Jezebel is a spirit, but it finds access through uncrucified flesh. Although the Jezebel spirit is described in the Bible as being a woman, it does not actually have a gender. There is no doubt that it functions just as proficiently through men.
1. Refuses to admit guilt or wrong
A Jezebel spirit is never wrong, unless it is a temporary admittance of guilt to gain “favor” with someone. To accept responsibility would violate the core of insecurity and pride from which it operates. When a Jezebel apologizes it is never in true repentance or acknowledgment of wrongdoing but rather “I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.”
2. Takes credit for everything
While a strong trait of Jezebel is to never take responsibility for his wrong actions or behavior, he also is quick to take credit for benefits for which he contributed no effort.
Interesting article, and very interesting subject; though, I can’t agree with it all.
The most important aspect regarding this subject may be marrying the right person. A prophet once told me: “if a man marries a strong-willed woman, the man must be stronger willed.” I see this as incredibly wise.
I really do like what Suzanne says here.
“In essence, being feminine means being nice. It means being soft instead of hard. And by “nice,” I don’t mean you should become a mouse. (That’s the narrative the culture sells, but that doesn’t make it true.) Men love women who are fun and feisty and who know their own mind!”
Women who lose their femininity and become hard is tragic. They cut their hair short, and watch out! To see women who are still feminine is so wonderful to see — who refuse to let hating-others demons affect them!
I POSTED this comment on Facebook a few days ago to concisely clarify what the Bible really says about women’s ministry in the church:
1 Timothy 2:12-14: “But I DON’T PERMIT a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For [because] ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST [given a specific personality to do his tasks. Eve was then designed by God to complement man with complementary (not the same) characteristics — proven now by science], then Eve. Adam WASN’T DECEIVED, but the WOMAN, BEING DECEIVED, has fallen into disobedience….”
A FRIEND RESPONDED by sending me an article by Jack Hayford, entitled “A Woman’s Place in Christ,” which I’ve decided to critique. I currently believe this doctrine is the third most important in keeping real Christianity and the great awakening revival from happening.
“God resists the proud, but [wants togive] grace to the humble.”
May we be ONE with each other in Christ “that the world will know” – Jesus’ prayer in John 17 — as we do it God’s way!
In”A Woman’s Place in Christ,” Jack starts out saying the Bible says men and women are the same in every way [emphasis mine throughout]:
The Bible says in Galatians 3:28 that because of what Christ has done, there are no longer any differences among us. “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (no ethnic or national difference), “neither slave nor free” (no economic difference), “neither male nor female” (no gender difference), “for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus.” This verse refers to the equality we have in God.
Here, Paul was actually talking about salvation, when the text is shown in context, that abiding-in-Christ men and women are both children of God, “heirs” according to the promise. Paul did not say women and men no longer have God given personality differences (different and complementary strengths and weaknesses), and therefore no difference in roles. Galatians is about salvation. There “neither male nor female” regarding salvation.
26 For you are all children of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.
Jack quotes 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The second paragraph is the clearest text on this subject, because Paul gives two reasons why:
I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Jack then says:
First, let’s see what the different verses in this passage do not mean.
That the women adorn themselves in modest apparel (v. 9).“All women should dress as crummy as possible to verify their holiness.”
Why does Jack choose the word “crummy?” Modest apparel is the opposite of “hot” and “sexy,” but should not be “crummy.” Who would interpret Paul’s statement this way?
Jack also says this passage does not mean:
Adam was formed first, then Eve (v. 13).“God likes men more than He does women.”
He’s absolutely correct here. God doesn’t like one sex more than the other because they’re gifted differently.
Jack then completely ignores what this important text really does mean.
“Adam was formed first” means: man was designed with unique giftings to be able to perform specific tasks well. God then made women with giftings that complement man’s giftings. Men and women’s personalities are complementary, not the same, contrary to what society is continually telling us.
Jack also doesn’t mention what Paul’s reason #2 does mean. He only says that Paul does not mean that “men are smarter than women,” which is of course not true. The issue is deception, not IQ.
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (v. 14). “Men are smarter than women.”
Eve was deceived by the Devil to the point of sinning, not because she was less intelligent, but because of a strength in her personality that is particularly beneficial in child bearing: empathy. Women are capable of having lots of empathy, and are often more interested in relationships than with facts, compared to men as a whole. But this can be a weakness in ways too, especially in determining Bible doctrine, which requires objectivity. [And please keep in mind that God only calls some men to be overseers (5-fold leaders – Eph. 4:11-16 – & elders). Many men who are leaders today were not even called by God to be leaders.]
Then Jack says:
We can’t analyze every verse, but we will look at a few of the most important ones.
But Jack, there only are four verses to analyze. What kind of an excuse…? The preceding, modest apparel paragraph isn’t directly related. According to Jack, the verses that say why women should not teach or have authority over men in the church (13 & 14) are not important enough to consider. This is a common way that teachers deceive the people — through omission. I see it often, and I hope it’s not on purpose. The establishment media regularly does the same.Jack only mentions what verses 13 and 14 do not say; though, these are the crucial verses to understand this text.
He does address verse 12:
“Let a woman be silent…”
The first thing we have to understand is that, in this passage, Paul is writing to Timothy to instruct him on how to lead a church. He is giving him counsel on how to deal with relationships within the body.
This is absolutely true, and is an important point. Paul is not talking about discussions outside of the assembly, socially.
Then Jack says Paul can’t possibly be saying what he actually said because Priscilla and Phoebe were recognized teachers; though, the Bible does not say they were “teachers,” “overseers” or elders.”
But we cannot divorce the counsel given here from what we find in other parts of Scripture. Elsewhere Paul mentions women who labored with him in the gospel (Philippians 4:3) and others, such as Priscilla and Phoebe, whom Paul recognizes as teachers and deaconesses (see Acts 18:26; Romans 16:1, 3 and 12). Therefore, he can’t be saying that women are to have no input regarding spiritual matters in the church.
Women can be deacons, because it’s not a spiritual-authority-over-a-man role. And in the next chapter in Timothy, Paul clearly states an overseer or elder must be the “husband of one wife” — a man. If women can be overseers according to God’s plan, then Paul simply would have said “married” instead.
Jack’s reasoning here also falls apart:
..let me begin by addressing verses 11-12: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” These verses are commonly interpreted to mean that a woman is permitted to teach only other women. In particular, older women may teach younger ones, as Titus 2:4-5 suggests.
…the older women, likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slandering, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, home makers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
But if this is true, it is true only in the United States. When a woman goes abroad as a missionary, she is both allowed and expected to teach, and not just to teach other women.
Because we have an unbiblical double standard doesn’t negate what Paul said. Witnessing to men here or anywhere is fine, but being an overseer, teaching in the assembly isn’t biblically allowed in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.. We don’t interpret what Paul said based upon our cultural practice.
Jack also says the misunderstanding is “mainly because the word “silence” is mistranslated in verses 11-12;” though, what Paul means is clear, because he says: “I don’t permit a woman to teach….”
As a longtime charismatic, Jack should know that his reasoning is incorrect here, stating:
If you look at 1 Timothy 2:12 in the context of the whole Bible, you will see that Paul couldn’t be prohibiting women from teaching, or even from teaching men. If he were, why would he, in another epistle, give rules for women to follow when they are prophesying? In 1 Corinthians 11:5, he is referring to prophetic utterances given in the midst of an entire congregation, one that includes men. We know prophecy can come by itself, or it can accompany either preaching or teaching.
Prophesying isn’t teaching. It’s a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10) in which the person only says what God says through them. If the person prophesying is adding their own thoughts they’re not prophesying; though, this often passes for prophesy (in the few churches which still allow prophesy).
Jack started this article out saying there is no difference at all between women and men. Now he acknowledges:
God did give husbands authority over their wives. … The redemptive process requires that the husband take leadership, and the wife submit (see Ephesians 5:22-24).
• • •
I must say that I’m really disappointed in the way Jack handled this important, 1 Timothy 2 passage that I’ve always viewed as definitive regarding women’s ministry — because Paul gave the two reasons why, which Jack didn’t address.
I’ve always appreciated Jack standing up for the spiritual gifts on Television. His worship song “Majesty” is extraordinary, and he’s always come across as a kind man. But this teaching is dangerously misleading. It seems that people so greatly want to hear what they want to hear that they accept what pastors and the world is telling them without checking the word of God to make sure what they’re being taught is true — which the Bible prophesied:
“For The TIME WILL COME when THEY WILL NOT LISTEN to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves TEACHERS AFTER THEIR OWN LUSTS; and will TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, and turn aside to FABLES” (2 Tim. 4:3-4)
• • •
SAFEGUARD Suggestion to Minimize False Teaching — Allow Comments
One of the first things I did upon reading Jack’s article was to scroll down and see if there were comments. As usual, there are none. Some ministers do allow comments, but then erase those they disagree with. The establishment media doesn’t like comments too.
