• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Everett Mendiola - wannabe cult leader

Everett Mendiola 3rd.

.
☠ BANNED ☠
Male
This issue has been thrashed out many times, and never gets anywhere. Instead, everyone keeps reiterating the same points over and over in different ways and becoming more entrenched in their individual views, often without fully understanding the position of those with differing views. I don't want to have such a debate again. Instead, I would like us to all work together to carefully define each position and to have every point explained clearly, once, and in a place that is easy for people to find. Then anyone can refer to these threads as a resource and use them as the basis for their own research, or for writing a document on the topic.

To structure this clearly, I have started several threads, each with a specific purpose.

0) This thread is for general discussion, keep debate to a minimum but if it must happen it goes here. If in doubt, post here. This is the primary discussion thread.

Then I have three additional threads that exist simply to collate the scriptural evidence supporting each position. No discussion of other positions is to occur in those threads. Each should ultimately have each point made once, comprehensively but efficiently, so they are quick to read while carefully elaborating the position. To achieve this, I will delete any posts that stray off-topic, and may do some trimming if some points become too repetitive.

I see four basic answers to "When does marriage begin?", and I have a thread for each position.
1) Sex forms a marriage (if you have sex you are married by default, unless you were ineligible to marry)
2) Covenant forms a marriage (marriage is formed by contract / agreement / covenant / consent, sex may then occur within marriage)
3) Possession / Either forms a marriage (if you have a woman and nobody else objects, she's your wife)
4) Both form a marriage (only once you have a covenant, and have consummated it with sex, are you married).

If there are any other basic positions that should be added to this list, tell me here. If one of these needs to be redefined, tell me also. I'm not structuring this discussion to achieve a particular outcome, I have no agenda here. I'm structuring it simply in an attempt to actually be able to address the topic without dissolving into yet another back-and-forth debate that goes nowhere.

Past threads on this topic for reference (and to see the previous arguments this topic has caused!):
What constitutes marriage?
Profane Relationships
Genesis 2:24
Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting
Sex, marriage & emotions - ramblings of a FW

Related, could be useful:
Language affects our ability to think
One flesh

Well Versed And Well Read And We'll Received ...

In "Revelatory Fashion" :

"Kingdom Marriage" Begins With (A Monogamous Or Polygynous Pair Or Group) Conciously Decide
This issue has been thrashed out many times, and never gets anywhere. Instead, everyone keeps reiterating the same points over and over in different ways and becoming more entrenched in their individual views, often without fully understanding the position of those with differing views. I don't want to have such a debate again. Instead, I would like us to all work together to carefully define each position and to have every point explained clearly, once, and in a place that is easy for people to find. Then anyone can refer to these threads as a resource and use them as the basis for their own research, or for writing a document on the topic.

To structure this clearly, I have started several threads, each with a specific purpose.

0) This thread is for general discussion, keep debate to a minimum but if it must happen it goes here. If in doubt, post here. This is the primary discussion thread.

Then I have three additional threads that exist simply to collate the scriptural evidence supporting each position. No discussion of other positions is to occur in those threads. Each should ultimately have each point made once, comprehensively but efficiently, so they are quick to read while carefully elaborating the position. To achieve this, I will delete any posts that stray off-topic, and may do some trimming if some points become too repetitive.

I see four basic answers to "When does marriage begin?", and I have a thread for each position.
1) Sex forms a marriage (if you have sex you are married by default, unless you were ineligible to marry)
2) Covenant forms a marriage (marriage is formed by contract / agreement / covenant / consent, sex may then occur within marriage)
3) Possession / Either forms a marriage (if you have a woman and nobody else objects, she's your wife)
4) Both form a marriage (only once you have a covenant, and have consummated it with sex, are you married).

If there are any other basic positions that should be added to this list, tell me here. If one of these needs to be redefined, tell me also. I'm not structuring this discussion to achieve a particular outcome, I have no agenda here. I'm structuring it simply in an attempt to actually be able to address the topic without dissolving into yet another back-and-forth debate that goes nowhere.

Past threads on this topic for reference (and to see the previous arguments this topic has caused!):
What constitutes marriage?
Profane Relationships
Genesis 2:24
Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting
Sex, marriage & emotions - ramblings of a FW

Related, could be useful:
Language affects our ability to think
One flesh

Well Read And We'll Versed And We'll Received :

In "Revelatory Fashion" When A Pair Or Group Monogamous Or Polygynous "Consiously" Decide To Become (One) And It Is With The Acute Understanding Of Agape Love Being Afforded To All Participating Parties And With The Exchange Of "Intimate Seed" Being Willingly Given And +*Knowing This
Binds Them Legally By Scripture*+ ...
(Then This Is A Authentic "Kingdom Marriage" ... (Rough Version).
 
In "Revelatory Fashion" When A Pair Or Group Monogamous Or Polygynous "Consiously" Decide To Become (One)
A group never becomes one scripturally. Marriage is always between a man and a woman, who become one flesh ("they twain shall be one flesh", Matthw 19:5-6).
The Bible clearly allows for a man to have multiple such marriages, or we wouldn't be here discussing polygamy. But you are describing something that is invented by man (group marriage), not Biblical marriage.
I understand why you are saying that a decision starts a marriage, because that makes logical sense in a human mind. But it's human logic, not revelation. We're trying here to work out what scripture says about marriage.

By the way @Everett Mendiola 3rd., could you please use normal English grammar rather than capitalising every single word? It's very difficult to read anything you write, and it is quite possible that most people choose not to read your posts because they are too hard to follow, and may misunderstand you if they do read them.
 
A group never becomes one scripturally. Marriage is always between a man and a woman, who become one flesh ("they twain shall be one flesh", Matthw 19:5-6).
The Bible clearly allows for a man to have multiple such marriages, or we wouldn't be here discussing polygamy. But you are describing something that is invented by man (group marriage), not Biblical marriage.
I understand why you are saying that a decision starts a marriage, because that makes logical sense in a human mind. But it's human logic, not revelation. We're trying here to work out what scripture says about marriage.

By the way @Everett Mendiola 3rd., could you please use normal English grammar rather than capitalising every single word? It's very difficult to read anything you write, and it is quite possible that most people choose not to read your posts because they are too hard to follow, and may misunderstand you if they do read them.
Appreciate Your Feedback :
But That Is Where (Houston We Have A Problem) ! Because As Abraham I am As Knowing (Abba's) Voice As Opposed To Man's Interpretation Of (The Scriptures) Because Abraham At That Time (Only Had His Inner Voice Of The Creator To Rely On) So Do I ... (His Voice Is More Reliable Than Scripture That Was Translated From Hebrew Aramaic And Greek And Latin) To English ... By Jesuit Priest And Mason's And Illuminati And Proof Read By : (Sir Francis Bacon) A High Ranking Member Who Changed Every Page After The Bible Was Translated ... To Fit Masonic Standards.
(We Must Study To Show Ourselves Approved).
 
Really?

Eph 4:3,13; Col 3:14; John 17:22-23; Phil 2:2;
Appreciate Your Feed Back :
Really ? Is An Appropriate Answer To Something They Know Not Of ... Or (Ignorant Too/Not Thoroughly Informed). Remember Always As You Teach Others ... The Number "1" Is (A Prime Number) In Definition Others Follow ... (And All Can Become One).
(We Must Study To Show Ourselves Approved).
 
Really?

Eph 4:3,13; Col 3:14; John 17:22-23; Phil 2:2;
Ok, fair point, I was wrong to say "never". The more you try to summarise, the more you speak in absolutes, and the more you get yourself in trouble... :) Yes, we all become one with each other - but only as a consequence of being joined to Christ. In the same way, I suppose by analogy two wives could be considered to become "one" in the same way - but again only as a consequence of each, individually, being joined to their husband. Each marriage is still between each of them individually and their husband, not all three as a group.
But That Is Where (Houston We Have A Problem) ! Because As Abraham I am As Knowing (Abba's) Voice As Opposed To Man's Interpretation Of (The Scriptures) Because Abraham At That Time (Only Had His Inner Voice Of The Creator To Rely On) So Do I
I agree that this is where we have a problem. Everett, if you feel your own inner understanding of Abba's voice is more reliable than the scriptures, then there is a serious risk that when you emotionally feel something to be correct you will interpret this emotion to be Abba's voice. Like here - you have introduced a concept that is completely alien to scripture (the idea that more than two people could enter a "marriage" by mutual agreement), and you think this is of God because you think God is telling you it.

The way we determine whether something is of God or not, is by comparing it to scripture. This does not agree with scripture, so it did not come from God.

How much of what you think is from God is actually from Him?

We have to hold scripture as more reliable than our own understanding, or we can be led into absolutely any form of heresy. Satan appears as an angel of light, so can certainly appear to be the voice of Abba. Or we can interpret our own emotions as being that voice. Scripture is the anchor that keeps us from sliding into false views, following either Satan or ourselves.
 
So Do I ... (His Voice Is More Reliable Than Scripture That Was Translated From Hebrew Aramaic And Greek And Latin) To English ... By Jesuit Priest And Mason's And Illuminati And Proof Read By : (Sir Francis Bacon) A High Ranking Member Who Changed Every Page After The Bible Was Translated ... To Fit Masonic Standards.

I reject this casting doubt on the scriptures. There is exactly zero evidence for what you claim. There isn't even evidence that those groups existed 2000 years ago. The ancient manuscripts are so voluminous, including those predating the cooption of the church, and the financial incentive for producing a novel marketable English translation so great, that in light of their consistency I have zero doubt about the veracity of translations we have (aside from the usual NIV, W&H, Septuagint concerns).

As to your inner voice, sorry, but you're no Abraham. I'll take the scriptures over your appeal to self authority every day.

You posts some really long titles. :)

Indeed, I can barely read them.

Ok, fair point, I was wrong to say "never". The more you try to summarise, the more you speak in absolutes, and the more you get yourself in trouble... :) Yes, we all become one with each other - but only as a consequence of being joined to Christ. In the same way, I suppose by analogy two wives could be considered to become "one" in the same way - but again only as a consequence of each, individually, being joined to their husband. Each marriage is still between each of them individually and their husband, not all three as a group.

Now that is really good. I think you're getting to a beautiful explanation of the nature of polygamous marriage as a true reflection of our relationship with Christ. (unlike serial monogamy)

It is one marriage just as there is one church. Believers are one with the body just as they are one with Christ; but only so long as they remain in Christ and Christ in them. Likewise there is oneness in the polygamous marriage, but only so long as the women remain one with their man. A bride doesn't marry the other wives, but the husband. But in doing so she becomes part of one marriage. It's not that a man has multiple marriages. There is but one marriage (i.e. one church) that has multiple brides.

Christ - Husband
Church - Marriage
Believers - Brides

To deny polygamy is to metaphorically deny that more than one person can be saved, to deny the existence of the church. Or looked at differently, one could look at monogamy as the marital equivalent of One True Church syndrome. Or denominationalism as the equivalent of bigamy; or maybe a husband keeping wives in different houses (disunity).
 
If a man is one with each of his wives, the girls are going to just naturally be at some level of oneness with each other.
Defining that oneness is a whole nuther question, but it will vary from family to family, and many times from hour to hour.
 
I reject this casting doubt on the scriptures. There is exactly zero evidence for what you claim. There isn't even evidence that those groups existed 2000 years ago.
@rockfox while I don’t agree necessarily with him, I think you may wanna re read his statement. He doesnt appear to be saying the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is incorrect, rather that the English translation of those works is suspect.
 
Ok, fair point, I was wrong to say "never". The more you try to summarise, the more you speak in absolutes, and the more you get yourself in trouble... :) Yes, we all become one with each other - but only as a consequence of being joined to Christ. In the same way, I suppose by analogy two wives could be considered to become "one" in the same way - but again only as a consequence of each, individually, being joined to their husband. Each marriage is still between each of them individually and their husband, not all three as a group.

I agree that this is where we have a problem. Everett, if you feel your own inner understanding of Abba's voice is more reliable than the scriptures, then there is a serious risk that when you emotionally feel something to be correct you will interpret this emotion to be Abba's voice. Like here - you have introduced a concept that is completely alien to scripture (the idea that more than two people could enter a "marriage" by mutual agreement), and you think this is of God because you think God is telling you it.

The way we determine whether something is of God or not, is by comparing it to scripture. This does not agree with scripture, so it did not come from God.

How much of what you think is from God is actually from Him?

We have to hold scripture as more reliable than our own understanding, or we can be led into absolutely any form of heresy. Satan appears as an angel of light, so can certainly appear to be the voice of Abba. Or we can interpret our own emotions as being that voice. Scripture is the anchor that keeps us from sliding into false views, following either Satan or ourselves.
Appreciate Your Scriptorial Feedback :
Yet To Dialogue About The Deeper Things Of "Our Creator" And Having Limited Wisdom And Knowledge And Understanding Of +*The Subject Matter*+ Is Not Fair To You ... (The Balance Of This Conversation Is (One-Sided As A Result. Although I Admire
Your Calm And Ease In Your Responses
... To Try And Negate My Wisdom And Knowledge And Understanding On The
Matter Proves My Case !

The Scripture Records : (The Groanings Within Us Which Cannot Be Uttered) Is
Where (YAH'S Voice) Cannot Be Mistaken ! For If It Were ... ABRAHAM Would Have Missed It ROYALY !
And We Are NO DIFFERENT THAN ABRAHAM Who Was Made In (HIS IMAGE) Just As We Are.
@rockfox while I don’t agree necessarily with him, I think you may wanna re read his statement. He doesnt appear to be saying the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is incorrect, rather that the English translation of those works is suspect.

Someone Is +*IS LISTENING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT*+ .
 
If a man is one with each of his wives, the girls are going to just naturally be at some level of oneness with each other.
Defining that oneness is a whole nuther question, but it will vary from family to family, and many times from hour to hour.
Keep In Mind I Encourage You ...
(A THREE FOLD CORD IS NOT QUICKLY BROKEN) .... (UNITY)
AND AS FAR AS THE SISTER WIVES (THEY SIMPLY MUST BE IN (ONE MIND AND ONE ACCORD) WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ALL THREE ULTIMATELY.
 
Yet To Dialogue About The Deeper Things Of "Our Creator" And Having Limited Wisdom And Knowledge And Understanding Of +*The Subject Matter*+ Is Not Fair To You ... (The Balance Of This Conversation Is (One-Sided As A Result. Although I Admire
Your Calm And Ease In Your Responses
... To Try And Negate My Wisdom And Knowledge And Understanding On The
Matter Proves My Case !
Do you mean to say "I can't talk to you about this because I'm really smart and you're too dumb to understand me"?
That sounds about the most arrogant and ridiculous statement I've ever read, but I'm just checking that's what you truly intended to say before responding.
 
AND AS FAR AS THE SISTER WIVES (THEY SIMPLY MUST BE IN (ONE MIND AND ONE ACCORD) WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ALL THREE ULTIMATELY.
Must?
That would be the goal, but getting there is a process that many don’t accomplish.
 
@rockfox while I don’t agree necessarily with him, I think you may wanna re read his statement. He doesnt appear to be saying the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is incorrect, rather that the English translation of those works is suspect.

Ok, on second (still difficult read), I can't tell if he's saying the manuscript tradition has been corrupted or just the modern translations. Either way he's saying inner voice > scripture and modern translations are thoroughly corrupt. I strenuously disagree with both those.
 
Do you mean to say "I can't talk to you about this because I'm really smart and you're too dumb to understand me"?
That sounds about the most arrogant and ridiculous statement I've ever read, but I'm just checking that's what you truly intended to say before responding.
Do you mean to say "I can't talk to you about this because I'm really smart and you're too dumb to understand me"?
That sounds about the most arrogant and ridiculous statement I've ever read, but I'm just checking that's what you truly intended to say before responding.

How You Interpret My Messages Is Totally At Your Discretion ...
I've Been Patient And Cordial And Open And Complimentary ... On The Other Hand Some Of You Have Been Smug And Rude And Judgmental From The Beginning Of My Interaction Here.
T(Will Be My Last Entry) :
If You And Your Counterparts Are Truth Seekers And If You Humble Yourselves ..
(I Will Be Willing To Teach You What You Have Proven You Know Very Little
Of). "My Calling Is To Teach Leaders"
And I Have And Do For Years.
 
Oh my, I’m choking on my popcorn.
 
@Everett Mendiola 3rd., if we were to sit under your instruction, what is the most important thing you would want to teach us?

To help us decide whether to do that, could you please clarify something rather important about your beliefs. What is your view of Yeshua? You mention the Father in almost every post you make, but have only mentioned Yeshua once. What is His role in your understanding of God?
 
I’d say that was a huge misidentification. Notice I said that I didn’t necessarily agree with your statement. I was merely pointing out that @rockfox had misunderstood what you were trying to say. Not that I agreed with or supported those sentiments at all.
@Everett Mendiola 3rd., if we were to sit under your instruction, what is the most important thing you would want to teach us?

To help us decide whether to do that, could you please clarify something rather important about your beliefs. What is your view of Yeshua? You mention the Father in almost every post you make, but have only mentioned Yeshua once. What is His role in your understanding of God?
My Last Entry :
The Only Reason I Will Answer You As
+*I am Sure My Anointing Nor My Yah Given Gifts And Takents Nor Spiritual Academia Nor Integrity Is Being Questioned*+ But That Your Inquiry Is
Genuine Due To A Few Of You Not Knowing My Level Of "Revelation"
As You All Seem To Rely On "Textual Knowledge". .. And Disagree With Me Because I Bring (The Thing Hid And Not
Known) ...

I Received +*The Sacrificial Atonement*+ Secured By (Yeshua Hamachiac) Via Yahweh And "The
Soulish Part Of Yah Which Is The Holy
Spirit" In 1983.
 
Back
Top