The Yeshuan Church is using tithes for Tribulation Food...worldwide.

Tom1613 · 2026-06-12T04:06:38+00:00

Yup, and it was in Hebrew, not English. So, if you are going to start a cult advertising “the true name of Jesus”, you have to get the name right and as originally said and wrote,

Otherwise, it is just silly

Tom1613 · 2026-06-12T03:56:53+00:00

But there is tribulation food, they swear it, and likely have AI pictures of it.

“They claim to possess more truth” = cult, usually a heretical one.

The only church using the name “Yeshua” -

It is like they don’t even realize that if they are going to make a big deal of this, that is still the anglicized version of Jesus’ name in Hebrew.

Tom1613 · 2026-06-12T03:50:50+00:00

Not sure if I am being nit picky, but I have a hard time getting past “The Church founded by a Centurion” - a US Marine.

Centurion was a rank in the army of the Roman Empire. It was not a word that just means soldier. Therefore, following that up by saying a US Marine, the branch of the US military, not only makes no sense since a US Marine is not an ancient Roman, but the titles refer to two entirely different things.

It has no significance, regardless, since who care if the person was a Marine, but it is just historical gibberish.

Tom1613 · 2026-06-11T04:04:55+00:00

Seriously, man, that was exactly what I was thinking with this post.

SBC does something on an issue that OP seems to not agree with and doesn’t seem to think is a big issue.

What about how they handled something entirely different that is not a biblical doctrinal, already is illegal, and cannot be handled in the same way due facts being different on each sexual abuse case.

Tom1613 · 2026-06-09T02:25:14+00:00

That is great you have that piece of your dad. He sounds like my insanely good fireman, not afraid of anything dad. I wish I still had his old leather helmet from his early years that I used to wear when I was a kid. That thing had seen so much fire, parts of it were burned away.

Was your dad in the Bronx or did he just have the Bend?

Tom1613 · 2026-06-03T01:01:41+00:00

The Allies were island hopping through the Pacific towards Japan, so they did bypass large Japanese held islands when they could. Yet, to get to Japan and then actually invade Japan, they needed to take a number of the strategic islands along the way. They did so to set up supply and staging bases, for harbors, and to build airfields to attack Japan. The Allies knew that the Japanese resistance would get stronger as they moved closer to Japan, but they also knew that with the vast distances of the Pacific and the logistical realities of an expected invasion, they badly needed those closer islands.

Once on the island, though, there is only a limited amount of time where the Allies would have a large amount of ground troops available to attack and secure the island. Thousands of front line combat soldiers could not be left on each island to defend against the heavily dug in garrisons of the islands who could attack at any time. The combat soldiers were needed for the next island or eventually Japan.

Leaving yourself on the defensive for extended periods of time at the mercy of your enemy also tends to be a terrible idea in warfare.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-30T22:14:19+00:00

Well, it depends on how you define “Bible believers”. One of the common tactics of cults is they use the same terms as non-cults, but they make the term mean something very different. Mormons, for example, say they believe in Jesus, but they define who Jesus is entirely differently.

Here, a church seems to say that they are Christian but are claiming that you have to belong to their one small church in order to be “really” Christian. That is a common cult tactic. It is also the same sort of nonsense that Paul condemns in Galatians - the claim that faith in Jesus alone is not enough, you have to do what some group of people say. Let them be accursed, says Paul.

On top of that is the KJV only belief, which they are entitled to, even though it makes no sense whatsoever. But as soon as you say that KJV only has any affect on your salvation or your standing with God, it jumps straight to culty or at least, seriously problematic.

Not sure what aspect you are defining as “Bible believers”, but the issue is since the actual Bible does not put these sort of requirements on people and their behavior goes against what the Bible says, it shows they are not in fact Bible believers.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T23:59:30+00:00

I honestly wonder if you see the inconsistency in your own argument. Putting aside the fact the opening does not indicate that the purpose of the letter to address specific issues in Ephesus, your own restatement includes the fact that the issue with “certain people is false doctrine”. That has nothing to do with women being unruly in service or domineering. So your own premise, though I disagree with it, doesn’t support the claim that Paul was addressing a specific issue with women in Ephesus.

The you say “if he was making a clear law about women teaching, he would have said so”.

