I’ve said so much about her (and Thomas Weeks too) in prior posts, that I’m just going to repeat my YouTube description of this video below the footage. I’m just offering this to help those who the Lord desires to see the truth. That Juanita Bynum is a false teaching, pulpit pimping, hypocrite, adulteress and her soon to be ex-husband is no better.
Our sister in the Lord Covina found that Fox 5 Atlanta has posted a copy of the refiled divorce papers on their web site.
The debacle of the Bynum-Weeks Corp. continues.
I send a message of encouragement to former YouTubber ephesians511. Your labor was not in vain.
Thank you to others who have posted footage, some of that was utilized here to reinforce a point.
This is a collection of various footage ending with the latest news report about Juanita Bynum. It shows how she speaks one thing and does the opposite at times. And sometimes she does exactly what she says she’ll do, when it involves her gaining more for HERSELF. That’s what she calls her “destiny”.
She is a false prophet and her soon to be divorced husband Thomas Weeks is too.
Pick up your Bibles and read 2 Peter 2, Matthew 23 and Romans 7.
False teachers bind you with laws that involve you giving them money for something your money cannot buy, read Acts 8:20-23.
Trust in the Lord Jesus in truth and run from these false teachers.
Related posts:
update 9/29/2007 4:26PM: The last page of the divorce papers notes something interesting. Bynum wants to drop “Weeks” from her name. I guess this has to do with her forgiving him and feeling that he is a Mand of Gawd.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2007 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
31 queries. 0.586 seconds
September 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
IC,
I’m confused. Did you say “re”file? In other words did she file for a divorce from Weeks then changed her mind only to refile for a divorce? Help me out.
Kyle
September 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Her initial filing for divorce was invalid because she filed in the wrong county. So she had to refile in the correct county.
It really shows she’s determined to go through with it. Because she forgives him and all… Plus like she said, she wants to do everything she is supposed to do to keep the marriage, so nobody can say the divorce is her fault you know.
I mean didn’t the history of her statements in the video make sense to you? Like she’s said, she’s a Proverbs 31 woman
.
She’ll stick it out even if they kill each other she said. Don’t you see, she’s doing all she can to make this marriage work…
.
Because people that just go run and get a divorce will never keep a marriage you know. That’s what she said.
She’s filing for divorce to keep true to Proverbs 31.
Don’t you get it?
Maybe she’s dropping Weeks’ name so she can go back to her first husband? Yea, that’s it, she’s going to become a 1 Corinthians 7:11 woman
…
September 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
You know it may have been God proving how much of a fake she is. Think about it. The mistake of filing in the wrong county should have given a true “Christian” person the pause they needed to think about what they were doing. In Junies case she obviously didn’t care. It’s like the old saying, “Come hell or high water I’m doing it”. And she did regardless of the opportunity to re-think what she was doing. But then again she wouldn’t be able to become the next Oprah or Tyra if she didn’t go through with it. This whole incident opened up a new opportunity for her in the secular world which is what she was gunning for from the beginning. Sadly the sheeple will continue to follow her.
Kyle
September 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Now you understand Kyle. You just explained my hidden intention for making sure the word “Refiles” was included.
Not that I’m a fan of adulterous marriage (so I didn’t want to reveal my hidden intention), but she’s not going back to the first husband and she’s not going to honestly do well single no matter how much she plays the “no more sheets” game to the public.
She could separate from Weeks for a year if she needed and give them BOTH (remember she’s got issues with bricks) time to cool off and humble themselves. Instead, she’s going for her place OUT IN THE WORLD NOT IN THE CHURCH because she’s after her “destiny”.
Bynum said herself, it takes 2 people to make a marriage FAIL. I place the primary blame on the man’s head because he’s the head of the house, but she’s no Proverbs 31 woman and she’s shown from a previous failed marriage that she knows how to tear a house down.
I mean look at the footage where she spoke of people just wanting “sex” and then think about all the lust filled garbage they promoted in their “teach me how to love you” conferences and such. And she’s made it known she’s got more baggage than Samsonite has luggage! Much from her own actions and her own choices in her life. Although she’d love for us to think most of it was the “abusive man”, she’s noted herself that both sides mess things up and told on herself. It’s like this dip (who should not be in a role of church leadership in the first place) gets a moment of clarity and truth in the midst of her pimping and then flushes it down the toilet the very next day! I don’t know how long her 1st marriage lasted, but this one didn’t even make it 5 years.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
IC, I have to be honest with you. If my husband ever lost his mind and beat me, stomped me, and kicked me, I would divorce him and would never sleep with him again.