I always allow comments, whether they disagree or not, unless there is profanity or serious ill will — or if they are off topic.
We should not be afraid of the truth which will set us free from demonic bondage. The demons will run amuck if we buck God’s order in how he designed men and women. “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”
Submitting to God’s ways is for our own good — so we can be ONE with each other in Him “that the world will know!” God’s glory will be that great when ONE happens — Jesus’ prayer for us in John 17!
God’s guardrails are for our own good — that we might have LIFE!
The Feminist Movement is Demonically Inspired :: by Geri Ungurean
Even before I was born again, I knew that something about the Feminist movement was very wrong. I wasn’t able to discern things as I can now. But I could see something in these women that was distasteful to me. I wanted nothing to do with them.
I remember watching Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan and others, screaming at women to “burn their bras” and to rule over men. As a matter of fact, they were also telling women that they did not need men – that men were inferior to them.
Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings” (Genesis 3:1-7) NASB.
Notice that Eve was the one who was deceived. Adam sinned willfully – probably out of devotion to his wife.
1 Tim. 2:12-14: “But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience….”
In steadfast pursuit of gender equality and to promote nonconformity, it’s become popular in some social circles to start early, very early, by raising young children in a gender-neutral way: not revealing the baby’s sex at birth, dressing them and their bedroom in various shades of oatmeal, encouraging them to play with gender-neutral toys. There’s also pressure on corporations to help; parental complaints led Target to stop sex-segregating its toys, for instance.
Offering kids the opportunity to pursue what they’d like, freed from societal expectations, is an undeniably positive thing — whether it has to do with toys, clothing, or their future aspirations. But the scientific reality is that it’s futile to treat children as blank slates with no predetermined characteristics. Biology matters.
A large and long-standing body of research literature shows that toy preferences, for example, are innate, not socially constructed or shaped by parental feedback.
Most girls will gravitate toward socially interesting toys, like dolls, that help social and verbal abilities develop. Most boys will gravitate toward toys that are mechanically interesting, like cars and trucks, fostering visuo-spatial skills. …
I hear from many well-meaning parents who raised their children in gender-neutral homes and were surprised to find that they nevertheless gravitated toward stereotypical interests and toys. Little boys who were given pots and pans to play with turned them into makeshift toy cars, complete with self-generated engine sounds. Little girls turned to one another and started playing house.
I watched about half of ‘Adam’s Rib’ on YouTube here to get a fuller perspective in posting this article, in which I highlight key points. Katherine Hepburn, playing the feminist wife declared: “Equality: mutual everything or nothing.” Then she mocks him to wear the pants and become superior.
The Talmudists go all out, including presenting actors in drag, pictured below — in 1949!! They’ve been mocking men ever since, to re-engineer society, replacing our Creator’s guidelines, so they can one day rule everyone — carrying out Satan’s NWO plan.
The film was a tremendous success, grossing $4 million, a huge sum back then: According to MGM records the film earned $2,971,000 in the US and Canada and $976,000 elsewhere resulting in a profit of $826,000.
Why am I writing about a movie from 68 years ago that most people have forgotten? Because it shows that the Golden Age of Hollywood was not really “sweet and innocent” at all. It helps to answer the questions “how was our society destroyed?” and “where did it begin?”
Adam’s Rib is a feminist gender bender movie from 1949. Notice that the title is Biblical but the movie is Anti-Biblical. This tricked conservatives into thinking that it was a safe movie to watch.
The plot involves a woman who shoots her unfaithful husband and puts him in critical condition but is found “not guilty” by a court of law. [Echoes of Chicago]
A lawyer (Spencer Tracy) is assigned to represent the man in court. His wife (Katherine Hepburn), instead of supporting her breadwinning husband who lavishes her with gifts, thinks it is fun to compete with her husband and to ridicule him in court. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” -radical communist Saul Alinsky.
The lawyer’s reaction is to yell “I wanted a wife, not a competitor!”
MODELLING DYSFUNCTION AND SELFISHNESS
His liberal wife does not cook, clean, nor raise any children. She spends her time drinking, smoking, and going to fancy restaurants. And insulting and goading her conservative husband whenever he disagrees with her.
When her husband gives her a fancy hat, she gives it away to her client accused of attempted murder.
She effortlessly gets a job as a lawyer on a whim. …
The victim of the shooting is mocked by transforming into a woman. All men in the film are mocked except for an effeminate songwriter. …
As the lawyer’s wife gives him a massage, she slaps him. But when he gives her a massage and slaps her, she is offended. There are two sets of rules: Although they are “equals”, she can do things that he is not permitted to do. “Some are more equal than others” – George Orwell. …
At the beginning of the movie, women had cried repeatedly to manipulate men. …
Throughout the movie, a neighbour plays the song “Farewell Amanda” on the piano…. The song was written by homosexual occultist Cole Porter (Scroll and Key). The effeminate piano-playing joker in the movie is a dead ringer for Cole Porter, too. He mocks the husband at every opportunity and hits on his wife right in front of him. The husband lets it go. He is too weak to defend his wife. …
When Katherine Hepburn states that men and women are “exactly the same”, Spencer Tracy says “Well, not quite exactly”. In other words, men and women are identical except for their physiology.
Both the lawyer and his wife call each other “Pinky”, hardly a manly moniker. Once again they are portrayed as almost identical equals.
The husband is continually made to look like a fool. He jumbles his lines, he bumps his head, and he gets lifted in the air by a woman in court who is clearly much stronger than he is. Everyone thinks it is hilarious. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy” – Saul Alinsky.
The smartest person in the movie is another woman in court who has endless degrees and credentials. …
This movie always gets a high rating from critics. It is well-acted, full of humour, and it makes you think. However, morality is never taken into account in their ratings. If it was, Adam’s Rib would rate a zero.
The main message of the movie is that “man is evil and weak, and woman is strong and virtuous, so women don’t need men”.
It is almost as if Spencer Tracy’s character in Adam’s Rib represents God of the Bible, and the secular crowd mocks him and are unthankful for his gifts.
Adam’s Rib mocks conservative values and glorifies liberalism, much as All in the Family would do 22 years later, starting in 1971.
[Editor’s note: Norman Lear, producer of “All in the Family,” was raised Jewish. He considered his Jewish father a “rascal,” and then created the Archie Bunker character as a white protestant rascal for Americans to laugh at (cued by the laugh track) every week for years:
Lear was born in New Haven, Connecticut, the son of Enie/Jeanette (née Sokolovsky) and Hyman “Herman” Lear, a traveling salesman. He has a younger sister, Claire Lear Brown (1925-2015).Lear grew up in a Jewish home and had a Bar Mitzvah ceremony. His mother was born in Elizabethgrad in Kherson Gubernia in Ukraine, while his father was born in Connecticut, to Russian-born parents.
When Lear was 9 years old, his father went to prison for selling fake bonds.Lear thought of his father as a “rascal” and said that the character of Archie Bunker (whom Lear depicted as white Protestant on the show) was in part inspired by his father, while the character of Edith Bunker was in part inspired by his mother.(source)
“All in the Family” was immensely popular in the ’70s:
The show is often regarded in the United States as one of the greatest television series of all time. The show ranked number one in the yearly Nielsen ratings from 1971 to 1976. … TV Guide’s 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time ranked All in the Family as number four. Bravo also named the show’s protagonist, Archie Bunker, TV’s greatest character of all time.(source)]
The Luciferians, the communists, and in more recent years Hollywood, have been fomenting this “Battle of the Sexes” for hundreds of years. It is a cornerstone in their “divide and conquer” tactic. What else would you expect from Hollywood, the land of immorality propaganda?
Adam Weishaupt, founder of the illuminati, wrote:
“There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These [women] should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense release to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowledge that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration.”
This undermining of Godly morals and traditional families is essential for the luciferian globalists to replace God with lucifer, demoralize society, and set up a New World Order dictatorship. “The family is enemy number one,” said satanist Aleister Crowley.
Yes, we were programmed to accept feminist gender bending and immorality a long time ago, as this movie from 1949 aptly illustrates.
When the lawyer’s wife asks the jury to picture a role reversal, two women morph into effeminate men and the man morphs into an ugly woman. All three are shown dressed in drag, promoting transvestism and transgenderism.
Women become men and men become women in this nightmarish fantasy world.
Here the accused is transformed into a man.
The mistress is also transformed into a man.
The victim of the shooting is mocked by transforming into a woman.
All men in the film are mocked except for the effeminate songwriter.
“Feminism masquerades as a movement for women’s rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are “socially constructed” to oppress them.
Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine” (Dr. Henry Makow).
• • •
Each time a “new normal” got past the censors on the pretext that “great art must not be suppressed,” there was no turning back. Older movies seem attractive to us now because they nostalgically convey the more virtuous climate of the past, but within each time period, Hollywood was always boiling the frog toward greater immorality. – James Perloff (source)