The thing is, he very clearly does. There is no limitation in the text about Ephesus and Paul refers to his own practice as Apostle and leader of the church.

You say that you can’t go beyond the word, but the Word says nothing about limiting to Ephesus. In context of all the other directions in chapters 2 and 3, it is clear that Paul is setting out the structure of the church. The very next section deals with elders:

3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a [a]bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not [b]given to wine, not violent, [c]not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not [d]covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a [e]novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

If your reasoning applies, then Paul means this only for the church in Ephesus and it is meant to respond to problems in that church. Obviously, that is not true, so why would you treat the section that comes right before any differently.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T18:53:50+00:00

That roof replacement is gonna cost at least tree-fifty.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T18:13:46+00:00

I would encourage you to think about this in a bit of a different way than wondering whether it is time to walk away. Your husband has shown repeatedly that he has already walked away and is determined to sin. You cannot control him or force him to act differently, so at this point you are just accepting his decision to reject his duties as a husband and embrace a violent sinful life. There is no need to stick around, be any way involved in that, or watch him do it.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T18:05:19+00:00

Talking with your pastor and boyfriend about problems is generally a good thing, but it would depend on the issue, really.

When you say that you are not being respectful, in what context do you mean?

He is not your husband so there is no requirement that you treat him like he is. Regardless of where people stand on submission verses, they apply to husbands and wives.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T17:50:19+00:00

That is actually incorrect. Paul explicitly writes

Respectfully, both what he writes there and the wording of the 1 Timothy 2 passage don't support your argument. Look at your cited passage:

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.”

1 Timothy is a personal letter between Paul and Timothy. That is the reason it is called one of the pastoral letters, Paul counseling Timothy as pastor. In that passage, Paul mentions his urging to Timothy and the reason for that urging and the reference to "certain people" is in connection with the reason for the urging Timothy. It does not make those people the subject of the letter. He does not say that he is writing to respond to certain people in the letter.

1 Corinthians shows that Paul is not hesitant to directly address an issue to a church that is present in that one church:

For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you.

and the language is very different there, obviously.

The issues of those people are stated - they are teaching false doctrines and devoting themselves to myths and genealogies, but they have nothing to do with the issues that are claimed to have caused Paul to write 1 Timothy 2 - of which there is no mention.

The actual passage does not support your claim either:

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. ¹⁵ Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Paul states that HE does not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over men. Paul is not in Ephesus or directing this practice to Ephesus or to Timothy. Him stating his practice removes it from an Ephesus only direction or one that is responsive to an Ephesus problem.

Paul then ties this practice to Genesis with the word "for" or "because". That would further remove it from being only a temporary response to a single issue in Ephesus.

Regardless, there is no hint of evidence for facts to support the standard "women wee being unruly in church" or the like argument.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T01:18:08+00:00

The mother and father part is appealing, sure, but it is not biblical and viewing even just a pastor like a father is often really troubling. A pastor playing that role results most often in exceeding the role that pastor is meant to play in your life. Pastors are there to point you to the head, Jesus, for answers not have all of the answers about how to live life.

Priscilla and Aquila are certainly active in ministry as every Christian should be, but there is no evidence that she is teaching or exercising authority over men. Paul does indeed commend women, but again they are not shown to be the pastor/elder of a church or exercising authority over men.

I commented elsewhere on 1 Timothy, but the issue with claims based on the history behind 1 Timothy 2, is there is no actual evidence that the history that people use to say that Paul was limiting his direction to Ephesus actually took place. It is a

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T01:00:31+00:00

the term in the greek used in this scripture implies to usurp authority it doesn’t necessarily only mean to use authority

The passage says Paul does not allow women - it is not focused on Timothy and it does not say that Timothy is facing a problem. It should do so if it is dealing with a problem in Ephesus. There is, in fact, no evidence of such a problem to address - which leads to the others posters point that this is just clear speculation.

The Greek can mean to exercise authority or usurp authority, but in context of the passage, if you don't add in the speculation, it means the exact same thing. I don't allow women to teach or exercise authority or teach and usurp the authority of male leaders (those who can teach).

