 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   | 
CommentsRe: Pearls Before Swine
There is confusion about this matter. The seven virgins or messengers are not the same as the seven women mentioned in Isaiah 4 "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." Only three of the virgins were among these seven women. All those symbols are fulfilled and there are no more consummations that will happen. As with Abraham in his sacrifice of Isaac, Michael only had to submit to a willingness to do whatever Father actually brought to pass. That did not mean it all happened as it was first presented to Michael's mind and heart. Everything was done by Father's decision and appointment. Wayne Bent was not orchestrating these events, God was.
The cross was a terrible thing but it too was perfect. Father is the only one that can open it all up so that the confusion turns into clarity.
You will not be able to wrap your mind around this
Polemic, TNJ, et al, I question that you even believe that God gave these instructions. So, I would like to ask, do you really believe God has been speaking to us in these things, or is this really just a facetious point that you mockingly thought to build your case upon? Which ever is true, you have missed the understanding of what following God's instructions are. They are always step by step, and in his time and way. The soul that is connected to God never runs ahead of him. Wayne was told not to refuse their requests but to tell them that he heard their requests and he would wait to see what Father opened up. When Abraham was instructed to offer his son as a burnt sacrifice, he did not immediately run into Isaac's tent and drag him out and kill him. He followed his present instructions and set off on a journey that lasted three days. Then he saw the mountain and felt the witness in his heart that this was where he was to go. They left the servants and ascended the mount as he was instructed. He followed each instruction as his heart was so impressed to do, all the while, suffering intense emotional pain. As he was about to cut his son's throat, he was given another instruction, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him..." Should Abraham have argued with God about his previous instructions? Everything that has happened here, in this land, has been by instruction. Wayne has never taken anything into his own hands. One of the reasons he was given these difficult instructions was to bring him to a place of total trust and obedience. A place where he had to lay his reputation and life on the alter and let it be burned up just as Abraham did. Some tend to think that Abraham and his son were spared this great sacrifice just in the nick of time, but both of their lives were placed upon the alter that day, and were a sweet savor to Father, for their love was shown in obedience. Jesus had to experience this type of process too. For it is written in Hebrews 5:8, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" and so it is with all of God's children. Father has given these instructions for his own purposes. He says and does what he wishes, and orchestrates every act in the lives of those who know how to listen and follow without putting their own hand to anything without explicit instructions. That is why each of us have felt safe in the actions and outcome of everything that has happened, and that is why there are still virgins in this land. The virgins have been safe and unmolested. Being with Michael in such a vulnerable condition and being treated with utmost respect and guarded from any personal intrusion or bodily violation is what brought such a deep healing of their fears of a God who might want to hurt them. All these events have clearly exposed the hearts of each individual involved. And by that I mean you and every other soul who has been part of this whole process. You are as intimately involved as Wayne in all that has happened. You will be held responsible for what ever part you have played. Whether it be for blessing or for cursing. You will decide your part, and you along with each of us will receive the outcome of what we have created. Many have seen Wayne's incarceration as a just punishment. But it has been perfect, and has worked a wonderful outcome thus far. I know he would not have it any other way. Many of his personal family have come to believe in him, and his daughter who has been separated from him for many years has been reunited with him as a result of this imprisonment. So, it is no small reward for being faithful. He is seeing the travail of his soul and is well satisfied. Truly there are two sides to every story. There are those who see as you have seen and continue to look for reasons to overturn what God has done, by thinking to prove that we are just another deluded religious cult gone awry. You have not seen the grandeur of the forest because you focus only on a few carefully selected shrubs.
