genuineoriginal
New member
Prove that Welby's mother is a bondswoman (slave), then we can go further.
Archbishop of Canterbury "not embarrassed" over new father
- Thread starter Gurucam
- Start date
Prove that Welby's mother is a bondswoman (slave), then we can go further.
You are saying that she is a bondwoman? Please prove it.
All the article says is that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby fornicated and had adulterous extramarital sex which brought forth, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. That is it.
And the KJV N.T. confirmed that Abraham also had a son through fornication and adulterous extramarital sex and this was a child of the flesh. In this case the woman happened to be a bondwoman. And the scriptures instructed Cast out the bondwoman and her son.
'Bondwoman' was used only to identify the woman. It was not used to to indicate that all bondwomen and their sons must be cast out . . . or was it? What is your take?
As far as what the article and scriptures says, both women seemed to have fornicated, committed adultery and extramarital sex. And they both brought forth sons from their fornication and adulterous extramarital sex. And it seems that according to scriptures, both sets of mother and son must be cast out.
It does seem to matter that the woman mentioned in scriptures was a bondwoman. It seems to matter only that she committed fornication, adultery and extramarital sex and brought forth a child of the flesh from those acts. And this seems to what both sets of woman and son had in common or need to have in common for mother and son to be cast out.
It seems that the scriptural instruction, 'cast out of mother and their son' applies to all woman (slave or not) who bring froth children through fornicating adultery and extramarital sex.
Fact is, each of those woman could be in any profession or circumstance and that would not matter. Being a bondwoman is not the sin. That is not the reason why scriptures says, cast out the bondwoman and her son.
I do not know and I discern no need or reason to want to know and/or to prove or disprove that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was a bondwoman. That seems to be your calling.
At any event, whether or not any of them was a bondwoman at the time of their fornication adultery and extramarital sex, does not seem to impact on the generalized scriptural instruction.
It seems that the generalized scriptural instruction that mother and son be cast out applies only because mother fornicated and committed adulterous extramarital sex and brought forth her son from those acts. Do you disagree?
In your view: Why was the son of the bondwoman, a 'child of the flesh' and why was the son of the wife, a 'child of God'? And why did scriptures instruct that the child of the flesh and his mother be cast out?
Is this, in any way, connected to fornication, adultery and extramarital sex?
The questions are very simple. Do not put on your lemon used car salesman, posturing.
Last edited:
Genuineoriginal,
Re. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother
As far as the article goes, everyone seems to accept that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex and Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was born of those acts.
As far as the KJV N.T. is concerned, the central issue is very simple. Mothers and their sons are not separable:
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.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
In your view:
1. Why was the son of the bondwoman, a 'child of the flesh'
2. why was the son of the wife, a 'child of God'?
3. why did scriptures instruct that the child of the flesh and his mother be cast out?
4. Is this, in any way, connected to fornication, adultery and extramarital sex?
5. Does this mean that when a woman (whether she is a slave or not) sows fornication, adultery and extramarital sex she reaps a child of the flesh. Then both mother and child must be cast out?
6. Indeed, is it true that what a woman sow, that shall she reap?
7. Does this apply to all fornicating, adulterous mothers who have extramarital sex and their sons, when their sons come from these acts?
8. Does this apply to all women and their sons, even if the woman is the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and the son is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby?
The questions are very simple and straightforward. Do not put on your lemon used car salesman, posturing (as traditional Christians tend to do). Simply go for honesty and straightforwardness. Simply give your opinion openly and freely.
Do not act like one of the billion strong traditional Christians, they cannot be the chosen few who have things correct. They are simply to many to be a few. Also they seem to be always bluffing and posturing like lemon used car salesmen, so as to prop-up their erroneous beliefs and corrupt leaders.
Stand apart with a chosen few and be straightforward, you will have a better chance of being correct and not erring and being chosen.
Remember:
Matthew 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthews: 22 KJV N.T.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err (and are not chosen), (by) not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
You cannot afford to err. You cannot afford to posture like a lemon used car sales man. If you do, you will only deceive yourself and fail to actually know scriptures. Then you will err and not be chosen . . . so said the Lord Jesus.
Do not cry for and/or prop-up Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby at the cost of destroying your eternal self. Posturing like a lemon used car sales man will certainly killeth you. That is a denial of self. Resist the evil temptation to posture like a lemon used car salesman.
