The Gates of the City - Why the Apostle Closed the Door

The Scriptures Complete — Teaching Series · Part II

The Gates of the City

Why the Apostle Closed the Door

A follow-up to “Knowledge vs. Knowledgeable” — examining a live encounter between an Apostle and a man who had religion without knowledge, confidence without foundation, and humility without sincerity.

Ainawayah — 7th Angel, First Witness, True Leader of the Apostles

The Scriptures Complete — Lashawam-Qadash Translation Project

Faithfulness Over Speed — Quality Over Quantity

The previous article established why the confusion of six words — knowledge, knowledgeable, confidence, pride, high-mindedness, and narcissism — is not a semantic inconvenience but a mechanism of destruction. This article takes that framework off the page and places it inside a real exchange: a WhatsApp screening conversation between an Apostle and a man from South Africa who requested entry into a covenant community’s group chat. The conversation did not end with the man being admitted. It ended with the Apostle rescinding his request entirely. This article explains exactly why — not from the outside looking in, but from the inside of the Scriptures looking out.

The exchange is real, unedited, and instructive in ways that a theoretical lesson cannot be. Every move the visitor made is a move made millions of times daily across false churches, social media groups, and so-called “faith communities” globally. Every move the Apostle made is grounded in commands that most of Christendom has either forgotten, misread, or been trained to call arrogant. This article names both clearly.

I. The Gate and the Guardian — A Scriptural Obligation

Ancient cities had gates. Gates had keepers. No covenant city admitted anyone who approached without examination, without verification, and without meeting the standard of the community inside. This was not rudeness. This was law. The Apostle Hayahawashai Mawashayai Yaraya himself stated it plainly:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of Yahawah: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

— 1 John 4:1

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

— Matthew 22:14

The command to “try the spirits” — or in the correctly understood translation, to test the Influences — is not a suggestion offered for optional application in certain contexts. It is a covenant requirement that applies at every door, every entry point, every request for membership in a body that holds sacred truth. The Apostle in this exchange was not exercising personal preference. He was fulfilling a scriptural duty. The visitor, operating from false Christianity’s framework of open-access, unconditional welcome, and the sentiment that “all are welcome as they are,” encountered something he had never been prepared to meet: a door with a standard.

II. The Transcript — Annotated

What follows is the complete exchange, broken into its natural movements, each followed by a teaching annotation identifying exactly what each exchange demonstrates in terms of the article’s six vocabulary words.

MOVEMENT ONE — The First Question

The Apostle  ·  6:19 AM

Hello, Nixon. I understand you made a request to be let into our community. Allow me to ask a series of questions before you are allowed entry. What prompted you to want to join our group chat?

Nixon  ·  6:21 AM

I found someone on LinkedIn saying it is a good faith based community

The Apostle  ·  6:22 AM

Wonderful. When you say “faith based” what does that mean and look like to you? In other words, what is faith?

What is happening here:

The Apostle’s second question is the examination of terminology — precisely the issue at the center of the previous article. He is not asking Nixon to perform a religious display. He is testing whether Nixon possesses knowledge of a fundamental term: faith. The question is simple. The answer, as the project documents confirm, is straightforward: faith is trust. Not belief. Not religion. Not love. Trust — active relational confidence in Yahawah. The Apostle already knows what he expects. The question is whether Nixon does.

MOVEMENT TWO — Religion Without Definition

Nixon  ·  6:27 AM

I’m a Christian. I’m not ashamed of my religion. I would like to meet the same like-minded people. I love spreading the word, but won’t force it upon anyone. I like to help people understand the fundamentals of Christianity.

What is happening here:

Nixon did not answer the question. He was asked to define faith. He responded with his religious identity, his social goals, his missionary intention, and his pedagogical preference. None of these things are a definition of faith. This is the exact pattern described in “Knowledge vs. Knowledgeable”: a person who is knowledgeable-seeming because they can produce the vocabulary of the domain (Christianity, the Word, fundamentals) but cannot define the foundational term when directly asked. Nixon is performing Christianity. He does not demonstrate knowledge of it. He proceeds immediately to announce that he is a teacher of it — which is precisely where the danger lies. A man who cannot answer what faith is has no business explaining the fundamentals of the faith to anyone.

