must be based on one or more revelations in the KJV N.T.
Therefore what is the basis of your conclusion 'that it is does not make a shred of difference whether he was raised by someone that was not his genetic parent'?
Also he was not simply adopted. He was not simply raised by someone that was not his genetic parent. He was born out a fornicating, adulterous extramarital union which his mother had. And he was raised by that fornicating, adulterous person who had extramarital sex and brought forth a child. Then this child was appointed Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seem to believe that genetic does not matter. However what about his exposure in that home with a fornicating, adulterous person who had extramarital sex and brought forth a child. What about this environmental exposure?
(I am assuming that his mother continue in her marriage and helped raise him.)
While it might 'not make a shred of difference whether he was raised by someone that was not his genetic parent'. What about the fact that he was born out a fornicating, adulterous extramarital union which his mother had?
And what about the fact that he grew up in that kind of home environment?
At any event, does an apple fall that far from the tree?
Is it O.K. for Christians to have fornicating adulterous extramarital procreative sex? And under what circumstances is this permitted? Is this permitted only when one brings forth Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby?
Is the father of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, ranking with the Holy Spirit? . . . Is it that he can impregnated another person's wife and that child can rise to be a Christian leader?
In Mel Gibson's movie, 'Braveheart', William Wallace did that to King Longshanks' wife, the queen, supposedly to liberate that kingdom. Is this a Christian approach? Is this how and why Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was brought forth, as he was brought forth?
Bucko, in the case of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, revelations from the KJV N.T., which support your opinion, must be provided. It is after all, a Christian thing.
Last edited:
HisServant
New member
He cannot control what his parents did or did not do... all he can do is conduct himself as he should.
However his genetic did come from his mother who fornicated and had adulterous extramarital sex and brought him forth.
Also He grew up with that person who fornicated and had adulterous extra marital sex. It is not that he was separated from his mother who fornicated and has adulterous extra marital sex. And to add insult to injury (of the public) He was brought forth in such a union.
Is this not 'flying the the faces' of traditional Christians? The entire event might be forgiven. However it seem that he must 'take aside' and therefore have only a quite and private life, being responsible for only himself. Nothing else can be risked.
If he overrode his genetics, he still had his environmental influences to deal with.
And then he still qualified to be Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury.
This is not simply about being brought up by a 'good and innocent couple.
He is not simply serving himself. He holds a position of influences over many. And we know that many false prophets came in Jesus' name and misguide many. We also know that many are called and few chosen. Can we leave anything to chance?
A person with that background certain has a right to life on his terms. However it is clearly different for one who accept a positions as Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury.
Last edited:
Who is saying that he can? No one has said that he can control what his parents did (before the conception of his physical body).
However he possess the genes of a woman who fornicated and committed adultery in an extra marital affair. This is the stock from which he came. This is his 'breed'
The KJV N.T. says that mother and son will not go separate ways. Together mother and son will either 'inherit' or be 'cast out'.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Additionally he was not separated from that woman who fornicated and committed adultery in an extra marital affair. Instead he was raised by that woman in her environment. This was his 'pasture'.
Can one deny both 'breed' and 'pasture'? He seemed to have denied his 'breeding'. Can he also deny his 'pasture'?
Fact is both his genetics and environment exposure are directly and perpetually connected to a woman who fornicated, committed adultery in an extra marital affair.
Can anyone simply dismiss his genetics and his environmental exposure simply by saying: He cannot control what his parents did or did not do?
One's genetics and environmental exposure must either 'taint' or 'bless' one.
One whose genetic and environmental exposure is directly linked to a mother who fornicated and committed adultery in an extra marital affair is surely entitled to a personal/private life on his terms. However, being Britain's (or anyone's) Archbishop of Canterbury is quite another matter.
Let no one fool you, further. Traditional Christians are already a seriously endangered specie because they were misled by false prophets. A billion traditional Christians cannot be the chosen few.
Matthew 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 7 King James Version (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
You were advised and warned directly as follows:
Matthews: 7 KJV N.T.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
What do you perceive to be the message in the above? Would you say that the fornicating, adulterous woman who had extramarital procreative sex is 'a tree' who brought forth 'fruit' (a child) who is now Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. The above revelation seems to confirm that a son cannot be that different from the mother. I am simply asking this question, based on the above KJV N.T. revelation.
Now if, on the other hand, you say or prove that the fornication, adultery and extramarital sex that his mother did is not bad (sinful) and if you say or prove that fornication, adultery and extramarital sex that his mother did were blessed acts, then even the environment with his mother, in which he was brought up, would also be blessed. And indeed his mother would be a good tree and he would be a 'good' fruit. Can you say these things?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Did Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother leave her husband and procreated with another man so that she could bring forth a fruit onto God (i.e. a child of God)?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Is it that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was in a marriage under lust and the law and in that marriage she would bring forth only fruits onto death (i.e. children of the flesh)?