Re. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother
As far as the article goes, everyone seems to accept that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex and Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was born of those acts.
As far as the KJV N.T. is concerned, the central issue is very simple. Mothers and their sons are not separable:
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.
Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
In your view:
1. Why was the son of the bondwoman, a 'child of the flesh'
2. why was the son of the wife, a 'child of God'?
3. why did scriptures instruct that the child of the flesh and his mother be cast out?
4. Is this, in any way, connected to fornication, adultery and extramarital sex?
5. Does this mean that when a woman (whether she is a slave or not) sows fornication, adultery and extramarital sex she reaps a child of the flesh. Then both mother and child must be cast out?
6. Indeed, is it true that what a woman sow, that shall she reap?
7. Does this apply to all fornicating, adulterous mothers who have extramarital sex and their sons, when their sons come from these acts?
8. Does this apply to all women and their sons, even if the woman is the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and the son is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby?
The questions are very simple and straightforward. Do not put on your lemon used car salesman, posturing (as traditional Christians tend to do). Simply go for honesty and straightforwardness. Simply give your opinion openly and freely.
Do not act like one of the billion strong traditional Christians, they cannot be the chosen few who have things correct. They are simply to many to be a few. Also they seem to be always bluffing and posturing like lemon used car salesmen, so as to prop-up their erroneous beliefs and corrupt leaders.
Stand apart with a chosen few and be straightforward, you will have a better chance of being correct and not erring and being chosen.
Remember:
Matthew 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthews: 22 KJV N.T.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err (and are not chosen), (by) not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
You cannot afford to err. You cannot afford to posture like a lemon used car sales man. If you do, you will only deceive yourself and fail to actually know scriptures. Then you will err and not be chosen . . . so said the Lord Jesus.
Do not cry for and/or prop-up Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby at the cost of destroying your eternal self. Posturing like a lemon used car sales man will certainly killeth you. That is a denial of self. Resist the evil temptation to posture like a lemon used car salesman.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
FTFY, and you are welcome.
That is what I asked you to do, since you are the one claiming Welby's mother is a slave (bondwoman) by saying that the verse about the bondwoman and her son applies in this situation.
genuineoriginal
New member
If you believe that, then you should stop doing it.
Genuineoriginal,
According to the article, everyone concerned seems to accept that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby fornicate, commit adultery and had extramarital sex and brought forth a son, who is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, out of those acts.
Also this is all that was made public in that article and it seems to be enough. The rest is up to revelations in the KJV N.T.
The 'bondwoman' thing is your added on thing. It does not seem to matter whether or not the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a bondwoman.
If there is authentic evidence that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a 'bondwoman' please bring it on board. Do not ask others to prove what you may suspect and brought up.
Fact is one does not have to be a bondwoman to fornicate, commit adultery and have extramarital sex and bring forth a son out of those acts. Therefore your 'bondwoman thing' is a none issue.
The 'bondwoman' thing is not important. The bondwoman thing seems unique to the woman who fornicating, committed adultery and had extramarital sex with Abraham. This does not have any thing to do with the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. Please do not add your unsubstantiated dimension.
The important thing, that is under consideration, seems to be that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, fornicate, commit adultery and had extramarital sex . . . and she brought forth a son, who is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, out of those acts.
Like with the fornicating adulterous and extramarital sex case involving Abraham, must Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother be caste out? Only this is the question and issue.
If under the rules of his supposed Christian church, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother were not cast out, as the KJV N.T. scriptures instructed, it is very necessary and expedient, for ordinary humans to be told how come and why.
Indeed if there is some secret way under which fornication, adultery and extramarital sex can bring forth a child who is not cast out with his mother . . . but instead, becomes Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, everyone should be privy to that information. That seems to be a secret way to bring forth a child of God through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex.
Please do not confuse the issue.
You seem to be projecting that 'being a bondwoman' is some kind of justification to fornicate, commit adultery, have extramarital sex and so bring forth a child form such actions. The 'bondwoman thing' seems to be your 'red herring thing'.
1. Are you suggesting that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a bondwoman?
2. Are you offering that in her defense?
3. Can any kind of fornication, adultery and/or extramarital sex be justified?
4. If you have a spouse, Do you permit your spouse to do those things?
A woman who is free to choose, can also fornicate, commit adultery and have extramarital sex and bring forth a son out of those acts.
The revelation in the KJV N.T. seems to instructs that in all fornicating, adulterous and extramarital sex situation, both mother and son must be cast out.