It goes beyond forgiveness. It’s about safety and never trusting again—never knowing when or if he’ll go off again. Now both of them are CRAZY, as violence was apparently something they played with. I’d never lift a brick or any other object to my husband.
I’ve been critical of Bynum on my blog, esp. with that threshing floor nonsense. But I support her right not to return to a nut who would be dirty enough to stomp her while telling her he was going to kill her.
Personally, I’d never be attracted again to someone who would attack me so I understand where she’s coming from with the divorce issue.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
IC, I believe I heard her say that her 1st marriage only lasted 18 months.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Lennie - I understand your position and have seen you mention it on your blog. I just can square it with scripture. Neither of them were the model spouse and I know one couple off hand who had their own “big fight”, which was about 10 years ago and they were able to later reconcile and never had a problem since. I know them VERY well (no it’s not me) so I know reconciliation is an option. That option was not considered because Bynum and Weeks have always walked in a false gospel of “self”.
I also know a woman who was a victim of continual domestic violence. She separated from her husband and must keep it that way. With Bynum, leaving Weeks is the means to an end, not the last and only option given their history. But as I’ve said, theirs is an adulterous marriage. They should both consider 1 Corinthians 7:11 and remain single if they can’t reconcile with their first spouses.
I don’t think you need to worry about your husband trying to stomp you Lennie. I’m fairly certain you DO NOT have the (false) spirit and history that Bynum has. I’m not saying she somehow deserved a beating, but she has a history of just happening to be in these kinds of situations. Like you said, you’d never consider the “brick” so you and her are not comparable.
Also with Bynum, this is about measuring her up to her own words.
Praiser4Life - 18 months… See what I’m saying… In fact, she said it herself.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I just can square it with scripture.
IC, to be clear, is that a typo? Are you saying you “can” square it with scripture or you cannot” square it?
If you are saying you cannot (which I believe you are saying), their situation was a complete, 100% crooked mess from the beginning and the bible says that what’s crooked cannot be made straight (unless God does it).
Did you know that prior to marrying Weeks, they already had run off to the court house and gotten married? Why do you think they did that?
I’ll tell you. They wanted to be able to “legally” engage in sex. Either they were fornicating or were on the verge of fornicating so they rushed off and married to make it “right”.
There is also an unsubstantiated rumor that he was married when they met. IF that is true, ball game’s over. God does not recognize mess so for them to divorce? How can you divorce when God never recognized the marriage in the first place?
September 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I agree that their marriage was adulterous and that would be why it would be best for them both to remain single or return to their first spouses. With Bynum and Weeks we agree.
(Although we know they’ll never do right single and Bynum is a hypocrite to her own words on marriage and how she would remain “even if we kill each other”. Which is why I’ve said what I said about her “refiling” for divorce and not seeking to reconcile.)
However, in a more general sense regarding marriage you and I disagree and let me explain why.
I believe the following words in full with no exceptions.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (New King James Version)
If there is a fight, even attempted murder, the abused person should separate from the abuser until such time as they are able to reconcile and if there is no way to reconcile they should remain single, period.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
IC,
Juanita’s first spouse is remarried, so she can’t return to him. Plus he was abusive to her, so she probably would not want him back.
God allows divorce in cases of adultery and He hates divorce. If a person marries at 18 and divorces at 21, that person should not be forced to go through a lifetime without a mate due to a youthful error in judgment.
So there is a way out. At least one of them is bound to fornicate, which would equal adultery. God allows divorce in such cases.
That would free that person to remarry. And I certainly would advise a person to move on with life, as opposed to spending a life alone needlessly.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Lennie,
Although adultery can be reconciled, I’ll give you the Matthew 5:32 out. Although it is not noted anywhere else in scripture. It’s not the kind of thing the apostles ever mentioned in their letters to any church because as you noted, God hates divorce. A couple is not to look to divorce, but to reconciliation. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, Ephesians 5:23. So even as we betray the Lord when we commit a sin and engage in our own form of adultery against God every time we sin, God forgives us and therefore the person with a spouse that was sexually immoral should still see if things can be reconciled. But like I said, we’ll let Matthew 5:32 be the claim Bynum can use for not going back to her first husband. Matthew 5:32 does not grant an out for abuse, although someone abused should separate and remain single, because we’re still at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
If a person is in Christ and divorces at age 21, that person should reconcile with their husband or remain single. This is not about withholding efforts to reconcile just to see if the other person will fornicate and give an “out” to remarry.
If you know God hates divorce, you should also know that God loves reconciliation. Therefore, regardless of all the fornication, abuse and so on it’s still best that a couple work to reconcile.
To remain single is not “needless” it is the command of God. If one leaves their spouse they are to remain single or reconcile. If someone leaves their spouse just hoping the other person will fornicate, that’s not at all a saintly manner to address issues in marriage and you have NO SCRIPTURE to support someone withholding themselves from their spouse with the intent of seeing their spouse fornicate, just so they can run and remarry.
You’re way outside of scripture on that and seeking to induce sin instead of reconciliation. For the saint, separation is to induce a reunion in repentance for past wrongs, not to wait out till someone fornicates. If a married couple can’t reconcile they are to remain single, not look to fornicate or induce the other to fornicate.
But OK, using your logic, the Bynum-Weeks marriage is currently LEGIT. Because Bynum’s first husband has remarried and Weeks’ first wife is off and likely engaged in intercourse with someone in this last about 5 years. So the Bynum-Weeks marriage by your own assessment is not “crooked” any longer but “straight”. Because by your own words you’ve freed Bynum and Weeks from their prior marriages. And if the Bynum-Weeks marriage was always crooked, than all who have remarried are in a crooked marriage too. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim Bynum-Weeks are under one set of rules and everyone else is under another. So you’ve got to establish your foundation on this, because you’re applying a double standard to claim the Bynum-Weeks marriage was crooked and doomed, while claiming others who have fornicated and remarried are OK. All who divorced had to have something “crooked” occur.
So, we’re still back at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Because neither Bynum or Weeks has claimed sexual immorality in their current marriage and NO we are not going to engage rumor mill material here. So for what we KNOW Bynum and Weeks have never been with anyone else after they were married. So Bynum has no cause to divorce Weeks that you can support with scripture. She would do best to simply remain separated from Weeks and possibly reconcile if that is possible. If no reconciliation is possible, she should remain single.
If I have the Lord, is life without a spouse “needless”? I dare say not! If one can honestly be single and not fall into sexual immorality it would actually be better if they remained single, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.
I will never advise anyone to divorce and I will never face the Lord having to justify recommending a divorce. When you advise others and play the role of a teacher, you put yourself into a realm of stricter judgment for your advice, James 3:1. You’ll have to account for the women that you advise on matters in this life.
Consider the teaching of a teacher of sound doctrine, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum and his response to a question of this type:
Lennie, there is no way to slice Bynum’s actions in a saintly manner.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:05 am
Something is wrong about an abused spouse having to choose between their safety (and that of their children if there are any) and being alone for the rest of their lives because they dared leave the marriage. I think your position is legalistic and leaves no room for God’s grace and mercy in situations like these.
Jesus wasn’t supposed to heal on the Sabbath either, but He did and then rebuked the Pharisees for caring more about rules than about people.
What parts do you think grace and mercy play when it comes to divorce in abusive marriages? Or do you even think it has a place to begin with?
October 1st, 2007 at 6:09 am
IC,
Thanks for taking the patience and time to lay out the scriptures and examples.
I need to clarify something. In the case of Bynum - Weeks, the only reason I believe that their marriage started of “crooked” is because there is a rumor (not substantiated) that he was a married man when they started dating.
That is only a rumor and I have no proof of that for certain. IF that is true, then their situation started off crooked and what’s crooked cannot be made straight.
The reason God, who clearly is not joking when He says He hates divorce, gave us an “out” is because, as He said, MOSES offered divorce to the people because the people’s hearts were hard.
In light of the fact that sexual sins are some of the most common sins in America, it’s not necessary to wait for a separated or divorced person to fornicate. Trust that in 99.9% of the cases, it will happen.