MOVEMENT THREE — The Correction and the Response

The Apostle  ·  6:29 AM

Okay. You’ve explained your thoughts on your religion. But have not defined faith. Go by the way the Scriptures define faith. A religion has zero to do with faith. Nor is faith affiliated with love directly. Try once more.

Nixon  ·  6:33 AM

My friend, I’m not begging you to let me in your group. I have my own community online kweeble.co.za. I just wanted to meet people that is interested in God’s word. I go by scriptures if you have to know. Anyway, thank you for your time, much appreciated.

What is happening here:

The Apostle gave Nixon a second opportunity and narrowed the question to its most precise form: define faith according to the Scriptures. Nixon’s response is the clearest demonstration of the previous article’s core argument. He did not attempt an answer. He announced that he is not begging, that he has his own platform, that he goes by the Scriptures — and then he withdrew. This is not the response of a man who does not know the answer. This is the response of a man whose self-image was threatened by the question. He did not experience the question as an invitation to demonstrate knowledge. He experienced it as an attack on his status. The withdrawal — complete with the reference to his own community and website — is the display of wounded pride, not confident knowledge. A genuinely knowledgeable man who could not answer in the moment would have said: “I’m not sure I have the right answer — can you help me understand?” That is the response of a learner. Nixon’s response is the response of someone who came to teach, not to be taught.

MOVEMENT FOUR — The Door Closes

The Apostle  ·  6:47 AM

The answer is faith is trust. Clearly, you cannot answer something this simple. You are now offended by a clear and honest question. Hayahawashai Mawashayai Yaraya ordered his people to “test the spirits.” This is what I was asking these simple questions for — to test whether you would cause disruption or be with us to learn. Yet you took offense for no reason, simply because your knowledge was tested.

We are not like-minded if you are not willing to be taught or corrected. Had you continued to the final question I would have explained everything immediately following and let you in. Have you not read that many are called but few are chosen?

If you cannot answer standard questions that protect you and our other learners, how can you hope to keep the laws and commandments to prove you love Hayahawashai?

I rescind your request.

What is happening here:

This is a judgment rendered by an Apostle in the spirit and pattern of Paul’s own letters — and it contains three distinct teachings in one paragraph. The first: the answer was always available and always simple. Faith is trust. The conversation was not a trap. It was a doorway — and Nixon chose to walk away from it rather than walk through it. The second: the rescission is not punishment. It is protection — for the community inside the door and for Nixon himself. A man who cannot receive correction at the gate cannot be corrected once inside. The third: the Apostle explicitly states that he would have admitted Nixon regardless of whether his answer was correct, if Nixon had approached with humility. The standard was never flawless knowledge. The standard was the willingness to learn. Nixon failed the character test, not the knowledge test.

MOVEMENT FIVE — The Counter-Attack

Nixon  ·  7:40 AM

No brother, you are mistaken. I can see a self-righteous person from a mile away, and it’s not that I’m offended in any way. So let me guess, brother — you are the chosen? Pride is very ugly, brother.

Matthew 24:24: “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” So yes, brother, I’m very glad that you showed what kind of group you are running.

Philippians 2:3-4: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…” — very, very important!!!

What is happening here:

Nixon has done the following in a single message: (1) denied being offended while demonstrating offense in every line; (2) accused the Apostle of self-righteousness and pride while himself declaring his superior spiritual discernment (“I can see a self-righteous person from a mile away”); (3) deployed two Scriptures completely out of context — the first to label the Apostle a false prophet, the second to lecture him on pride and humility. This is the definition of bearing false witness. It is also the definition of what the previous article called destructive pride: the response of a person whose self-image has been threatened and who cannot separate their ego from the conversation. Most critically, Nixon used the Scriptures as weapons without being able to accurately answer a Scripture-based question moments earlier. This is the textbook demonstration of the knowledgeable-seeming person who is not genuinely knowledgeable — someone who can retrieve and deploy verses, but cannot define the foundational vocabulary from which all those verses draw their meaning.