Are you trying to muddle up information or to get to the bottom of things? Only one whose arguments are absolute foolishness use 'subterfuge', 'red herrings' and other such things that you are using.
Do not fear truth, it can and will set you free.
According to the article, everyone concerned seems to accept that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby fornicate, commit adultery and had extramarital sex and brought forth a son, who is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, out of those acts.
Also this is all that was made public in that article and it seems to be enough. The rest is up to revelations in the KJV N.T.
The 'bondwoman' thing is your added on thing. It does not seem to matter whether or not the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a bondwoman.
If there is authentic evidence that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a 'bondwoman' please bring it on board. Do not ask others to prove what you may suspect and brought up.
Fact is one does not have to be a bondwoman to fornicate, commit adultery and have extramarital sex and bring forth a son out of those acts. Therefore your 'bondwoman thing' is a none issue.
The 'bondwoman' thing is not important. The bondwoman thing seems unique to the woman who fornicating, committed adultery and had extramarital sex with Abraham. This does not have any thing to do with the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. Please do not add your unsubstantiated dimension.
The important thing, that is under consideration, seems to be that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, fornicate, commit adultery and had extramarital sex . . . and she brought forth a son, who is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, out of those acts.
Like with the fornicating adulterous and extramarital sex case involving Abraham, must Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother be caste out? Only this is the question and issue.
If under the rules of his supposed Christian church, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother were not cast out, as the KJV N.T. scriptures instructed, it is very necessary and expedient, for ordinary humans to be told how come and why.
Indeed if there is some secret way under which fornication, adultery and extramarital sex can bring forth a child who is not cast out with his mother . . . but instead, becomes Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, everyone should be privy to that information. That seems to be a secret way to bring forth a child of God through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex.
Please do not confuse the issue.
You seem to be projecting that 'being a bondwoman' is some kind of justification to fornicate, commit adultery, have extramarital sex and so bring forth a child form such actions. The 'bondwoman thing' seems to be your 'red herring thing'.
1. Are you suggesting that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a bondwoman?
2. Are you offering that in her defense?
3. Can any kind of fornication, adultery and/or extramarital sex be justified?
4. If you have a spouse, Do you permit your spouse to do those things?
A woman who is free to choose, can also fornicate, commit adultery and have extramarital sex and bring forth a son out of those acts.
The revelation in the KJV N.T. seems to instructs that in all fornicating, adulterous and extramarital sex situation, both mother and son must be cast out.
Are you trying to muddle up information or to get to the bottom of things? Only one whose arguments are absolute foolishness use 'subterfuge', 'red herrings' and other such things that you are using.
Do not fear truth, it can and will set you free.
Last edited:
Friends,
Expect truth to surface, now, in the fullness of time and expose false prophets who came in Jesus' name and who are misguiding many. This is the Lord Jesus' promise to you.
Luke: 8 KJV N.T.
17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
The time is at hand (note this disclosure about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the Panama papers, the failed Capitalist system, etc. . . . these are all truth, surfacing, in the fullness of time.)
Beware of the likes of Genuineoriginal, who seems bent on being a false prophet and one who seems bent on backing up false ideas and false prophets.
Note and use the KJV N.T., your selves, directly:
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.
The above confirms, in absolute clarity that when one serves in the newness of spirit, one has God given freedom, liberty and justification to fornicate, commit adultery and have extramarital sex. One will get no sin but instead be glorified by God and one will bring forth a child of God.
Romans: 8 KJV N.T.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
It seems that the church of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby used the above revelation to not cast out Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother and instead appoint and keep Justin Welby as Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury.
The above revelation confirms, very clearly: When one serves in the 'newness of spirit', fornicating, adultery and extramarital sex are 'blessed by God' actions. One is glorified by God and one brings forth a child of God.
Please check this for your own good edification.
Let us hope that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was led into her fornication, adultery and extramarital sex because she was serving in the newness of spirit.
Genuineoriginal seems to be among the dead who are actively seeking to bury their dead. He is blinding and deceiving those who take him seriously. He is denying and undermining simple KJV N.T. revelations.
He seems to be serving Satan and recruiting for Satan. Please ignore him and his antichrist/anti-scriptures rhetoric. Instead go directly to and use only, the KJV N.T. . . . for your own good.
Expect truth to surface, now, in the fullness of time and expose false prophets who came in Jesus' name and who are misguiding many. This is the Lord Jesus' promise to you.