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Is it that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's mother was liberated from the old ten commandment law of adultery and fornication so that she can ignore her husband and serve in the newness of spirit and so procreate with another man so that she can bring forth a child of God?
Is this it? Is his mother a good tree and he a good fruit because of the above? And if this is so don't you think that you also need to know this truth which the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seem to have known and also seemed to have practiced?
Last edited:
HisServant,
Galatians: 6 King James Version (KJV)
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Do you hold the belief that fornication, adultery and extramarital sex is 'sowing to the flesh'?
If your answer is yes, then this mother sowed to the flesh. Then her child born out of fornication, adultery and extramarital sex must be a child of the flesh and not a child under the promise of the spirit. Fact is only a child who is brought forth under the promise of the spirit can be a child of God.
Romans: 9 KJV N.T.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The promise relate to serving spirit and not to serving flesh
Galatians 3 King James Version (KJV)
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Do you hold the belief that fornication, adultery and extramarital sex is 'sowing to the flesh'? Are these acts absolutely sinful?
The 2000 year old new Christian teaching confirms that when one serve in the newness of spirit, fornication, adultery and extramarital sex are not sinful but divine (pleasing to God). That is, when one ignore and transgress the law of fornication, adultery and extramarital sex so as to serves in the newness of spirit, one brings forth only fruits onto God.
Are you actively denying and undermining the above Christian teaching? Are you upholding the opposite antichrist and Satanic belief and (falsely) posturing like a Christian? Are you a 'live' false prophet who came in Jesus' name?
If not the above Christian doctrine, what indeed does the following convey:
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
It is only if the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby acted under the above Christian principle when she fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex, that: Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby can be fit to hold that position.
The biggest stumbling block that trips up the billion strong traditional Christians is their unwitting, natural and spontaneous tendency to actively posture like lemon used car sales men, so as to defend Satanic, antichrist ideas and beliefs which plague them and society at large.
The billion strong traditional Christians are essentially 'the dead who are burying their dead' . . . (i.e. they are burying/killething their own kind with foolish antichrist/satanic ideas). They are certainly not the chosen few who follow the Lord Jesus.
Matthew: 8 KJV N.T.
22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Misled fanatical aspiring Christians are no different from misled fanatical aspiring Muslims. They can both be terrorists, especially with their own kind. The worse terrorists are the dead who bury their dead (their own kind) through the promotion and use of false teachings. This leads to spiritual death and delivery to hell with Satan inside the depths of earth. Plain physical death is not at all that serious, when compared.
Matthews: 10 KJV N.T.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The 2000 year old new Christian teaching confirms that when one serves in the newness of spirit, fornication, adultery and extramarital sex are not sinful but divine (pleasing to God). That is, when one ignore and transgress the law of fornication, adultery and extramarital sex so as to serves in the newness of spirit, one brings forth only fruits onto God.
This was most likely exemplified by Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother and both fathers. And clearly, this was also recognized by their church. It was all good (i.e. the behavior and actions of all were good) but only because their actions and behaviors all conformed to the Christian tenant in Romans: 7 verses: 4 to 6 of the KJV N.T.
This is the Christian position as supported by KJV N.T. revelations. Only this can be the Christian position. All other justification, slogans and half baked explanations are simply corruption of Christianity and not substantiated by KJV N.T. revelation.
On the other hand, if the mother and fathers of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was not motivated by spirit into this fornicating, adulterous extramarital procreative sex, the situation is totally different. There is no justification for such behavior and such actions in the KJV N.T.
Matthew 12 King James Version (KJV)
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
According to the above revelation, it seems that if mother is good her son will also be good. However if mother is corrupt, her son will also be corrupt.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Not only is a mother and son the same, God also treat mother and son the same way.
Galatians: 6 King James Version (KJV)
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Do you hold the belief that fornication, adultery and extramarital sex is 'sowing to the flesh'?
If your answer is yes, then this mother sowed to the flesh. Then her child born out of fornication, adultery and extramarital sex must be a child of the flesh and not a child under the promise of the spirit. Fact is only a child who is brought forth under the promise of the spirit can be a child of God.
Romans: 9 KJV N.T.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The promise relate to serving spirit and not to serving flesh
Galatians 3 King James Version (KJV)
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Do you hold the belief that fornication, adultery and extramarital sex is 'sowing to the flesh'? Are these acts absolutely sinful?
The 2000 year old new Christian teaching confirms that when one serve in the newness of spirit, fornication, adultery and extramarital sex are not sinful but divine (pleasing to God). That is, when one ignore and transgress the law of fornication, adultery and extramarital sex so as to serves in the newness of spirit, one brings forth only fruits onto God.
Are you actively denying and undermining the above Christian teaching? Are you upholding the opposite antichrist and Satanic belief and (falsely) posturing like a Christian? Are you a 'live' false prophet who came in Jesus' name?
If not the above Christian doctrine, what indeed does the following convey:
Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
It is only if the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby acted under the above Christian principle when she fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex, that: Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby can be fit to hold that position.