MOVEMENT SIX — Obadiah’s Pride

Nixon  ·  7:42 AM

Bless 🙏🏾 you brother. Wish you all the best. Yes, who am I to disagree with the chosen.

Nixon  ·  7:52 AM

Obadiah 1:3: “The pride of your heart has deceived you.”

What is happening here:

Nixon continued the conversation he had already attempted to end — twice. He could not leave. Each message — the blessing, the “who am I to disagree,” the Obadiah verse — is a passive-aggressive attempt to land a final blow under the cover of scripture. The Obadiah citation is particularly telling. It is a verse directed at the house of Ai-Sha-Wa (Esau) — specifically Edom’s arrogance in believing their geographic security made them untouchable. Nixon deployed it as a personal insult against the Apostle, lifted entirely out of its prophetic context, weaponized by a man who moments earlier could not define faith. This is what the previous article described as the narcissistic application of scripture: using the text not to pursue truth but to maintain and defend the self-image. The verse he cited was aimed at him, not at the Apostle.

MOVEMENT SEVEN — The Apostle Answers With Scripture

The Apostle  ·  7:57 AM

Lol! Oh boy. Pride of my heart huh?

2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 — “Let no man deceive you by any means… And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Isaiah 66:4-5 — “I also will choose their delusions… Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake… he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.”

What is happening here:

The Apostle’s response is not a retort. It is a diagnosis. He does not defend himself against the charge of pride. He does not argue. He opens the Scriptures to the exact passages that describe Nixon’s condition: a person who received not the love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10), who therefore receives a strong delusion, and who believes a lie — all the while under the sincere impression that they are defending the faith. The Isaiah passage is equally precise: those who are cast out for the true name’s sake are rejected by brethren who sincerely believe they are glorifying God by the rejection. Nixon is not a wicked man performing malice. He is a sincere man operating under the delusion described in 2 Thessalonians 2 — and the Apostle named it with Scripture rather than with opinion.

MOVEMENT EIGHT — The False Apology

Nixon  ·  8:53 AM

Brother, what we are doing here is so childish. I’m sorry for offending you. I was wrong!! May the Lord bless you, and again I apologize for judging you. It’s not my place nor time. Please forgive me!! Good luck in your mission brother 🙏🙏

The Apostle  ·  9:03 AM

I’m not offended. You were the one offended and messaging offensively trying to teach. I was merely giving insight and am appalled by the fact that you rejected truth then tried to “flip the script” to justify your disbelief and used the wrong Scriptures and bore false witness. The fact that I’ve taken the time to correct you should show you that I am an actual doer, ambassador, and teacher of the Laws and Commandments. I only despise the malicious, the naysayers, and intentional violators of the Laws and Commandments. All of which you began to do. But, since you’ve apologized all is well. And this means you are open to learning correctly. That is a great restart.

What is happening here:

Nixon’s apology is real — but the Apostle names something important: the apology called their conversation “childish” and asked for forgiveness for “offending.” Neither of these is an acknowledgment of the actual errors: bearing false witness, misusing Scripture, withdrawing from a test of knowledge, and projecting pride onto the one who asked the question. True repentance names the specific wrong. The Apostle does not reject the apology. He accepts it — and then, in an act of genuine pastoral care, explains exactly what went wrong. This is high-mindedness in the scriptural sense: principled, honest, and delivered in service of the other person’s restoration. It is not pride. It is the function of a teacher who does not celebrate the student’s failure but will not pretend the failure did not occur.

MOVEMENT NINE — The Third Flip

Nixon  ·  9:13 AM

Amen 🙏. I won’t say offended — disappointed, yes. I should have known better than that. By me admitting to my wrong and trying to mend my ways, what does the Scriptures say about love, brother? You think us having this conversation today is a random act? It was meant to happen, and you need to mend your ways, brother.

The Apostle  ·  9:16 AM

What? Flipping the script again? That’s hypocritical. There is nothing wrong with me, young man. How is it you apologize but I have to “mend my ways.” That’s called delusional on your end. This conversation is now over.

Nixon  ·  9:16 AM

I really don’t know what doctrine you are following.

The Apostle  ·  9:17 AM

I follow the true Scriptures period. It’s called the Discipline of the Laws and Commandments. You follow false Christianity. We’re done here.

What is happening here:

Nixon’s third and final script-flip is the most revealing. Within the same message in which he claims to be “admitting to his wrong,” he tells the Apostle he needs to “mend your ways.” Genuine repentance cannot coexist in the same breath with a demand that the person you wronged reform himself. This is precisely what the previous article called the narcissistic pattern: the inability to complete an act of accountability because the self-image cannot sustain the full weight of being wrong. The Apostle’s response — “that’s called delusional on your end” — is neither cruel nor excessive. It is a clinical diagnosis of what is happening in real time: Nixon genuinely does not perceive the contradiction. The conversation ends. The door remains closed.

III. Seven Things This Exchange Demonstrates

1.  Religion is not knowledge.  Nixon could discuss Christianity fluently but could not define its foundation. He performed his faith rather than possessing knowledge of it. Forty-five thousand Christian denominations are producing the same result at scale: confident performers who cannot answer “what is faith?”

2.  Offense at a question is a disqualifying response.  The Apostle did not ask anything inappropriate, aggressive, or disrespectful. He asked a foundational question that any literate reader of the Scriptures should be able to answer. The fact that Nixon experienced the question as an attack — rather than as an opportunity — demonstrated in a single exchange that he had not been trained to learn, only to declare.

3.  Overconfidence and knowledge are not the same thing.  Nixon arrived with total confidence in his own scriptural literacy. He was willing to teach. He was willing to spread the word. He was not willing to be tested. Confidence that cannot survive a foundational question is overconfidence — certainty that has exceeded the evidence.

4.  Bearing false witness with Scripture is still bearing false witness.  Using Matthew 24:24 to label the Apostle a false prophet, and Philippians 2:3-4 to lecture him on pride, without any verified basis for either charge, is the exact violation of the ninth commandment: thou shalt not bear false witness. The Scriptures were deployed not to pursue truth but to wound and deflect.

5.  Humility is demonstrated, not announced.  Nixon referenced humility and love repeatedly throughout the exchange. He did not demonstrate either. A humble response to a failed examination is: “I did not know the answer — will you teach me?” That response would have opened the door. The response that was given — withdrawal, counter-attack, false accusation, and apology followed immediately by another accusation — is the sequence of wounded pride.

6.  The Apostle’s confidence was grounded and tested.  At no point in the exchange did the Apostle say anything he could not defend with Scripture. Every position he took had a scriptural foundation. That is the difference between confidence and pride. Confidence can point to its evidence. Pride cannot.

7.  The Day of Atonement is not a day for admitting the uninvestigated.  The Apostle explicitly noted that this exchange was occurring on Ya-Wa-Ma Ha-Ka-Pa-Ra-Ya-Ma — the Day of Atonement. On the holiest day of the sacred calendar, the keeper of a covenant community has more obligation than ever to hold the standard at the gate, not less.

“A humble response to a failed examination is: ‘I did not know the answer — will you teach me?’ That response would have opened the door. What was given instead was the sequence of wounded pride.”

IV. What False Christianity Prepared Nixon to Do

It would be a mistake to treat Nixon as an unusually difficult or particularly flawed person. He is, in every way that matters, the typical product of the false Christian framework: sincere, warm-spirited, genuinely intending to serve others, and completely unprepared for the standard the Scriptures actually require. False Christianity prepared Nixon for exactly what he demonstrated:

It prepared him to announce his religion rather than define his faith. It prepared him to quote verses without understanding their context, their recipients, or their argument. It prepared him to interpret a question as an attack, because in false Christianity’s framework, questioning someone’s doctrine is considered unkind — never necessary. It prepared him to deploy the accusation of pride against anyone who held a standard, because in false Christianity’s framework, having a standard is itself a form of elitism. It prepared him to apologize without completing the accountability, because false Christianity teaches forgiveness as a feeling rather than as a process with truth at its center.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

— 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

The delusion Paul (Ai-Na-Wa-Ya) describes here is not the delusion of open wickedness. It is the delusion of sincere misdirection — people who believe they are doing exactly what Yahawah requires, who have received a strong delusion because they did not receive a love of the truth when the truth was presented to them. Nixon’s entire exchange — including his final unanswered “I really don’t know what doctrine you are following” — is the visible face of this delusion operating in real time.

V. Why the Apostle Was Right to Close the Door

There is a temptation, especially among those raised in false Christianity’s framework, to read this exchange and conclude that the Apostle was too hard, too quick to judge, or insufficiently gracious. That temptation itself needs to be examined.

The Apostle told Nixon explicitly: had you continued to the final question with humility, I would have explained everything and let you in. The door was open. Nixon closed it himself, not once but three times — first by withdrawing instead of trying again, then by attacking instead of acknowledging, then by apologizing while simultaneously renewing the accusation. The Apostle did not move the standard. He held it in place and gave Nixon multiple opportunities to meet it. This is not harshness. This is the faithful stewardship of a covenant community whose members are in the process of learning truths that have been killed, contaminated, and suppressed for centuries.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

— Matthew 7:6

Nixon did not rend the Apostle. But he demonstrated, in real time and without ambiguity, exactly the pattern this verse describes: the person who, when presented with something of genuine sacred value, tramples it — not out of malice but out of a self-image so fragile that it cannot survive being tested. The turning and rending was the series of Scripture-based accusations that followed the Apostle’s honest examination.

VI. What a Correct Response Would Have Looked Like

For the reader who wishes to learn from this exchange rather than simply observe it, the correct response at each stage of this conversation was available. It was not a difficult response. It required only one thing: the willingness to be a learner rather than a teacher.

When asked what faith means: “I would say it’s belief and trust in God — but I’m open to correction if I’m missing something.” That response would have been accepted.

When told the answer is specifically trust, not religion, and asked to try again: “I understand — faith as trust. Let me think about that more. I appreciate the distinction.” That response would have moved the conversation forward.

When the request was rescinded: “I understand why you made that decision. I withdrew when I should have engaged. I’d like to try again if that’s possible.” That response would have demonstrated exactly the character the Apostle said he was looking for.

Instead, each of these moments was met with the defense of the self-image rather than the pursuit of truth. And each defense confirmed that the rescission was correct.

VII. The Lesson That Belongs to Every Reader

This exchange is a mirror. Every person reading it has been Nixon in some conversation. Every person reading it has been presented with a truth that challenged their self-image and responded, at least initially, with the defense of who they believe themselves to be rather than the pursuit of what is actually true. The question the Scriptures ask is not whether you have ever been Nixon. The question is whether you remain Nixon after you see yourself in him.

The Apostle closed the door. He was right to close it. But the door is not permanently locked. The same Apostle who rescinded the request accepted the apology when it came — genuinely, completely, without reservation — and said: “That is a great restart.” The exchange did not end with condemnation. It ended with instruction. What happens next is entirely Nixon’s to determine.

The question of knowledge versus knowledgeable, confidence versus pride, high-mindedness versus overconfidence, was not settled in a classroom. It was settled at a gate. That is where it has always been settled. The Scriptures call it the strait gate — the narrow one, the examined one, the one that requires something of you before you pass through it.

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

— Matthew 7:13-14

The Apostle was the strait gate in this exchange. What looked like pride to Nixon was the gate itself: unmovable, principled, grounded in the Laws and Commandments, requiring knowledge and the willingness to learn it. The wide gate — the one Nixon had passed through his entire spiritual life — is the one that asks nothing, tests nothing, admits everyone as they are, and calls any other standard self-righteous. The fruit of that gate is the condition Nixon arrived in: warm-hearted, sincere, willing, and entirely unable to define the most foundational word in his claimed area of expertise.

That is not a character failure. That is a knowledge failure — exactly as Hosea said. And the remedy is the same one the Apostle offered and Nixon ultimately accepted: that is a great restart.

“But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

— Matthew 13:23

ALL GLORY TO AHLAH SHADAYA YAHAWAH AHLAHYAMA HAYAHAWASHAI MAWASHAYAI YARAYA

Shalawam — Peace