Luke: 8 KJV N.T.
17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
The time is at hand (note this disclosure about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the Panama papers, the failed Capitalist system, etc. . . . these are all truth, surfacing, in the fullness of time.)
Beware of the likes of Genuineoriginal, who seems bent on being a false prophet and one who seems bent on backing up false ideas and false prophets.
Note and use the KJV N.T., your selves, directly:
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.
The above confirms, in absolute clarity that when one serves in the newness of spirit, one has God given freedom, liberty and justification to fornicate, commit adultery and have extramarital sex. One will get no sin but instead be glorified by God and one will bring forth a child of God.
Romans: 8 KJV N.T.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
It seems that the church of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby used the above revelation to not cast out Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother and instead appoint and keep Justin Welby as Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury.
The above revelation confirms, very clearly: When one serves in the 'newness of spirit', fornicating, adultery and extramarital sex are 'blessed by God' actions. One is glorified by God and one brings forth a child of God.
Please check this for your own good edification.
Let us hope that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was led into her fornication, adultery and extramarital sex because she was serving in the newness of spirit.
Genuineoriginal seems to be among the dead who are actively seeking to bury their dead. He is blinding and deceiving those who take him seriously. He is denying and undermining simple KJV N.T. revelations.
He seems to be serving Satan and recruiting for Satan. Please ignore him and his antichrist/anti-scriptures rhetoric. Instead go directly to and use only, the KJV N.T. . . . for your own good.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
When I asked you for the verses from the New Testament that showed why you object to Welby, you posted the verse about the bondwoman.
I showed that it does not apply, but you seem to be unable to come up with any other verse to justify your ridiculous ranting.
Find another verse, and we can discuss it.
Under grace of God, now, in the fullness of time, it was revealed for all to know that: the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex to bring forth, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. This is the facts as admitted by all.
The surfacing of this information at this critical time should not be surprising:
Luke: 8 KJV N.T.
17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
The Lord and God grant this favor, now in the fullness of time, among so many other disclosures of truth. And you do not want to find out if, 'cast out, both, the fornicating, adulterous woman who had extramarital sex and her son who was born out of those actions', must apply to Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and his mother. God is not mocked, what a woman sows that shall she bring forth.
Galatians: 6 King James Version (KJV)
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man (i.e. woman too) soweth, that shall he (or she) also reap.
Instead you are trying to cover it up.
The least that an interested and aspiring Christian must do is, request that the church to which Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby belongs, confirm/disclose their rules.
Matthews: 21 KJV N.T.
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
It does not seem likely that the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex, would bring forth the required fruit, through that pathway.
How indeed, does a woman bring forth a good fruit? Is it through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex?
Should we not look into this whole affair properly?
Last edited:
This is a further caution, a possible red flag:
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.
Can we know a child by knowing his or her mother?
The above seems to say: if the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a 'bad tree', then Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is a 'bad fruit'.
Luke: 6 KJV N.T.
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
45 A good man (or woman) out of the good treasure of his (or her) heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man (or woman) out of the evil treasure of his (or her) heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
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.
Can we know a child by knowing his or her mother?
The above seems to say: if the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was a 'bad tree', then Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is a 'bad fruit'.
Luke: 6 KJV N.T.
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
45 A good man (or woman) out of the good treasure of his (or her) heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man (or woman) out of the evil treasure of his (or her) heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Last edited:
Fact is the Lord Jesus was contaminated by his human genetic. In his physical, 'seen' and temporal, body he was the son of man.
Luke: 12 KJV N.T.
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
The Lord Jesus was no big thing as the son of man. This was purely because of the half of his genetics which he inherited from his mother. The physical Jesus could not deny, dismiss and/or distance himself from his human genetic. Jesus' genetic determined and controlled who he was.
It was also heavily promoted that mother Mary was a virgin and an all round 'good' woman . . . because genetics mattered and matters. This was all a testimony or declaration, of the 'good genes' that Jesus will inherit.
Also the Lord Jesus was born of mother Mary and the Holy Spirit because genetics mattered and matters. Without the genetics of the Holy Spirit there could be no Jesus. All they would have had was an ordinary spiritually dead human (Jew?).
However Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby can deny, dismiss and/or distance himself from his human genetic and his mother. How unfortunate is that. And foolish people are buying into and defending that, simply on face value.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was brought forth through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex of his mother, . . . so it is expedient that he distance himself from his genetics and so 'dishonor' and 'curse' his mother . . . for his own survival:
Matthew: 15 King James Version (KJV)
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
The physical, 'seen' and temporal son of man Jesus was genetically, man and Holy Spirit. He might be blasphemed and one shall be forgiven.
However the Spirit, 'not seen' and eternal, Son of God Lord Jesus is very different because 'genetically, He is the pure son of the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians: 15 KJV N.T.
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
The physical, 'seen' and temporal, son of man Jesus was not lord. He is not our Lord. Since 2000 odd years ago, the Spirit, 'not seen' and eternal Son of God Jesus is Lord.
2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now (since 2000 odd years ago) the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Luke: 12 KJV N.T.
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
The Lord Jesus was no big thing as the son of man. This was purely because of the half of his genetics which he inherited from his mother. The physical Jesus could not deny, dismiss and/or distance himself from his human genetic. Jesus' genetic determined and controlled who he was.
It was also heavily promoted that mother Mary was a virgin and an all round 'good' woman . . . because genetics mattered and matters. This was all a testimony or declaration, of the 'good genes' that Jesus will inherit.
Also the Lord Jesus was born of mother Mary and the Holy Spirit because genetics mattered and matters. Without the genetics of the Holy Spirit there could be no Jesus. All they would have had was an ordinary spiritually dead human (Jew?).
However Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby can deny, dismiss and/or distance himself from his human genetic and his mother. How unfortunate is that. And foolish people are buying into and defending that, simply on face value.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was brought forth through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex of his mother, . . . so it is expedient that he distance himself from his genetics and so 'dishonor' and 'curse' his mother . . . for his own survival:
Matthew: 15 King James Version (KJV)
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
The physical, 'seen' and temporal son of man Jesus was genetically, man and Holy Spirit. He might be blasphemed and one shall be forgiven.
However the Spirit, 'not seen' and eternal, Son of God Lord Jesus is very different because 'genetically, He is the pure son of the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians: 15 KJV N.T.
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
The physical, 'seen' and temporal, son of man Jesus was not lord. He is not our Lord. Since 2000 odd years ago, the Spirit, 'not seen' and eternal Son of God Jesus is Lord.
2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now (since 2000 odd years ago) the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
I am not trying to cover it up.
I am trying to understand why you are so determined to hold Welby accountable for the actions of his mother.
Why indeed would Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby say: "People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not my genetic makeup."
It must be to distance himself from his mother. Why would he do that . . . because she fornicated, committed adultery and extramarital sex to bring him forth . . . and he perceives that to be wrong. So he is attempting to run and hide from his genes and his mother.
However authentic Christians must and will judge him on his genetics . . . because genetics matters. Jesus was Jesus because of his genetics . . . Jesus was Jesus because he had the genes of a good woman (mother Mary) and he also had the genes of the Holy Spirit.
Without that genealogy Jesus would not be Jesus.
It must be to distance himself from his mother. Why would he do that . . . because she fornicated, committed adultery and extramarital sex to bring him forth . . . and he perceives that to be wrong. So he is attempting to run and hide from his genes and his mother.
However authentic Christians must and will judge him on his genetics . . . because genetics matters. Jesus was Jesus because of his genetics . . . Jesus was Jesus because he had the genes of a good woman (mother Mary) and he also had the genes of the Holy Spirit.
Without that genealogy Jesus would not be Jesus.
You are attempting a cover up and a baseless, boldface and corrupt one at that.
1. Simply because 'a fruit does not fall far from its tree'.
2. Simply because Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby was brought forth through his mother's fornication adultery and extramarital sex . . . and the fruit (child) of a woman is like the woman:
Luke: 6 KJV N.T.
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
3. Simply put: according to the KJV N.T., if the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is corrupt, then Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is corrupt.
According to the KJV N.T. and Christianity, a corrupt mother can bring forth only a corrupt child.
This is why a virgin who was actually, a totally good woman was called to bring forth Jesus. It was not an arbitrary thing. It was not slackness. Genetic mattered. This is so absolute clear.
This means that, as far as Christianity goes, if you want to prove that Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is good, then you must prove that his mother is good . . . because, as far as Christianity goes, if his mother is not good, he cannot be good.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said: "People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not my genetic makeup."
Christianity is not simply about judging someone on what he do.
Matthews: 5 KJV N.T.