The biggest stumbling block that trips up the billion strong traditional Christians is their unwitting, natural and spontaneous tendency to actively posture like lemon used car sales men, so as to defend Satanic, antichrist ideas and beliefs which plague them and society at large.
The billion strong traditional Christians are essentially 'the dead who are burying their dead' . . . (i.e. they are burying/killething their own kind with foolish antichrist/satanic ideas). They are certainly not the chosen few who follow the Lord Jesus.
Matthew: 8 KJV N.T.
22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Misled fanatical aspiring Christians are no different from misled fanatical aspiring Muslims. They can both be terrorists, especially with their own kind. The worse terrorists are the dead who bury their dead (their own kind) through the promotion and use of false teachings. This leads to spiritual death and delivery to hell with Satan inside the depths of earth. Plain physical death is not at all that serious, when compared.
Matthews: 10 KJV N.T.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The 2000 year old new Christian teaching confirms that when one serves in the newness of spirit, fornication, adultery and extramarital sex are not sinful but divine (pleasing to God). That is, when one ignore and transgress the law of fornication, adultery and extramarital sex so as to serves in the newness of spirit, one brings forth only fruits onto God.
This was most likely exemplified by Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother and both fathers. And clearly, this was also recognized by their church. It was all good (i.e. the behavior and actions of all were good) but only because their actions and behaviors all conformed to the Christian tenant in Romans: 7 verses: 4 to 6 of the KJV N.T.
This is the Christian position as supported by KJV N.T. revelations. Only this can be the Christian position. All other justification, slogans and half baked explanations are simply corruption of Christianity and not substantiated by KJV N.T. revelation.
On the other hand, if the mother and fathers of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was not motivated by spirit into this fornicating, adulterous extramarital procreative sex, the situation is totally different. There is no justification for such behavior and such actions in the KJV N.T.
Matthew 12 King James Version (KJV)
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
According to the above revelation, it seems that if mother is good her son will also be good. However if mother is corrupt, her son will also be corrupt.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Not only is a mother and son the same, God also treat mother and son the same way.
Last edited:
HisServant
New member
I'm glad god is much more forgiving than you are.... just look at the 'genes' of Mary.
genuineoriginal
New member
Why should it be?
Why?
Why?
Why would you think that?
genuineoriginal
New member
Have you looked at the genealogy of Jesus?
Do not be surprised if it surfaces that the highest positions in churches, which are held to be Christian churches, are held by false prophets.
It is very likely to be so, because the Lord confirmed that: many false prophets will rise and misguide many. This can happen only if false prophets occupy the highest positions in traditional Christianity and from that position they fool many and/or misled many.
Matthews: 24 KJV N.T.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matthew 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 7 King James Version (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Additionally it is prophesied that 'false prophets' will be exposed in absolute clarity in the last days.
It is very likely to be so, because the Lord confirmed that: many false prophets will rise and misguide many. This can happen only if false prophets occupy the highest positions in traditional Christianity and from that position they fool many and/or misled many.
Matthews: 24 KJV N.T.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matthew 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 7 King James Version (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Additionally it is prophesied that 'false prophets' will be exposed in absolute clarity in the last days.
The first part of the reply.
It matters that your opinion is supported by revelations from the KJV N.T. because we are speaking about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. He has accepted a position to be among the highest Christian leaders in Britain. In this role, he is not a private individual.
Also, in this role, he is not a leader on his own right and own making. In this role, he rides on the back of the Lord Jesus in order to have his position and power over other humans.
Therefore, in this role, not only must his teachings exemplify accurate Christianity as confirmed by KJV N.T. revelations, his actions and direction must be totally supportable (and justifiable) by revelations in the KJV N.T.
Both he and you must be prepared to provide KJV N.T revelations to support (and/or justify) all actions of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
One who uses 'Jesus' and 'Christianity' whiles promoting and teaching his own thing is simply a false prophet who came in Jesus' name.
There is a difference in being in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and being a Christian leader and teacher.
One who is simply in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is not answerable to any human. He is answerable only and directly to the Spirit, 'not seen' and eternal Son of God, Lord Jesus.
On the other hand, a leader and teacher is always responsible for and answerable to all his charges. All actions of one who accepts and/or claim to be, a 'Christian' leader and teacher must be defend-able by one or more revelations in the KJV N.T. Without this such a leader and teacher has no protection.
In fact if such a 'supposed Christian' leader (unwittingly) leads his charges to hell he will assume the cumulative sin and suffering of all his charges, if he was not simply promoting Jesus' teachings.
If his actions cannot be defended by revelations in the KJV N.T. then he cannot be and is not, a Christian leader. He is simply pretending to be a Christian leader. He is simply a false prophet who came in Jesus' name.
One who wants to teach and promote his own thing must have the courage, like the Lord Jesus, to stand apart and alone and teach and promote his own thing on his own name.
Last edited: