A Double Minded Man


A man with a double mind is a man who is unstable in all his ways is what the scripture says. I had always thought this was referring to that man's faith in G-d to receive what he was praying for. I thought like many people who put their faith in their faith, that this man, as long as he believed and didn't doubt, he would receive what so ever he had asked for in belief. 

What Is Faith?
Faith, according Hebrews 11:1 in  the bible, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
That scripture suddenly came to me one day while I was talking to one of my sons, and as it occurred to me, I then realized that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways is also confirmed in the scripture in Proverbs...
Proverbs 23:7 

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
A double minded man can sometimes try to mind the things of G-d, while also minding the things of the world, and in turn can expect to receive no reward from G-d. The double minded man will try to make things happen on his/her own instead of waiting on G-d, which requires true faith. Again, faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Another way to also look at double-mindedness is your average Christian trying to live their life through "faith" while not truly walking in that said faith or belief.

James 2:20 
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Bible search results
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Most Christians will spout off about One having fallen from grace if One tries to practice what is preached, by having corresponding works accompanied with their professed faith. If a person truly believes on the word of G-d, they will do as they believe, their works will correspond to their beliefs in G-d's word. Faith accompanied by the good works G-d has ordained we should walk in will cause a man/woman, to be stable in all their ways, when we lean not to our own understanding, but in all our ways we acknowledge him.

​The first century Jewish writer Josephus (37-100 AD) penned the earliest non-biblical testimony of Jesus. He reportedly had access to official Roman records on which he based his information and in his work Halosis or the “Capture (of Jerusalem),” written around 72 A.D., Josephus discussed “the human form of Jesus and his wonderful works.” Unfortunately his texts have passed through Christian hands which altered them, removing offensive material. Fortunately, however, Biblical scholar Robert Eisler in a classic 1931 study of Josephus’ Testimony was able to reconstruct the unaltered testimony based on a newly-discovered Old Russian translation that preserved the original Greek text. According to Eisler’s reconstruction, the oldest non-Biblical description of Jesus read as follows:
“At that time also there appeared a certain man of magic power … if it be meet to call him a man, [whose name is Jesus], whom [certain] Greeks call a son of [a] God, but his disciples [call] the true prophet … he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. ‘with a long face’ [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose … with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard.”
This short, black-skinned, mature, hunchbacked Jesus with a unibrow, short curly hair and undeveloped beard bears no resemblance to the Jesus Christ taken for granted today by most of the Christian world: the tall, long haired, long bearded, white-skinned and blue eyed Son of God. Yet, this earliest textual record matches well the earliest iconographic evidence.
The earliest visual depiction of Jesus is a painting found in 1921 on a wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura Europos, Syria and dated around 235 A.D. The Jesus that is “Healing the Paralytic Man” (Mark 2:1-12) is short and dark-skinned with a small curly afro .
This description has now been supported by the new science of forensic anthropology. In 2002 British forensic scientists and Israeli archaeologists reconstructed what they believe is the most accurate image of Jesus based off of data obtained from the multi-disciplinary approach. In December 2002 Popular Science Magazine published a cover story on the findings which confirm that Jesus would have been short, around 5”1’, hair “short with tight curls,” a weather-beaten face “which would have made him appear older,” dark eyes and complexion: “he probably looked a great deal more like a dark-skinned Semite than Westerners are used to seeing,” they concluded. The textual, visual, and scientific evidence agrees, then: Jesus likely was a short, dark-skinned Semite with short curly hair and dark eyes

Complete article found at-
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Jesus/Jesus.htm

The first complete English bible was the Tyndale bible in about 1524. The Tyndale bible did not use the word "church" anywhere in its pages, but instead used the word "congregation." Sometime after the publishing of the Tyndale bible, the word congregation was replaced with the word "church", which is derived from the word "Circe".
The Oxford English Dictionary gives this etymology for the word church: Church - Old English: circe etc. = Old Saxon: kirka .
Three quotes giving more information about the etymology of the word "church". The first is from Wikipedia: Quote Church Wikipedia The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, kurios oikos (house of the Lord); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of the Greek. No doubt the word means ‘a circle.’ The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular (witness circular Stonehenge, the most ancient stone megaliths on earth). Compare Anglo-Saxon 'circe', a small church, with 'circol', a circle. In Scotland it is called "Kirk" and in Gemany it is "Kirche," in England it is the word "Circe" (the "c" having a "k" sound).


"Kirke/Circe" was also the name of a Goddess. Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god, who was famous for taming wild animals for her circus. Quote Circe[/size] [www.paleothea.com] Circe was an evil, or perhaps just cruelly quirky, sorceress. She was very powerful and turned all of Odysseus' men into swine (they bearly escaped). She also had the power to purify and cleanse the Argonauts of the murder of Apsyrtus. Her name means "Falcon" and that seems pretty appropriate for her character. Circe was the daughter of Helios (the Sun) and Perse, and was the aunt of Medea. She was dangerous because she was so powerful and so bored.


Quote Circe, Kirke, Kirche and Kerk
This is the word used in most English versions as a rendering of the New Testament's Greek word ekklesia. Ekklesia really means "a calling out", a meeting or a gathering. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, which means an assembly or a congregation. Neither ekklesia nor qahal means a building. Tyndale, in his translation, uniformly translated ekklesia as "congregation" and only used the word "churches" to translate Acts 19:37 for heathen temples! Whence the word "church", then? Ecclesiastical sources give the origin as kuriakon or kyriakon in Greek. However, to accept this. one has to stretch your imagination in an attempt to see any resemblance. Also, because kuriakon means a building (the house of Kurios=Lord), and not a gathering or meeting of people, as the words ekklesia and qahal imply, therefore this explanation can only be regarded as distorted, even if it is true.


Our common dictionaries, however, are honest in revealing to us the true origin. They all trace the word back to its Old English or Anglo-Saxon root, namely circe. And the origin of circe? Any encyclopaedia, or dictionary of mythology, will reveal who Circe was. She was the goddess-daughter of Helios, the Sun-deity! Again, another form of Sun-worship, this time the daughter of the Sun-deity, had become mixed with the Messianic Faith.


Some interesting facts emerge from the study of the word circe. The word is related to "circus", "circle", "circuit", "Circean", "circulate", and the various words starting with "circum-". The Latin pronunciation could have been "sirke" or "sirse". The Old English word circe may have been pronounced similarly to "kirke", or even "sirse". However, Circe was in fact originally a Greek goddess where her name was written as: Kirke, and pronounced as such—just as in numerous similar cases of words of Greek origin, e.g. cyst and kustis, cycle and kuklos, cylinder and kulindros. The word "church" is known in Scotland as kirk, and in German as Kirche and in Netherlands as kerk. These words show their direct derivation from the Greek Kirke even better than the English "church". However, even the Old English circe for "church", reveals its origin. Let us rather use the Scriptural "Assembly" or "Congregation", and renounce the word that is derived from Circe, the daughter of the Sun-deity! 

First I'd like to state that nowhere in scripture does it state anything about pants, whether being worn by a man, or being worn by a woman. Everyone in the bible as far as we know of wore robes at the time the law found in Deuteronomy was given, and yet many still want to insert the idea of pants into the scripture given.
Deuteronomy 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
I have had conversations in which many who claimed breeches worn by the sons of Aaron who were priest, were the same as pants worn today, but lets see what scripture actually says about breeches and how they were described.
Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Leviticus 6:10
And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
1.So first we see who the breeches were made for, they were made for the priests of the Most High.
2.The breeches were to worn underneath the garment of the priest
3. The breeches were to be made of linen
4. The breeches were to be made to cover the loins down to the thigh.
This description of breeches sound more like men's boxers worn today underneath the clothing and not like pants.
I once asked a Hebrew male who was constantly spouting off about pants and women who wore pants going to hell, what he thought about a man wearing women's pants. He told me there was no such thing as women pants, and that pants only should be worn by men only.
I then showed him a picture similar to the one I posted above. I asked him what he would say if he saw a man wearing the kind of outfit or pants as in the picture above. Outraged, he stated the man was a homosexual. I asked how could he judge that by what the man was wearing, and he stated in frustration, " Because those are women's pants". The problem is not wearing pants, but cross-dressing which is confusion of genders.