Once that happens, adultery has occured. Adultery is the “out” God clearly offers in His Word. And He did so because humans have a hard heart.
I’m honest enough to admit to you that if my husband ever lost his mind and attacked me, I’d divorce him. In my case, I have no worries there because I was careful to choose a gentle, loving and meek man for a spouse. He’d never lift a finger to me. That I know.
But my heart is hard (as God would say) in the area of men abusing women. I’ll admit that.
Again, thanks soooo much for your patience in breaking these scriptures down for me and others who are lurking.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:29 am
IC said, If I have the Lord, is life without a spouse “needless”? I dare say not! If one can honestly be single and not fall into sexual immorality it would actually be better if they remained single, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.
IC, I forgot to address that comment above. You are quoting the Apostle Paul.
Not everyone has the strength of the Apostle Paul who was so sold out and in love with God that he did not even consider marriage.
Paul was issuing his personal opinion. It was his persaonal opinion that people would do good to just stay single.
Some of us are the “marrying kind” who want the love and companionship that marriage offers. Not everyone desires a celibate life. Some want marriage and some want children.
I certainly respect the Apostle Paul’s decision to remain single, but no way would I go around telling 18 year olds to stay single forever. Maybe they’d some day like a family of their own.
I understand what you are doing. You are looking at the scriptures from God’s Best, which is the scripture in its literal sense.
Trouble is, we are living inside of these flesh bodies, and most humans are not going to adhere to opinions such as Paul’s. Most people want to love and be loved by a spouse and would in fact see their life as wasted if they went throughout it alone.
That’s why we have so many messed up situations of babies out of wedlock in the blak community in particular. People looking for love….oops, that’s a conversation we’ll have on another day and at another time. I believe that as conservatives, we’ll agree 100% on that topic.
Lynn
October 1st, 2007 at 11:38 am
Lennie,
Even if they had an adulterous affair when Weeks was with his first wife, today if we invoke Matthew 5:32, his first wife has gone off and also been involved with someone else. So it would not still be an issue. Once Weeks 1st wife laid down with someone else, as you’ve already noted, Weeks would then be free himself and his remarriage with Bynum would have become legitimate at that point. This is why it is better to lean towards reconciliation, because when divorce comes into play a bunch of reasons are developed to justify something that we know God hates.
Although Moses offered an out and Paul also offered an out, Christ notes in the beginning this was not so. See Matthew 19:8-12 and Paul’s concession that he offered of his own words (not the Lord’s) in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16. And we are not under the old covenant, so the words of Moses no longer apply. Just the same, there are concessions for divorce now. We really don’t want the Moses rules, because we’d have way more divorces and we’d have to start stoning people too
.
We’re not talking about “America”. We’re talking about the church and how its members should conduct themselves. If I walk out on my wife because of a fight over money and she goes to sleep with someone else while I’m away. What sense does it make for ME to hold it against HER when I LEFT? With Bynum and Weeks, given Bynum appears to be the one who left (when she claimed she would do “all she could”) if Weeks did commit adultery I’d find it to be a rather lame excuse if Bynum claimed that as her “out” for divorce.
This really is all about the fact Bynum and Weeks both claimed church leadership and Bynum claimed she would follow scripture’s instructions for a wife. Neither have foundation to claim church leadership and Bynum has failed scripture’s instructions for how to conduct a marriage, even if we ignore all their past wrongs. They continue in sin, this is why I continue to assert that 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 should be enforced IN THEIR REGARD and they not be viewed as members of the church. I don’t see them or any of these other covetous extortioners (aka pulpit pimps) as “Christians”. Unless they show they’ve come to their senses and turn from their false doctrines, 2 Timothy 2:24-26.
All our hearts are hard, that’s why we need Christ, but some who claim His name are just reprobate and that’s where Bynum and Weeks come in.
While this had to get into a discussion of the rules of marriage overall, I don’t run around calling everybody “adulterer” who might have remarried. But when we have people who fleece the flock and indulge in all manner of sin, while they claim church leadership. We have to look at the rule book and commit ourselves to upholding a righteous standard.
Lennie, I am quoting the Words of God. Don’t fall into the “red letter Christian” trap. You have to understand that when the apostles wrote scripture that is THE WORD OF GOD on equal weight with direct quotes from the mouth of Christ and the prophets. The apostles were given commands from God by Christ through the Holy Spirit, because Christ noted He had more to tell them, but not enough time to do so before the crucifixion, John 16:12-15. (That scripture is also one of MANY that affirms the Trinity. This is also why the canonization of scripture was so important and why we don’t run after people calling themselves “apostle” today.) So the words of the apostles unless otherwise stated are the Word of God. Paul makes it clear when he speaks of himself in allowing a divorce concession in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16. And that concession is valid although it came from Paul’s mouth and not something the Lord said. Because like with Moses, apostles were entrusted with authority to make judgment on a given situation, 1 Corinthians 7:25. So if you do something based on the words of Paul, it won’t count against you, because the Lord entrusted him as an apostle to offer instruction. Same goes for those in the old covenant who listened to Moses. But now that Christ has come we can’t look to the rules of Moses, because the old covenant is dead. The old law offers a reference, a model, a guide for perspective, but we are not under the old law.
Having said all that about the words of an apostle, Christ also stated that being single would be a good move for those who can accept it, this flips us back to my reference of Matthew 19:8-12.
So Paul’s words were the Word of God and even if Paul made it up himself it still is valid instruction. Peter makes note of the weight of the words from Paul and scripture in general in 2 Peter 3:14-18. Debate over Paul’s words is nothing new. This is why all scripture must be rightly divided and all scripture to the church is to be followed. And consider Matthew 5:17-20. If they wrote it, you are to consider every single solitary word. We enjoy a grace that did not exists under the old law, but still we must strive to follow the commands the Lord has given us. Commands from the mouth of Christ, the prophets and apostles. In doing that we have to understand that the old Mosaic law is dead, so we don’t run around trying to mandate something like “tithing”. What is called “tithing” today IS NOT tithing and it is not right to even invoke it, but you can read about that in this old post. I just offer that as one example, because that seems to be the one that many saints get played on.
Most of us are the “marrying kind”
. I should note that I feel 1 Corinthians 7:9 was not just for widows, God knows it was for me too 
. God knew I was coming, so He being the loving God that He is offered 1 Corinthians 7:2. However, we should not look at someone staying single as some sort of ugly concept. I applaud them. I am the weakling and they are strong towers of faith.
You said it there. As a person claiming the Lord’s name I should offer what best I know from the Lord and strive to live it myself. While in these bodies we have the Holy Spirit and should continue to strive to do as the Lord commands. Those in the world don’t have the Holy Spirit and so their activity is to be expected. We saints are expected to strive for something better, because we are the ones who will one day be with the Lord and we offer the Gospel to others who might hear it and possibly join with us.
I’m glad we are able to discuss this.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
rosalind, did I say someone would burn in hell if they left an abusive spouse and remarried? There’s God’s mercy for you. That we all who claim the Lord have the Holy Spirit and He still forgives us when we don’t do as He commands.
Too boot, what if someone who marries an abusive person married someone that the Lord warns of in scripture as not being a good mate in the first place? Often bad marriages start with a man picking a woman that he should not have according to scripture, or a woman accepting a man scripture instructs her to avoid. God has mercy to even forgive the fact we hook up with people He told us to avoid.
It’s not God’s fault when we make bad decisions, so I can’t claim it’s somehow unfair if God commands something that might seem “unfair” by human standards. What’s unfair is that we accept the Lord and still sin. It’s not fair that the Lord continues to forgive, but He does.
Jesus healing on the Sabbath is NOT COMPARABLE. Because Christ was doing good. The same Christ who said to remarry is adultery.
The Lord has given the command that those who break a marriage should remain single. His commands are what I strive to live by and the ONLY instruction I will offer regarding the actions of saints, as best I can.
When I was single (and a bit younger in my walk with Christ) I felt it was unfair that men living before Christ came to earth in flesh could have multiple wives and I had to seek just one. But that’s me, not the Lord. So I’m going to stick to trying to do as the Lord commands.
Now that I am married I’m very happy and satisfied with the one wife the Lord has willed for me.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Here’s a funny one!
The Sloppiest Christian In The World: Juanita Bynum!