polemic Liberty is not related to either Jon or Anaiah. And neither has she consummated with Michael. The fact that a number of virgins remain as such in this land is a strong commentary to the fact that these things were of a God-directed, spiritual nature, and not at the lustful whim of a cult leader. I would like to address something else here. It is a great error on the part of many. I don't think "having sex" is what any of the seven members of the Bride would call it. Those words do not reflect the reality of the true nature of what the marriage of the Lamb is. If a woman were raped, it is not likely that she would refer to her experience as "having sex" with her assailant. If a pair of school kids were fornicating, their context of what was taking place and their way of speaking about it would be far different from the rape circumstance. The little girl might say, "Oh, I'm in love" while the young lad may express a far less elevated perspective. If a man and a woman were having an extra-marital affair, their description of their experience may differ widely from the two previously mentioned. However, they might likely say that they "had sex". If a husband coaxed his wife into "having sex" but she was not really interested, what do you suppose she might refer to what happened? If a married couple were very much committed and caring for one another and they, by mutual desire, engaged in this act as an expression of their bond, do you not think that they might find it objectionable to hear their intimate connection described as "having sex"? In each of the previously mentioned incidents a "sex act" occurred. Yet you cannot label them all as the same thing, can you? So it is with the Consummation of the Marriage of the Lamb. It is not at all comparable to any of the previously stated experiences. It springs from a completely different root. The senseless slaughter of innocent animals, just for the fun of seeing what your new rifle will do to some unsuspecting bunny, cannot be compared to the slaughter of a cow for needed food. Nor can either of these be compared to the sacrifice of a little lamb showing faith in a Redeemer to come. Yet in these three cases the same thing happened: an animal's life was taken. And the sacrificed lamb can be no more than a shadowy symbol of the cross of Jesus. For, even though there is a life taken, how can you compare the death of an animal with the death of God's anointed Son? The cross of Christ can only begun to be understood when you hang upon your own cross at God's direction and with his help. So it is with the Consummation of the Marriage of the Lamb. You can only begin to speak of it when you have been placed there at God's direction and with his help, whether it is fulfilled literally and physically, as with the Seven, or a deeply spiritual thing in the quietness of your own experience where God has brought you to feel the nakedness of your own need and you have yielded to his penetrating Spirit. Last edited [4/23/09 12:59 PM]
Yes, these too are errors. John is not Liberty's father and Liberty was visiting, not living there.
Yes, we know there are a number of factual errors in her article, but they were not intentional on Maren's part.
As I have read these comments I was struck by the fact that there are those who think of themselves as wise, fair minded and balanced, yet they fool no one but themselves. There is a wide gap between those who honestly ask a question that they might be informed, and those who are obviously questioning the motives or character of the one they are addressing. They just simply put a question mark at the end of their thinly veiled contemptuous accusation. As to the accusation that Anaiah was being defensive, name calling or protesting too much, I would have to say, no, for I know Anaiah. She is one who can and has remained silent under abuse, and she knows very well the true meaning of turning the other cheek, for she intimately knows the Spirit of the One who first uttered those words. However, there is a time to be silent and a time to speak. Consider this event near the close of Jesus life. "The high priest then asked Jesus about his disciples, and his doctrine. Jesus answered, I spoke openly to the world. I often taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where witnesses were always present. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard me. Then one of the officers slapped Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Is this any way to answer the high priest? Jesus turned to him and said, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of it, but if well, why did you slap me?" John 18. Jesus' cheek was always turned to the smiter. However, he also had a sword in his mouth that cut right through to the truth of any matter. He always, and only, spoke the words that his Father gave him to speak, and this is also true for Anaiah. She never writes off the top of her head, but listens quietly and only writes those things given her of the Spirit. It is quite easy for prejudicial people to imagine they understand the motives of the heart and place their own spin on any story, making it out to be something that it is not. The man who slapped Jesus did this and received a sword for it. One of the descriptions of the second appearing of God's Son is with fire in his eyes, a sword in his mouth and wearing a coat that is drenched in blood, That blood is not his own but the blood of those who have resisted his mercy. He is followed by a large company of souls who are intimately involved in the same work. You can read about it in Revelation 19. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is also a truth speaker, and the truth often spills blood. As I read Anaiah's words, I did not see her calling anyone a swine. She was very accurately defining the actions of a "swine", as it is used in scripture, so that no one could miss it. So, I would say if the hoof fits... One very important thing I have learned is that adversaries do not profit by any amount of information given them, no matter how clear and detailed it is. It is not about information but about which spirit one yields to. That spirit will control what they hear and say, and that applies to every soul on the planet. For whoever you yield yourself a servant to obey, his servant you are. I can certainly see the wisdom in the heading of this article. For the pearls have been trampled into the mud again. Swine just can't help it. It is impossible for them to change themselves, yet I have read that with God all things are possible. For the record, Liberty is not Willow's sister or Anaiah's daughter. | 
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