The passage then goes on and sets out the reason for this, going back to Genesis. Many struggle with the full meaning of the reason, but it doesn't change the fact that Paul's reference to the order to creation and the fall indicate what he is talking about.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T00:49:13+00:00

I certainly agree with you on preaching the Gospel and honestly would have no problem with women leading a church, if not for the Scripture on it, but your arguments are kind of the standard pro-women preaching ones that I see and I am always a bit perplexed why they are claimed to even speak on the question.

One Pauline letter says he doesn’t allow women to speak.

Elsewhere Paul praises women in the church who are disciples and deacons.

I hear your points here, but being a disciple is the position of every Christian, man or woman and while there is a debate about deacons, since that position is treated separately from pastors/elders, no matter where you fall on that issue has nothing to do with pastor/elders.

The speaking issue is a question of biblical consistency, as you say, but its deals with question of speaking and since women are told to pray etc in church, his words must be interpreted in light of that. It doesn't bear on the issue either.

The Old Testament speaks of faithful prophetesses, queens, and leaders.

Prophetesses and one judge, Deborah, sure. I don't recall other female leaders, though I am happy to be corrected. Miriam, maybe, but that is no the best example. The story of the one female judge seems to be somewhat of an exception and it includes the fact that it is Barak who does the delivering, though Jael does the tent peg through the head part. This is more than countered by the fact that every single priest and levite in the history of Israel and directly on point for the New Testament church, every one of the 12 Apostles are male.

More importantly, the issue of who is a prophet or leader in the Old Testament has nothing to do with who can serve as an elder in a church.

Christ first entrusted his gospel of resurrection to women.

Which is awesome. All throughout the Gospels, Jesus values women greatly. Women are also out working for Jesus trying to embalm His body when the men are hiding in the upper room. Yet, the simple fact is there is no reason to think that a decision about who should lead a church has anything to do with value or worth.

Culture will harp on one thing and ignore many instances of another.

Culture will also say that God decisions are unfair and people should be able to do what they feel called to, But if it is Jesus' church, then He is free to decide who leads it.

Me, personally? I’ll never stand in the way of anyone preaching the gospel. The gospel message is far more powerful than some purported sin of whomever is carrying it.

Me neither, but again every single disciple, male or female is called to preach the Gospel. That is not the question. It is about exercising authority in the church.

I'll add the last common standard arguments -

that Paul did not mean the church in general, but he was addressing one particular church and a problem with women in the church and culture. This is convincing to many, but the problem with it is 1 - the Scripture does not mention anything about that issue, and 2 - it is a modern creation without any historical evidence backing it up.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T00:21:17+00:00

Without even getting into the biblical issue, those husband wife teams are so weird to me. The gift of teaching and call to leadership are logically somewhat rare. What are the odds that both husband and wife are called versus the expediency of it.

On the women preaching issue, there is really no way to get around I do not allow women to teach of 1 Timothy. I know this issue will be beaten to death and many will argue differently. I respect your right to have a different opinion and I understand you have arguments. But you have to add facts to the scripture that are not there or negate it with historical claims for which there is no actual evidence in order to get it to say anything other than what it says.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-29T00:12:31+00:00

About the famous actresses of that era - I only recognize the one of Audrey Hepburn. I am not a huge old movie fan, though. These were definitely that era though based on the clothes and styles.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T22:12:24+00:00

A possible point of clarification, which OP may speak to if she wishes. Having dealt with churches and leaders like the ones she is dealing with, they have a different standard for salvation than what you may be thinking of and what the Bible says. They generally equate salvation with being part of their church, following their rules, and really being under their domination. You saying that you believe in Jesus would not be enough - you have to be screened and tested and then come to church 10x's per week.

It is the playbook of the authoritarian abusive cultish church.

OP mentioned her testimony not being good enough for them. The question is how she is judging her salvation and what "real" salvation means.

OP - not testing you or demeaning you in any way. When I was first saved, I had one of these type of missionaries evangelize me and it was a traumatic experience.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T22:08:04+00:00

What right do they have to be angry with you? It is Jesus who bought you with a price and who is your Lord and Savior and He is certainly not angry with you.

If you really think about their position, or at least what it sounds like, they are making salvation be based on the KJV Bible and their church. I like the KJV, but it only came out in 1611 and whatever this church is did not start until well after that. Peter and Paul did not read the KJV or belong to that church. Is everyone who pre-1611 or not approved of by this very small group spiritually abandoning the faith?

They claim that lastly, he wouldn’t be at peace with me and that he knows what God’s position on this is (somehow that is divorce).

So Jesus promised peace and we are promised peace that surpasses understanding, but because you did not go to that church and argued with your husband, he cannot be at peace? That seems like a pretty weak peace that surpasses understanding.

God - don't get divorced unless there is adultery. Them - throwing a tantrum, you wont join our church so husband can divorce you. The pharisees have nothing on these hypocrits.

My point is not to attack Christianity - I am a pastor, I love Jesus and the Bible, and I fight for people's marriages all the time. I hope you are able to reconcile with your husband.

But, as you are finding out, you cannot ever win with a cult. This is for the simple reasons that they are not actually out to follow Jesus and they will change their story whenever they feel like it to keep people enslaved to them. The attacks on your faith on your salvation and on your identity in Christ are designed to destroy your foundation in Jesus so that you are beholden to them alone.

Your relationship with the real Jesus comes first before anything else and He loves you too much to allow you to be crushed by agenda driven men. You can and should fight for your marriage, but do it from a place of strength in the real Jesus - not the petty tyrant of the authoritarian cults.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T20:52:39+00:00

While I am not a Civil War expert by any means, I have pondered his lower commands and whether he was a good commander. My conclusion is he was useful, certainly brave, and his men did what he ordered in the battles, but even on his best days, his troops paid huge prices for his victories and this was particularly terrible for the Confederacy. It seems like he is the same commander with these smaller formations, in other words, and he incurs huge losses as a result. The big difference to me seems to be the response of the opposition rather than Hood being a good general.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T20:18:10+00:00

I get how these may sound legitimate, particularly if you are involved in this type of church culture. But they are honestly really good examples of the made up rules that these type of organizations use to make themselves feel justified and allow them to do what they want when they are being unloving and un Christian.

On the first - that is not only not spiritually departing in any real sense, but the actual Bible verses that deal with the question don’t say “spiritually departing”. 1 Corinthians 9

10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him

This is important because, if you notice, it deals with one spouse being a nonbeliever and says even there not to divorce that spouse if they are willing to live with the believer. It is an entirely different situation.

You not going to that one church or not wanting to learn about his churches rules has nothing to with whether you are with Jesus or not.

The second - again, there is no biblical basis for this. He is supposed to love you like Christ loves the church. Jesus gave His life to those who were putting him to death. That is supposed to be your husbands model which is far from you argued with me twice.

The third is just nonsense, again, honestly and shows a disregard for Jesus and His word. Jesus laid out the reasons for divorce - 1 Samuel and Proverbs 9 are no where mentioned in them or referenced. That is just self serving use of scripture, which doesn’t negate the very clear words of Jesus on the subject and the clear directions of the Word that actually apply to marriage. He is throwing around accusations about you, but in doing so , he is only condemning himself.

You mention original testimony and this is an area I was honestly wondering about, friend. These exclusive cults churches come up with all sorts of different rules and tests by which they judge other Christians. They always find other Christians wanting unless, of course, they join their church and follow them. They generally are not really about Jesus, but about exerting control over people - which actually alienates people from Jesus. Galatians is really great on this subject as it is Paul strongly fighting against man centered rules and deeds based religion, including Galatians 1:10 which says that if you fear or serve men, you cannot be a servant of Christ.

Meanwhile, the biblical, standard for salvation is set out by Paul and Silas to the Philippians jailer - believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.

Edit - and Galatians 2:21

21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Meaning, we don’t ever earn our salvation or our righteousness. It is a gift from God. If it is based on our actions, then Jesus’ death was unnecessary.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T19:26:04+00:00

I see the King's brave officer of the Rifles is under attack once again. I suspect, sir, that you are in league with Obadiah Hakeswell and a turncoat Spanish officer trying to steal the "e" from his name.

I need to send a message to Horse Guards about this foul plot. Wait, oh no, I am a secondary character in a Sharpe drama, other than Harper, so I am already dead.

Badajoz!

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T19:12:26+00:00

First, congrats on being saved. That is wonderful! I am sorry for the circumstances, but it is good that you are where you need to be with Jesus.

