Skip to main content

Proving Myself to Myself

How do I prove that there is no guile behind a smile, and no sin behind a grin. These are features only the face can portray. Behind the veil of flesh lies unsolved mysteries only the Spirit has been successful in assisting in uncovering and exposing through revelation to self which knowledge cannot produce. Knowledge cannot prove the heart, but knowledge has enough information for the heart to be known. The Greek word for heart is Kardia and the Greek word for this knowledge is Gnosis. Kardia-Gnosis is one who knows the heart. Knowledge of a particular point (directed towards a particular object); perception, discernment, recognition, intuition.

In a medical position a Cardio specialist would be a doctor according to the physical who has studied the heart, but not figuratively or spiritually. In Scripture the heart is not referencing the organ, but rather spirit or soul depending on Hebrew or Greek, breath is inferred.

The Book of Hebrews 4:12, does a breakdown of the triune self and suggests that there are three aspects of the holistic self. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Just as in natural speaking, me, myself and I are used. Triune self be it natural or spiritual are realities of speech. These days if you speak too much about yourself you will get a clinical term to describe this action. You would have to ask yourself who do I talk to about myself and probably the safest place you would find will be God. No one really escapes this place, but those who practice talking to themselves out loud.

The Prophet Jeremiah declared that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” This is an accusation made against the heart with the question, who can know it? Who am I expecting should know the contents of my heart if it is being declared desperately wicked? Or am I exempt because this is the old and not the new testament?

I do not believe that I am exempt from examination of my own being, when instructed to judge myself, that I be not judged. If judgment is a resident on the inside of me then I should be able to complete this assignment systematically, if judgment does not reside inside, how can I complete this mission of judging myself. Judgment not being a resident of my being will lead me to be reprobate; and void of judgment. This reprobate attitude is more of a sickness, illness or deficiency. How do I ascertain that I have the judgment necessary, when Scripture advises that who is spiritual judges all things, not some things, all things, even when it hurts my feelings. I am to judge feelings as well to be able to correct how and what I am feeling.

Only my own individuality is responsible for all of my activity, there is an activity log per form marked for self examination only. 2 CORINTHIANS 13:5a KJV "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, the end of this verse suggest that not knowing self is an indication that a reprobate deficient of judging is emerging. I believe in self rebuke and admonition as per the instructions found in the word. Adhering by first hearing and listening to the incentives and informing self on how to conduct what it counsels no matter what the obstacles are.

Being diligent regardless of all opposition. Is counsel something that was ignored in the past and has now spilled over into the present time for correction, when matters are not heeded in the past, they will generally ghost the present if resolutions are not made, as it pertains to this present time. Time holds all records of all that has transpired in absoluteness, things that are easily forgotten in the confines of time and dismissed as irrelevant from generation to generation adds to life being most grievous to live, but for the next generation and for going or moving forward there is hope.

To halt the sin of the fathers and mothers from being carried onto the children. one must open the application of repentance and do it, not just hear it and deceive oneself. When reading the Old Testament the premise therein is that there is nothing new under the sun, the New Testament inspires a new stance that there is something new happening under the sun. There not being anything new under the sun suggests that changes were delayed because instructions and law were ignored and that status hindered the manifestation of the newness needed as a practical daily experience.

Back to the heart, can the heart thrive off knowledge alone? The Old Testament lends the idea that the people perish for lack of knowledge, Jesus said that unless people repent that they would likewise perish. This was the story that was told to Jesus,

Luke 13:1-3 -There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

This was a distinguishing point of the same word and suggested two different ways perishing could take place, lack of knowledge or to put it simply, ignorance which is the result of not knowing, and supposition, that inferred that because of the proposed sin of others in which a murderous act was the result, there could possibly be something more important than repenting.

Respect for one’s own words is a start to healthy breathing. One thing the pandemic has done is shown and highlighted the importance of breath while it is still a reality within the body, The virus merely zooms in on the condition of the breath and the danger it is facing. Although the virus is a physical implication it has a spiritual meaning as well. Spirit or breath is under great attack that only one word can remedy and set things in working order in order to live out the remainder of life, the word is repent, whether you agree or disagree, accept or reject the ideal just as law will not change because it is not being done.

Just because you may not open the application for use doesn’t mean its value will change. Man nor woman, angel nor demon can change the value embedded in the idea, things such as real law are changeless. Law will not change because I didn’t enact or perform its principles, but, this stance will align me either for or against its precepts, yet, neither acceptance nor rejection of law can change its purpose. It is how to deal with the opposition that is the real problem for many, if it is truly understood that people do, and don’t follow incentives for lack of understanding themselves, and how they are being weighed and measured, and what they are being judged by, then the change is temporary yet, progressive, but incomplete.