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
He is certainly trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his followers. He mention only what 'he do'. He did not mentions his 'not seen' doings.
One's heart is closely linked to one's genetics. One's genetics are one natural and inherent tendencies. One's genetics are heredity. They are determined in part by one's mother.
If one's mother has fornicated, committed adultery and had extramarital sex, that genetic tendency will be in her son.
If the son does not physically fornicate, commit adultery and/or have extramarital sex, he could still practice those things, abstractly, in his heart (and only he would know). No one can judge him on that practice. And indeed, he would have that tendency, naturally.
How could or would an aspiring Christian trust Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby who has that genetic weakness?
Christians cannot know his heart and/or what he does in his heart.
However by knowing about the mother of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, one would know the genetics predispositions of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. And that genetic predisposition, is not at all palatable.
That genetic predisposition is not acceptable in one who is Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury. It is to risky for his charges. He does not have to be Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury.
He should have long excused himself.
Indeed it is best that he resign for the good of all. He has been compromised. He can continue to have a private life on his terms. It is not like he is God's only supposed gift to that church.
I suspect that he will eventually resign, like it or not.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal,
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said: "People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not my genetic makeup."
That seems to be a seriously contradictory statement. When it comes to making a judgment, 'who I am' and 'my genetic makeup' is the same or at least mostly the same.
His statement seems equivalent to: "People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not on who I am."
Fact is 'judging' happens only through genetic expression whether physically expressed or 'heart' expressed, i.e. whether the genetic expressions are 'seen' or 'not seen'.
Matthews: 5 KJV N.T.
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
He seems to be attempting 'to pull the wool over the eyes' of his charges who he must believe to be foolish.
I have already dealt, fully, with the part of his statement, 'judging what I do'. I did so in the previous post.
He totally fails to mention the possible 'not seen' or (in his heart or hidden) expression of his particular predisposing genetic make up.
It is well known that some priests (probably in spite of their best deliberation) are over come or overpowered by their lustful genetic predisposition and physically prey on their most vulnerable charges. However these lustful genetic predisposition must have been simmering, unseen or 'not seen' in their hearts for much longer, before.
'Many are called and few chosen' because few are able to override or overcome their undesirable 'born with' genetics predispositions and tendencies.
In the case of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby it is widely know that one of his predisposing genetic tendency can be fornication, adultery and extramarital sex. Seems that he does not practice these physically. However how will his charges judge or know, whether or not he practice those in his 'heart'.
It is not at all reasonable and/or necessary to put or keep, his charges in that unfortunate predicament. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is only a simple man who can and must be replaced, for the good of millions.
Why your big fight to keep him there under these serious circumstances and serious risk factors?
It seems that he can be justly given the benefits of all doubts only if he resigns and goes quietly into a private life.
Seems that both he and you are simply being bold, brazen and fast and loose with truth.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said: "People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not my genetic makeup."
That seems to be a seriously contradictory statement. When it comes to making a judgment, 'who I am' and 'my genetic makeup' is the same or at least mostly the same.
His statement seems equivalent to: "People will judge me on who I am and on what I do, not on who I am."
Fact is 'judging' happens only through genetic expression whether physically expressed or 'heart' expressed, i.e. whether the genetic expressions are 'seen' or 'not seen'.
Matthews: 5 KJV N.T.
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
He seems to be attempting 'to pull the wool over the eyes' of his charges who he must believe to be foolish.
I have already dealt, fully, with the part of his statement, 'judging what I do'. I did so in the previous post.
He totally fails to mention the possible 'not seen' or (in his heart or hidden) expression of his particular predisposing genetic make up.
It is well known that some priests (probably in spite of their best deliberation) are over come or overpowered by their lustful genetic predisposition and physically prey on their most vulnerable charges. However these lustful genetic predisposition must have been simmering, unseen or 'not seen' in their hearts for much longer, before.
'Many are called and few chosen' because few are able to override or overcome their undesirable 'born with' genetics predispositions and tendencies.
In the case of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby it is widely know that one of his predisposing genetic tendency can be fornication, adultery and extramarital sex. Seems that he does not practice these physically. However how will his charges judge or know, whether or not he practice those in his 'heart'.
It is not at all reasonable and/or necessary to put or keep, his charges in that unfortunate predicament. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is only a simple man who can and must be replaced, for the good of millions.
Why your big fight to keep him there under these serious circumstances and serious risk factors?