Imagine, the sloppiest woman in the world talking about sloppy Christians and people needing to live holy lives
.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
IC, no you didn’t SAY someone would burn in hell if they left an abusive spouse and remarried, but from where I sit, you IMPLIED it. Also, from where I sit, the principle of legalism is as relevant today as it was in Jesus’ time, and to that end I do believe that the example I gave of the Pharisees’ attitudes can be compared. You missed my point, or maybe you just purposely failed to see it.
The Pharisees didn’t CARE that Jesus was doing good, and the fact that He was doing good is not relevant to the point I was making. My point was that some believers are so caught up in the letter of the law that they lose their compassion, if they ever had any to begin with. God is the God of ANOTHER CHANCE and many people who consider themselves Christians, especially those in the white evangelical/conservative tradition, have the opposite attitude (like they have a heaven or a hell to send somebody to!). In my personal experience, these people have been some of the meanest and most unforgiving people I have EVER met, and to me you were sounding a lot like them. Glad to know you’re not.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
rosalind - Some of my BEST friends are WHITE Conservative Evangelicals. Interesting how you tossed race into this.
I stand my my statements on the matter. This post was created because the false prophetess Juanita Bynum is a hypocrite to her own words and the truth of scripture must be noted.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
rosalind - I should also point out, that someone can do wrong and be forgiven, however even we who get to Heaven have to give an account in the end, 1 Corinthians 3:11-17.
This is why when Paul spoke on issues of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, he did not dwell on grace and mercy, but gave the commands and left it at that.
The only time Paul uses the word “mercy” in that entire chapter is when speaking of his own apostolic authority.
And I know some BLACK Pentocostals that will toss anyone who has remarried straight into hell with their own hand if they could. Be happy I don’t speak based on the doctrine I knew for a good part of my youth. I know people who would send a woman to hell for wearing red nail polish, or wearing shoes that show any part of her foot, or wear a pair of pants no matter how modest. And don’t even dream of getting in a swimming pool! Trust me, I once knew legalism and I didn’t like it either.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
IC, everyone knows there is a difference in the black church and white evangelical/conservative church traditions. It’s not a secret. That’s all I meant by specifically mentioning race.
No, I didn’t mention black Pentecostals and Apostolics who adhere to legalism, and the reason why I didn’t is because they are not relevant, here. I know YOU are not one of them, but are a part of (or closer to) the white conservative evangelical tradition. So, I commented to you based on that. Were you a Pentecostal or Apostolic, I would have commented to you based on THAT. But, if you would rather that I didn’t narrow my focus, and just start being willy-nilly with my comments, I can do that, but I don’t think that’s what you want. Stop trying to make more out of this than it is. Instead of trying to insinuate something “dark” about my comment, why didn’t you just ask me what I meant? That’d be too much like right, though.
And, what does you having some best friends who are white conservative evangelicals have to do with me? What point are you trying to make by telling me this? That’s YOUR experience. I didn’t say, or insinuate, that because *I* haven’t had (and I did think about it before I wrote this next word) ANY positive experiences with white conservative evangelicals, that nobody else would. Your positive experiences with them is not going to nullify my negative ones. So, again, what point are you trying to make by telling me about your friends?
Why do feel the need to tell me you stand by your statements? I didn’t try to change your mind, nor did I attempt to defend Bynum. I didn’t even mention her. Since you seem to like reading into things, why didn’t you read anything into that? Anyway, I just wanted to know where you thought grace and mercy fit into the picture. Nothing more, nothing less. You told me, and I explained why I asked. Now, as far as I’m concerned that’s that.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:22 pm
IC,
I guess Bynum doesn’t listen to her own messages. She has a teaching titled “Pride vs Proverbs 31 Woman.” She obviously didn’t review that before filing and refiling for divorce.
She can get a copy on clearance at Weeks site for the low, low price of $5. “All resources must go!”
October 1st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
rosalind - I’m a busy man and you’re gone. You’ve got some racial issues I really don’t feel like having to hear you spin around any longer.
As if the topic of this discussion is not a Black Pentecostal
.
Bye-Buh rosalind.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
s-wizzle - Now the prophetess said she would do all she could to keep her marriage, so if it feel apart it would not be her fault.
(Almost like she was waiting for it to fail, so she could run a tally list to defend her image. Out one side of her mouth she said it takes two people to make a marriage fail and out of the other she said if hers was to fail it would not be her fault.)
I’m sure when she separated from Weeks, that was her working to “keep” the marriage too. That was a little secret nobody knew about WHILE she was counseling others on their marriages. Of course you know, this was all done because she’s a Proverbs 31 woman
.
Even before the incident with Weeks, can’t you see that she was working very hard to keep the marriage together and keep her husband so happy and whipped that he would not think about anyone else? Isn’t it obvious
?
So the divorce filing is her way of showing she loves and forgives Weeks. Her way of showing that their “covenant” made via a special multi-million dollar ceremony and broadcast on TBN is for real. The earlier secret ceremony was not enough. She wanted everyone to see a Proverbs 31 woman.
I’m sure if we spoke to Bynum’s housekeepers, they would say that she fulfilled Proverbs 31:15 and cooked them breakfast
.
I mean when she’s hustling the poor for money, didn’t you know she’s fulfilling Proverbs 31:20
?
When she was speaking just before the incident, didn’t you hear the kindness of Proverbs 31:26 in her voice
?
I don’t know where her kids are, but I’m sure she’s got Proverbs 31:28 down cold!
Her plastic surgery was her way of representing Proverbs 31:30.
Her refiling is just her way of showing she’s very determined to do all she can to ensure when the marriage fails that it’s not her fault. She married an assignment and she knew that she’d see the worst in him during the marriage and she said she’s sticking in there, because she does not keep the vows by “faith”, she “walked” the vows.
I keep my marriage vows by faith and I’ve been married and faithful to 1 wife longer than she’s been in 2 marriages. I think I’ll stick with FAITH instead of her WALKING THE VOWS method.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 am
There is more to this than Bynum or Weeks is saying. Robyn Roberts (GMA) asked her why were they separated for 3 mos. Of course she side stepped this question. She also said she was in counseling for 12 wks. w/Weeks Sr. and other outside counsellors. And all this was before the parking lot incident. Something was going on before the parking lot and I believe what happened that night was the nail in the coffin for Junie B. I’m sure we’ll get the scoop when the December issue of Essence hits the stands.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Praiser4Life - Did you get the feeling the Robin Roberts might actually be a fan of Bynum?
Yea there is lots we don’t know about. But we know the Proverbs 31 woman did all she could, that must be why she left
. But I’m sure she cooked the hired help breakfast before leaving 
.
I hope nobody here is playing into this marketing game and actually planning to buy a copy of Essence just to read this nonsense from Mrs. “I won’t break the covenant”.
And I think Weeks has a load of his own that he’ll unleash if Bynum talks too much.
A Pimp Empire Implosion!
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 am
IC,
I was just about to speak to Rosalind about her “tone” of voice which depicted anger. However, I see you have banned her.
I’m like you. I refuse to tolerate disrespect on a blog I’m paying for out of my personal pocket and giving my precious time to for everyone to enjoy.
Rosalind could have made the same point to you without coming at you with an axe.
If you are reading this Rosalind, remember that people do not mind you disagreeing with them. But if you leave someone feeling like they have been hit with a fist in the stomach, what have you gained?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 am
…Now, back to the topic at hand.
Bynum reached a point where she saw Weeks as a pair of stockings to be disgarded. She was sick of him for a variety of reasons and he was disposable.
That marriage has been peculiar for a long time now. I remember wondering why she was traveling all over the world like a single woman, leaving him behind as she continued to reach for more speaking engagements, etc.
The beating is the excuse she is using to do what she has been aching to do anyway. Remember that she made no major purchases with him. That’s why he is in debt while she is living like a queen.
God is going to make a major move, watch. I’m just waiting b/c you reap what you sow.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
Bynum will reap what she sows. But that does not mean the reaping will have to come in this life of flesh. Although it’s better to suffer the loss here, repent and gain reward with the Lord. Bynum might leave the flesh with the world thinking she’s a “queen” and reap later with the damned.
I’ll keep saying, her and Weeks are on 2 Peter 2 street and need a detour to the Lord Jesus Christ in truth!
Bynum honestly is not a Proverbs 31 woman, but she certainly is expressing the evil noted in Psalm 10 and will receive an unwelcome reward if she does not repent.