It is realizing that yes or yay to law is not evident in first doing it, but agreeing with it, not what is the result and the violence associated with not doing it, that's a system of law which fails and has. Yes to law aligns you to the incentives or structure of it. The flesh has misunderstood inherent enmity against law it cannot do and succeed at.

Matthew 5:37 - But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I believe that is why debates turn so sour, due to the yes or no to the point or premise not being determined prior to dialogue or debate. Integrity encourages honest responses that will be respected. Much of childishness lives in not being able to process a no response, it can even be taken as rejection which it is not. Is perhaps more than yes or no as a response? Perhaps or maybe may suggest that more information is needed to reply either way, but the yes or no cuts to the point.

Psalm 27:12 - “Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.”

Again this is more than likely speaking regarding men who are against him, who can deliver him from will less enemies who bear false witness and are risen against him and they breathe out cruelty. The worst part of this dilemma is knowing this is in motion without understanding being present. The lawless were after him, the law articulates that it is forbidden to bear false witness, how are they allowed to be risen? Cruel and unrepentant breath probably since they started to speak, so much for freedom of speech when it advocates breathing out cruelty. In this instance you can perceive there isn't anything new under the sun, here they are breathing out cruelty towards a king, so I guess if you breathe out cruelty against the president its okay, go figure. The sad part is that they are breathing and can't find anything prosperous to say, ugh.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.

This was his own self struggling through, he was delivering himself through every correction his soul was making. He asked himself questions about himself and always got answers. He was dealing with the cruelty of others' breath, but he was working on his own. He could only breathe for himself and chose not to breathe cruelty even when it was acknowledged by him as a dishonorable feat. Life and death being what empowers words. But choose life and choose to breathe correctly, or correct breathing because breathing out cruelty sounds more like attempted homicide, seeing that the dead really don’t speak at all. This passage is about breath and the will or words which are hurtful and harmful to others.

The focus is on the words doing harm, but these words take on the form of enemies sent to destroy and are being used against the life they do not support. I don’t perceive that unkind and hurtful words have any authority or right to be broadcasted, but on the broadway that leads to destruction, and many or myriads of words find that path. The most frightening thing is to forget and forgive evil words that the purpose is always going to cause harm because that is and was their assignment. Suppose who breathes out cruelty ask forgiveness, without the repentance in order that inspires breath can be corrected, cleansed and free to speak words which edify, those words are in motion and are weapons formed, the form being the individual speaker of those words.

Forgetfulness of cruel words is carelessness; those words are out in the air causing, and reeking havoc having the same harm intended when spoken, unless correction to them is offered by who spoke them. I repent by the speaker, to whom, the Creator who created the air you are polluting. I don’t believe that one can mean harm with words and not be operating from diseased breath, it is allocated per form and what you do with it is your own business.

The King spoke that the rod and the staff both were comforts, my own understanding of a rod will never include hitting or striking in any way, form or fashion, especially with words. The rod was revealed to me to be a comforter during correction process and nothing else. Flesh cannot absorb correction, but breath can because it was created correct. Spare the rod, spoil the child. If you spare a child instructions which can correct their path you have not spared the rod “correction”. You didn't have it to spare for yourself. Why hit them with any type or words or objects because you can’t communicate what you desire effectively, so you lash out.

Parents can be the biggest bullies you can ever meet in life, without one bit of sorrow. Yet, not all are, thank goodness. How can I discern a smile that is backed by guile? I can’t, only the one smiling knows what is behind the scenes of facial expression, only they should know themselves to communicate with a smile without the accompaniment of guile. It is more understood that one wears a frown, a smile upside down, then and only then can it be detected that there is something wrong.

Indoctrination through songs can produce thinking that one should smile though your heart is breaking, but is it fair or equitable that one should break a heart and expect a smile, that seems sinister. I would rather expect a smile from someone that I could not possibly be responsible for causing such pain, and to never be in league with anyone who believes pain for pain, or that pain is gain, but, rather understanding that the pain you cause others is a feeble attempt to get rid of your own instead of dealing with grief as it affects you alone, someone must feel it as well. The diabolical at work! Feeling bad and wanting someone else to feel it is just the antithesis of feeling good and wanting someone to feel good. What’s the difference? It is how you feel and it may not be how someone else feels and that has to be clear. People change and are subject to change, but understanding the correct way of or to change is the imperative.

Related Articles