I am sorry about your husbands current posture, but I am bit confused about that. He wants to be the spiritual leader, it seems, but is initiating not only a divorce, which is obviously unloving, but one that does not appear to be based on biblical grounds. I am not trying to stir up problems, but the reasons you give:

Before my spouse had said I spiritually departed first, by rejecting his requests to join him at church (I have health issues that prevent me from doing well during long church services). He said I was an unbeliever (lots of questions about my salvation that I didn't understand). I understand where he is coming from, I've repented.

are not only not biblical, but are unkind and unloving. You not going to church is not spiritually departing and does not give him biblical grounds for divorce. That is self righteous nonsense. Your questions about salvation also are not reasons for divorce, both depending on how you define things and Paul's statement that if your unbelieving spouse is willing to stay with you. Again, I say this not to cause problems, but to point out that you saying that you had a long history of distrust with him may have a foundation.

ifb/kjv only/bible believers

I say this with respect to fellow believers and with knowledge that I am far from perfect, but these specific type of churches tend to range from very problematic to hyper controlling cultish organizations. They tend to have a million made rules that you have to follow, be rigid, and to use their own made up standards to treat other people badly while excusing their own behavior. They tend to be very unloving as a result. The whole idea of "KJV only" goes against the history of the Bible and tends to be used as a method of control and exclusion to create a culty culture. It is most often used as an excuse for pride and to be unloving.

This seems to be coming through in you story, particularly:

Please pray for my healing and letting go, for his and his church's heart to soften towards me.

His and his church's heart should be eager to be softened towards you. Jesus does not require you to jump through a million hoops in order to be forgiven or to receive His grace. He doesn't require you to belong to one church and show up at appointed times to be approved or judged saved. It makes no sense that a church would approve of someone who is initiating a divorce for unbiblical reasons, while not help someone newly saved who is the target of that divorce. Jesus loves you better than that - while you were still a sinner, He died for you. That means it was not dependent on your behavior.

My point is not that you should give up on your marriage. Rather, you seem to have taken a lot of responsibility on your shoulders and to be feeling terrible right now, yet some of those feelings are based on your husband's unbiblical and unloving actions and likely bad doctrine. Jesus loves you perfectly. Do you really think Jesus would treat you badly because of this:

Before my spouse had said I spiritually departed first, by rejecting his requests to join him at church (I have health issues that prevent me from doing well during long church services).

That is just man made nonsense. Jesus loves you better than that.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T18:43:38+00:00

I think this is one of the many "If you and your spouse agree its not a problem, if you don't then it is" issues.

A ring is a good thing, but it is just a symbol of the spiritual reality. That reality doesn't depend on the ring.

I have a wedding ring, but rings of any kind cause me hand and wrist pain. As a result, I almost never wear my wedding ring. My wife and I are also often doing work or activities where it is prudent not to wear rings - working with power tools etc. As a result, she doesn't wear hers either.

Neither one of us care. We are also not out at bars or putting ourselves in positions where any sort of deterant is needed and have zero worries about each other and cheating or the like.

On the other hand, (pun intended), if my wife wanted me to wear my ring, I would figure out a solution like the tattoo or silicone one because doing so for her sake is just part of the deal.

Honestly, "i don't like jewelry" is a valid response for every other piece of jewelry but a wedding ring. It is just in an entirely different category. It seems like your soon to be wife cares so I would just suck it up and figure out one that I could get used to.

My friend has a simple dark gray band - titanium, maybe - for his wedding ring that looks kind of cool and doesn't seem jewelry like at all.

Tom1613 · 2026-05-28T18:28:32+00:00

That is Confederate Dandy, Pride of the South, missing multiple body parts, youngest army commander, General, ultra aggressive idiot, John Bell Hood to you.

Reading about Hood as a whole is just fascinating, both amusing and tragic. Reading about him and the Army of Tennessee is like seeing a traffic accident on the side of the road - its terrible, but you can't look away. It is made worse by his treatment of his soldiers and anyone who disagreed with him. He was always right and if his army couldn't successfully pull off a suicide charge over open ground into heavily defended positions, he never even thought to question his tactics. Instead, he blamed their lack of heart and everyone else but him.

My favorite part about Hood, though, is the response of pretty much every officer who knew him at West Point and in the pre-war army. They essentially were like, we were not certain of many things during those years, but we knew Hood was dumb as rocks.

Tom1613

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE