I have never questioned women as apostles, I questioned the need for
if the authority of apostles today is established, that does not
give apostles authority to contradict or subvert the
word of God.
Paul pronounced an anathema even on himself, if he preached another
gospel than the one that he initially
preached. (Galatians 1:8,9)
So even those that think they are apostles should be tested with
Precedence: In court a judge may make a judgment based on precedence,
which is a judgment that
is made so as to not open a can of worms in
the future and in future cases.
For example, if a man says that he killed his wife because she wasn't faithfully obeying the Torah,
the judge may not want to get involved in religious matters, he may by precedence, determine that if he doesn't declare this
man guilty it will give an excuse to everyone else that wants to kill their spouse.
You might say that this is an extreme example because killing is
Well so is divorce and remarriage.
Killing is not wrong, murder is and if one can find a justification
for Killing someone then
it (at least in their mind) is justified.
I hope everyone sees the absurdity of this murderer's conclusions.
Well then, lets look at another example.
Divorce and Remarriage is wrong too. However, if we can find an
exception in scripture, then
in that particular instance it is not
Unfaithfulness to onese spouse allows the offended party to divorce
and remarry. (Matthew 5:32)
The Bible sets the standard and makes an exception.
Can the Bible state the rules and then someone or something other than
scripture make the exception.
If the bible says, 'Thou Shalt Not..."
But someone or something outside the bible says, 'Thou can", under
circumstances, then how is this any different
from the Law that states that 'one cannot kill their spouse' but then
breakers making their own exceptions, apart from the Law.
This would subvert the Law as the same reasoning subverts the Word of
Only the Law can make exceptions to its own rules.
What's the purpose of the bible saying, 'There is ONE MEDIATOR
between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus", (1 Timothy 2:5), if
someone or someone outside of scripture can say but....the word
mediator is referring
to a man not a woman, so therefore Mary can be
The cults do this all the time.
What's the purpose of the bible saying, there is only one way one can
justifiably divorce and
remarry if someone or something outside of
scripture can say, 'Yeah but...'
This is Yeah but theology,
What's the purpose of saying, 'For all have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God; 24 Being
justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: ' (Romans 3)
And then have someone outside of scripture saying, Yeah but Mary....
I was happy to see Elizabeth Nokimia in her statement of faith
"We believe in a literal Heaven and Hell, NO Purgatory. We believe
Mary is the Mother of Yahshua,
to be respected and loved for this,
but she is like US, she calls him Lord and she is NOT a deity nor
part of the
Mother Mary is NOT to be worshipped, nor to be prayed to. We believe
even Mary needed her son
Yahshua's blood to cover her sins for, if
she was perfect she would have been our Savior instead of her son. We
not believe that people should pray to any other intercessor nor
in any other name but the name of Yahshua, in other words
to Saints in Saint's names."
What's the purpose of the Bible saying, 'All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God
be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2 Timothy 3)
but then someone or something other than scripture saying, Yeah
but...that is sufficient in
only one way. In order to be sufficient
in every way you need tradition.
We might as well throw our bibles in the trash. ...Many in effect
To give in to this kind of logic for even a moment would and has set
a precedent, opened a can
of snakes that no man can close.
I am not meaning to offend anyone personally, and hope friends remain
friends, but I must
say something, else I could be guilty of not
doing my God given job.
What about this one,
"If a husband is not following YAHWEH and YAHSHUA in holiness, and
truth and insisting that
the wife disobey the Torah which includes
ALL ten commandments, and hinder my Anointed Women from putting
YAHSHUA'S will, first in their lives, I, YAHWEH do not
call these marriages EQUALLY YOKED and I YAHWEH will divide a
where a man refuses to allow the wife or the husband to be
all I have called and chosen them to be." (Elizabeth Nikomia,The
BRIDE of YAHUSHUA vs the Wedding Guests!!. if Unequally Yoked.)
The statements in this paragraph are as vague as, 'where a man
refuses to allow the wife or
husband to be all I have called and
chosen them to be."
Which allows the man or woman to make an emotionally subjective value
judgment rather than an
objective judgment based on scripture, as to
whether ones spouse is deserving of divorce or their marriage annuled.
one FEELS that their spouse hasn't allowed them to BE ALL THEY CAN
BE, then their marriage is null and void or unequally
And as specific as, "insisting that the wife disobey the Torah which
includes ALL ten commandments"
In her statement of Faith (Elizabeth Nikomia) said,
"We believe that keeping the Sabbath is a sign that we desire to obey
our Heavenly Father and
although not obeying this will not keep you
from Heaven, it will keep you from the blessings and protection
for those that do obey, Honor the Sabbath Day and keep it
Holy. This should be a time of rest and seeking Yahweh, and
We believe Yahshua will come again and it will be on a Sabbath. We
know not which one.
Not keeping the Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset), as well
as DISOBEYING the rest of
the 10 Commandments, is willful
disobedience and must be confessed, repented of lest you fall under
What this person (Elizabeth Nikomia) has done with these specific
statements is declare that
if a spouse insist that his other, not
keep the sabbath, then this is being 'unequally yoked' and opens the
the next step which is declaring that God never blessed
their union in the first place.
To accept this is to open the door for many to declare their marriages null and void.
"What God has joined let no man separate.'
People think that if they can show that God didn't join the two then it is not wrong to separate
God honors vows and if you have said, I do, then God has joined you with your spouse.
The precedent that would result from thinking otherwise would be disastorous.
This is similar to the Catholic invention of annulment.
Not only has this person made
festivals and observance of the sabbath
a bone of contention, she has made it grounds for divorce or an
But the actual apostle Paul said,
'Now as for a person whose trust is weak, welcome him - but not to
get into arguments
over opinions. 2 One person has the trust that
will allow him to eat anything, while another whose trust is weak
only vegetables. 3 The one who eats anything must not look down
on the one who abstains; and the abstainer must not pass
the one who eats anything, because God has accepted him - ...One
person considers some days more holy
than others, while someone else
regards them as being all alike. What is important is for each to be
in his own mind. 6 He who observes a day as special
does so to honor the Lord. Also he who eats anything, eats to honor
the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; likewise the abstainer
abstains to honor the Lord, and he too gives thanks
(The Complete Jewish Bible, Romans 14)
Paul would make certain concessions so as to not cause the weaker
believer who hadn't come to
the point he had, from stumbling.
"Now food will not improve our relationship with God - we will be
neither poorer if we abstain
nor richer if we eat. 9 However watch
out that your mastery of the situation does not become a stumbling
the weak. 10 You have this "knowledge"; but suppose someone
with a weak conscience sees you sitting, eating a meal in
of an idol. Won't he be built up wrongly to eat this food which has
been sacrificed to idols? 11 Thus by
your "knowledge" this weak
person is destroyed, this brother for whom the Messiah died; " (1
Jesus and the twelve went to the Jews (Galatians 2:8,9; Matthew
Their mission was different. It was to a group, the Jews, and
emphasized the Kingdom of Israel,
and at first was cliquish for lack
of a better word. However, this was to eventually 'conclude all in
that he might have mercy on all.' (Romans 11:32)
Peter to the Jews preached the cross as a condemnation (Acts 2;1
Paul preached the cross as salvation. (1 Corinthians 1:18)
If one doesn't understand these kind
of distinctions they will apply
what was said to Jews, to us as legalistic Messianics have tried already.
Paul the apostle went to all, which includes the Gentiles and he
never taught that we are to
embrace the shadow rather than Christ.
The Gospel accounts were about the twelve going to the Jew first,
to whosoever will.
It went from Group Think to the individual.
"16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of an holyday, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. "
If these are the shadows, and the body is of Christ, then Christ
himself is where the shadow
is coming from.
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his
wrath is kindled but a
little. Blessed are all they that put their
trust in him." (Psalm 2)
Elizabeth has not only subverted scripture and declared the
observance of the sabbath and Jewish
Festivals a bone of contention,
but grounds for divorce and in direct contradiction of scripture.
The Catholic apostles have done the same with their invention of the
From a book written by the following:
Rev. John Trigilio Jr. PhD, ThD
Priest, pastor, EWTN co-host of Council of Faith, and President of
the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.
Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD
Priest, pastor, EWTN co-host, and Managing Editor
"If a person was previously married and the spouse is alive, it must
be demonstrated that
the marriage was invalid, so the previous union
can be declared null and void through an annulment. (See Chapter 9
more on annulments) If that happens both parties are free to
marry someone else-..Are you wondering how it can be demonstrated
that the sacrament of Matrimony never occured? If one or both spouses
DIDN'T INTEND to enter a permanent, faithful,
and/or FRUITFUL UNION,
that deficiency renders the marriage invalid." (Catholicism For
Dummies, pg 115)
(Catholicism For Dummies, pg 115,120,176,182)
So they have given themselves the authority to declare a marriage to
have never been of God.
Nowhere do I read in scripture Christ saying, 'Now if you really
didn't mean it when you took
your vows, then it is all right to
What do they mean by 'Fruitful Union"
This is a subjective and relative statement.
Do they mean that if one didn't want children then annulment is all
This makes it necessary for the ones making these judgment, mind
readers and subverters of the
plain meaning of scripture.
Concerning the meaning of scripture, if the plain sense makes sense,
don't look for any other
sense to replace it, lest you end up with
This is believing that God means what he says and says what he
The bible interprets itself.
The ones that think they are apostles have made the Bible inferior
and subservient to extrabiblical
nonsense that clearly contradicts
the plain teaching of scripture.
They have also taken biblical phrases, and rather than find the
biblical definition of these
phrases, have inserted their own
To be 'unequally yoked' can only be defined by scripture, not the
Book of Mormon, Catholics,
Science and Health, Elizabeth, Me or any
other work or person.
Just because scriptures are occassionally used or biblical phrases
uttered don't let that be
grounds for the accepting of nonsense
James Sire speaks of the twenty ways groups twist the scripture and
that one should be wary
of. One of them is the,
"3. BIBLICAL HOOK: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a
device to grasp the
attention of readers or listeners and then
followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear
more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a
reference to Scripture. Example: Mormon missionaries quote James
which promises God's wisdom to those who ask him and, then, follow
this by explaining that when Joseph Smith did
this he was given a
revelation from which he concluded that God the Father has a body. "
Another thing to look out for is,
4. IGNORING THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: A text of Scripture is quoted but
removed from the surrounding
verses which form the immediate
framework for its meaning. Example: Alan Watts quotes the first half
of John 5:39
("You search the Scriptures, because you think that in
them you have eternal life"), claiming that Jesus was challenging
listeners' over emphasis of the Old Testament, but the remainder of
the immediate context reads, "and it is they
that bear witness to me;
yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (verses 39-40),
which shows that Jesus
was upholding the value of the Old Testament
as a testimony to Himself.
biblical words and phrases like, Mediator, unequally yoked,
sufficient for every good work,
can only be defined by the Bible.
I hope that this message is accepted as 'rejoicing in the truth' (1 Corinthians 13)
I hope that this stimulates interaction rather than offend
No animals were harmed in the writing of this message.
I hope the same goes for my friends.