It seems that he can be justly given the benefits of all doubts only if he resigns and goes quietly into a private life.
Seems that both he and you are simply being bold, brazen and fast and loose with truth.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
If that is how you feel, you should just stop pretending to be a Christian.
genuineoriginal,
Your idea that the genes of a mother is not in her child is ludicrous and simplistic.
Fact is everyone's genetics is directly inherited from his or her past generations in a well established old and well known scientific formulae.
Fact is at least 25% of the genes of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is directly, of his mother, who fornicated, committed adultery and had marital sex to bring him forth. Also another 25% is also directly of his father who participated in that fornication adultery and extramarital sex to bring him forth.
It was no Holy Spirit conception, like Jesus'. It was a fornicating, adulterous and extramarital sex, conception by two ordinary humans.
Ordinary logic, modern science and revelations in the KJV N.T. all confirms that 'like mother, like son.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seems to be simply denying his genes and his mother conveniently. And that seems sinful and punishable and a very bad example, as Christian behavior goes:
Matthew: 15 King James Version (KJV)
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
He is already on the run. And he can be expected to make more foolish anti-scripture pronouncement.
Fact is, try as he may, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, cannot actually distance himself from his mother's fornicating, adultery and extramarital sex. His mother certainly passed on her genes to him.
His mother's disposition is with him, as a (or his) predisposition. He is at the very center of it. And her disposition is at his center. Indeed, he is part and pastel of it. To compound it, he was brought forth by (born out of) those actions.
Fact is, it is very possible to bring forth either a child of the flesh or a child of God. Abraham fully demonstrated this fact. He had two sons. One was born a child of the flesh and one was a child of God. Do you know how this happened? Do you want to find out if fornication, adultery and extramarital sex results in bring forth children of the flesh?
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby distanced himself from his genes and his mother. However, Christianity and being a child of God is all about seed (i.e. genetic and/or parental background).
Romans: 9 KJV N.T.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh (i.e. Ishmael and his generation), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise (i.e. Issac and his generation) are counted for the seed.
Seems that it is all about being born to the correct mother and father . . . this is the Christian truth . . . which you are denying and undermining.
Christianity and being a child of God is all about 'seed' or genetic or who (i.e. which mother and father) you are born off.
Christianity is about children of God and bringing forth children of God. Being a Christian and a child of God is all about being born from the right 'seed', i.e. about being born from the right mother.
It seems very 'iffy' if one is born from fornication, adultery and extramarital sex like Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. This is the simple truth which every aspiring Christian should and must know.
The question is, would fornication, adultery and extra marital sex bring forth a child of the flesh, like Ishmael or a child of God, like Issac. This is the simple question that you cannot face up too.
The answer that you perceive to be reasonable and logical, seems to be destroying you, within. So you posture like a lemon used car sales man. And continue to draw 'red herrings'.
I must ask, were you brought forth through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex? How do you feel about fornication, adultery and extramarital sex?
Your idea that the genes of a mother is not in her child is ludicrous and simplistic.
Fact is everyone's genetics is directly inherited from his or her past generations in a well established old and well known scientific formulae.
Fact is at least 25% of the genes of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is directly, of his mother, who fornicated, committed adultery and had marital sex to bring him forth. Also another 25% is also directly of his father who participated in that fornication adultery and extramarital sex to bring him forth.
It was no Holy Spirit conception, like Jesus'. It was a fornicating, adulterous and extramarital sex, conception by two ordinary humans.
Ordinary logic, modern science and revelations in the KJV N.T. all confirms that 'like mother, like son.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby seems to be simply denying his genes and his mother conveniently. And that seems sinful and punishable and a very bad example, as Christian behavior goes:
Matthew: 15 King James Version (KJV)
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
He is already on the run. And he can be expected to make more foolish anti-scripture pronouncement.
Fact is, try as he may, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, cannot actually distance himself from his mother's fornicating, adultery and extramarital sex. His mother certainly passed on her genes to him.
His mother's disposition is with him, as a (or his) predisposition. He is at the very center of it. And her disposition is at his center. Indeed, he is part and pastel of it. To compound it, he was brought forth by (born out of) those actions.
Fact is, it is very possible to bring forth either a child of the flesh or a child of God. Abraham fully demonstrated this fact. He had two sons. One was born a child of the flesh and one was a child of God. Do you know how this happened? Do you want to find out if fornication, adultery and extramarital sex results in bring forth children of the flesh?
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby distanced himself from his genes and his mother. However, Christianity and being a child of God is all about seed (i.e. genetic and/or parental background).
Romans: 9 KJV N.T.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh (i.e. Ishmael and his generation), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise (i.e. Issac and his generation) are counted for the seed.
Seems that it is all about being born to the correct mother and father . . . this is the Christian truth . . . which you are denying and undermining.
Christianity and being a child of God is all about 'seed' or genetic or who (i.e. which mother and father) you are born off.
Christianity is about children of God and bringing forth children of God. Being a Christian and a child of God is all about being born from the right 'seed', i.e. about being born from the right mother.
It seems very 'iffy' if one is born from fornication, adultery and extramarital sex like Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. This is the simple truth which every aspiring Christian should and must know.
The question is, would fornication, adultery and extra marital sex bring forth a child of the flesh, like Ishmael or a child of God, like Issac. This is the simple question that you cannot face up too.
The answer that you perceive to be reasonable and logical, seems to be destroying you, within. So you posture like a lemon used car sales man. And continue to draw 'red herrings'.
I must ask, were you brought forth through fornication, adultery and extramarital sex? How do you feel about fornication, adultery and extramarital sex?
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
Gurucam,
How many other people are you planning on persecuting for the sins of their mothers and fathers?
How many other people are you planning on persecuting for the sins of their mothers and fathers?
glassjester
Well-known member
Has your mother ever sinned?
Only Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, matters here. Private individuals do not matter.
The Lord warned:
Matthew 24 King James Version (KJV)
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is a prophet in charge of millions. He is therefore a prophet in charge of many. Therefore he can be a false prophet who is misleading many. The risk is present.
Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, possesses the first and second requirement to be 'a false prophet who rise and deceive many'. (1.) He 'rise' as a prophet and (2.) he is a prophet to many (very many, millions). This is why he is under scrutiny. He can easily be a 'false prophet' in the above context. He must be looked at with 'hawk eyes'.
On the other hand I and similar others, have no more than a very few, if any, followers. We do not have the primary and most basic requirement to be 'a false prophet who misled many'.
Fact is, according to the KJV N.T., 'false prophets' would always be (and are) in charge of many. Authentic prophets are always in charge of few.
If Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was in charge of a few, then he could not be a false prophet who rise and deceive many. However he is charge of many. Indeed he did rise to be a prophet in charge of many. Therefore Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, can be 'a false prophet who rise and deceive many. He must be looked at with 'hawk eyes'.
Therefore, to start with, based simply on the above KJV N.T. revelation (and not me): Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is in a very bad and suspect circumstance and place . . . simply by being 'one who rise to be a 'prophet' to millions (many people)'.
When it is confirmed (through grace of God, now, in the fullness of time) that he was brought forth (born) through his mother's fornication, adultery and extramarital sex, then another very serious red flag has surface. When a red flag is planted on a beach, it marks a very bad current in the water.
At this 'fullness of time' point, right thinking authentic Christians will not simply jump in and seek to cover-up things. They will not want to preserve the past hellish status quo. They will know that God's kingdom of heaven has started its descent to earth and things are transforming.
They will know that, under grace of God, the Old must and will die to give way to the New. This is not about the Old transforming to be the New. Authentic Christians will know that things that were hidden before is being brought to light, under increasing grace of God.
They will not take the recent disclosure about Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, lightly. This information cannot to swept under the rug.
Authentic Christians will be very concerned about the millions of unsuspecting followers under the leadership of Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. They will be concerned, not only because false prophets will rise and misled many but also because:
Matthew 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Indeed, the church which Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, leads (or is the prophet to) is certainly not a church of a few. His followers cannot be chosen few. His church of millions of people, cannot be the chosen few who have truth and therefore do not err and are 'chosen few.
'Red flags' are surfacing, now, in the fullness of time, under Grace of God, with increasing plainness and clarity so as to lead all to truth and Truth.
However, Jesus' prophesy, as recorded in the KJV N.T. is that the very great majority of the billion or so who are called to Christianity will not heed his warnings and they will not recognize His signs.
They did not, do not and will not, seek truth according to His pure messages in the KJV N.T. Therefore they will not recognize His 'fullness of time' signs. Instead they will continue to be totally and irrationally taken in with false prophets who lead the masses (the many). And they will defend false prophets any which way.
Last edited: