Esther4:14

That's not feminism though MG. As you have pointed out, women have already achieved equality by and large in Western societies. There is really no need for any feminist movements in this day and age. Feminism is something much more sinister than that. Now maybe the word 'feminism' has been hijacked (like the word 'liberal' has) but I can assure you that the modern definition of feminism has very little to do with women's rights - by and large that is just a cover. Feminists (of the true hardcore variety) actually despise women. If they respected women they would be quite happy to let some women stay at home and be mothers but they detest women who don't follow the political agenda. If they really cared about women they would complain about the way that Muslim women are treated, instead they applaud the burqa as some sort of choice. They prefer to spend more time verbally attacking conservative women. By and large they expect all women to be like the women that they are. Any woman who does not think the way that they do is a traitor to the sisterhood. The modern feminist movement supports abortion (a woman's right - a woman's choice), they detest men (because all men are rapists right?), they support all cultures except Western Judeo-Christian culture, no matter how barbaric that culture may be (because Western Judeo-Christian culture was created by White imperialist males, right?), and they are as much of a menace to other women as they are to men. Yes, they are nearly all Marxists too (or at least some sort of statist). Now maybe you think that I'm just talking about the militant ones, but I'm not because today they are all militants - in fact we live in a post-feminist society and I am wary of any woman who even calls herself a feminist. That is not a modern definition. That describes Margaret Sanger, and doesn't define the broad scope of what is referred to as the feminist movement by men who support a more patriarchal society; or, the many things that were represented by many woman continued to pursue freedom for women and the capacity to do more and be compensated for more than they have been able to do throughout history.

From your post, above..: "I can see within our society a sect of dominant women who emasculate men and keep them as little boys under mommas care." It occurs to me, just as pure logical thought, that the only men who can be emasculated like this were never very masculine to begin with. IOW, don't be a wimp and you won't be treated like a little boy. The 'YOU' being a generic you not anyone in particular. I can see why you would say that and do not deny the truth in what you say but rather add that by subtle means dominant women work diligently to emasculate men who are indeed not weak but strong. Women in general live under a curse. According to God they all desire to rule over their husbands due to the incident in the garden but they were commanded to be under obedience instead. The most dangerous women in the world unto men are they who deny this to be true. Every Christian woman needs to come to a place where she can embrace this as truth in order to get over it and the sin it causes in her life. Those who deny the truth are in bondage to the lie and therefore cannot submit but rather become crafty in their ways of supplanting men with emasculation being only one tool of many. Thank you for provoking me to further thought Morning Glory. hmm, I disagree. I think that your illustration represents a woman who has not accepted Christ, the same way a man who has not accepted Christ could behave in the same way that Hitler did. I think that men are just as capable of applying false teaching from men outside the church who would like to find ways for the Bible to teach them that they are commanded by God to dominant over a woman, which I recognize you do not indicate in your previous post. However, the issue seems to rest on the influence of the world and the response from the body of Christ as a man or a woman. I personally have no desire to supplant anyone. I merely would like the freedom to read and be creative, which is what I love. I am working towards writing fiction novels and this is what I would eventually like to do. I think that the world would like to teach men that the Bible says that I should not be allowed to do this as a woman as much as the world could teach a woman that they are capable of being the next Alexander the Great. The problem is that men do not actively seek to correct this heresy and women have had to take this upon themselves because it could not be said that it was the will of God to oppress the freedom of women. Women are just as entitled to have a life and have it more abundantly since Jesus gave His life on the cross for everyone to have this same privilege regardless of whether you are a man or a woman, and it cannot be said that desiring this is a feminist deception (John 10:10).

What you are quoting is mere nonsense supporting a modern day men's club trying to shape women into Stepford wives by saying that feminism is a deception from Satan or another faction of communism. Many of the women who participated in the rape crisis movement of the 1970's would be considered feminist and many of them did support contraception and abortion. Because they supported abortion and contraception, this does not mean that pursuing conviction of sexually offenders should be condemned because they could be called feminists. It means that they did not have support from the church in pursuing these endeavors, which is unfortunate. Therefore, instead of condemning these women and finding articles that generalize a group of women as communists, it would seem logical and expected for the church to be open and in agreement that women need justice, and deserve justice-especially in cases of sexual assault instead of condemning them as feminists. It would seem that men would be capable of discerning this if they believe that they are capable of leading within the body of Christ. "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8). I find it so absolutely offensive that you would generalize that Christian women have been deceived like Eve in the subject of feminism. This is the beauty of the women's movement that allowed me, a girl, to go to school and learn to read in my lifetime. I have read the Bible and many other things, so that I am not dependent on such lop sided messages from someone simply because they claim to believe in God. Without my ability to read, my fear of God might have caused me to listen to this nonsense. I believe this was the reason the Bible was translated into English to begin with at one time-to protect the church from false teachers and lop sided messages There are so many things that I could include that it is difficult to know where to start within the thousands of years of the oppression of women. Let's look at a man named John Todd who was a graduate of Yale and a congregational minister in the 19th century. He said in regard to the right to vote. "Being a widow, or fatherless, is a misfortune. But the husband or father earned the property, and voted as long as he lived. It may be a misfortune that the property does not now vote, but not so great a misfortune to the world as to have the sex go out of their sphere and enter into political life. Indeed, it is allowed that voting is only the stepping-stone to civil office. But it is stepping out of her sphere, and the moment you do that, you pu8t a few of the sex into office, but depress and degrade at least a thousand where you elevate one. If a few go up, the many go down" (In Her Place: A Documentary History of Prejudice against Women page 35-36). "The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them." (Numbers 27:7). "A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation." (Psalm 68:5). Let's look at what he has to say about a woman and education. "For forty years I have been connected with female seminaries, and have carefully watched their training and results. I say deliberately, that the female has mind enough, talent enough, to go through a complete college course, but her physical organization, as a general thing, will never admit of it. I think the great danger of our day is forcing the intellect of woman beyond what her physical organization will possibly bear." (p. 38). "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" (Acts 2:17). Maybe John Todd is going against scripture trying to say that a woman's physical organization could not bear receiving the Spirit of God in the way this verse suggests. Now, the women who gained the right to vote and go to school were the inspiration for many in more recent feminist movement, not Karl Marx. The ones who stood up to men like John Todd were a big part of the foundation of the movement. Now, the question is whether you agree with the unbiblical responses of John Todd and what that says about your argument about a connection between feminism and communism that completely neglects any indication of balance to contribute to the discussion; or, any indication of support for things that were gained outside of the more extreme opinions of the one presented in the article. In my opinion, if you are that biased on a subject that clearly has so much more to be said about it that can be supported with scripture, then should I really take anything that you say seriously. This is also a subject I have 33 years of experience in and many years of research on. I have much more I could say on the subject, but I will stop there for now.

Your talking about such a minority of the women's movement and are using it in such a broad stroke that it is just ridiculous. You forget how many aspect of the women's movement are no where near this extreme and still get labeled feminist by men trying to still maintain a patriarchal society. There is absolutely no balance to the information that you present or repentance for the way women have been treated in the past that women have fought to correct and was never something that was in accordance with scripture to begin with. It is like you would defend women not having the right to vote because you actually believe that scripture somewhere tells you that you have the authority to decide whether I deserve the right to vote.

If you believe that Butero's view is narrow-minded then you would have to conclude that the apostle Paul and the Lord were narrow-minded. As to the "gains" from the feminist movement, if you were to dig deeper you would find that the majority of those women who became doctors or lawyers or what have you were not feminists, and would reject feminist notions. Um, I don't you think you really understand what you are talking about either, because Paul is one of my favorite writers of the Bible. I also cited very specific aspects that are historical milestones in the woman's movement that were won by woman who did not always believe in God. The ism of the woman's movement usually means that these woman are not saved and their endeavor is not a spiritual one but a more practical one. It was woman from the ism of the woman's movement who first published The Courage to Heal, in the 1970's, which is still a very popular book that has help a countless number of women heal from the effects of sexual abuse because the rape crisis movement was largely led by woman who were not of faith, probably because their husbands would never have let them participate in the fight for justice from sexual assault. It was a woman name Judith Herman who identified a similar traumatic pattern between women who were victims of rape and the early research on the subject of PTSD in soldiers in the book Trauma and Recovery. It was Diana Russell that challenged the statistics for sexual assault and published the findings in The Secret Trauma, which is an essential piece of the treatment that is now available for women who have been assaulted. All of these endeavors had nothing to do with the church, and I find the broad stroke of the pen claiming that I am in disagreement with the Bible for my opinion towards the women's movement that has taken place outside the church to be very narrow minded. It is like saying we should take back all this progress because the Bible says the husband should be able to tell his wife what to do and what not to do and reflects being very poorly informed on the subject. In conclusion, it would appear in some ways, that these women who pursued these accomplishments have done more to restore the dignity of women, than 2000 years of male leadership in the church.

I am not sure that I don't think that most homeowners are really only a different class of renters. To me, a 30 year mortgage is just like a 30 year rental agreement with perks when it's tax season. I think that banks have manipulated the right to property. We have something of the illusion of property rights because a lord of the land (landlord) goes by the name of Wells Fargo or Bank of America instead of Lord Dunmore or Lord Devonshire. Upton Sinclair presented a interesting point of view of the real estate agent in his book "The Jungle." The real estate agent was like a bad car salesman who took poor Jurgis for a ride promising him much if he decided to buy a home instead of renting and delivering little. It turns out that the real estate agent would flip the house over and over to poor immigrants families who could fully understand the contract they were entering into and would inevitably spend more money buying the home than renting, which would lead to foreclosure and the home never really being owned by anyone but the bank. No matter how many times it changed hands, the bank was always the true owner of the home. Upton Sinclair was not concerned about writing a fairy tale because he had his own protagonist suffer the same fate. It was very sad, but very insightful. I have often considered how different real estate is from this perspective that he presented, which inspired significant social change for the meat packing industry. I think his perspective towards real estate was overlooked in light of this.

I agree that you should try to line up how formal you will dress with how formal she will plan on dressing up. That way, one of you doesn't make the other look under-dressed. I would imagine that if the reviews are saying that there is no need to dress up the same way someone would have traditionally, then it would be appropriate to find a eclectic mix of formal and casual. For example, you could wear a jacket with a less formal shirt and no tie, or just something unique. Something that will be comfortable, but something that you still wouldn't wear to go watch some sports thing at a friends house in. Have fun.

I assume you mean unless the ancient writing is in the Bible? Many folks think the Genesis flood account is a variation of an earlier story the epic of gilgamesh. Yes, many have said that the Bible is largely based on much older writings than Moses, i,e. the legends and myths before Israel. What they don't know is that when a civilization began to use written languages and codes to record and transfer information, it was a sign that the memory and intellectual powers were weakening. This was one reason God inspired men like Moses to make a written record for future generations, because He knew that the information cannot be entrusted to memory alone. The human intellect would decline with future generations. So if the Bible was written later than the earlier legends, it proves that the line of Israel was more intelligent than previous generations. This is an argument that we won't hear from the so called 'intelligent' today, because they believe that knowledge and intelligence has progressed and not declined. It is nigh impossible to convince such of the truth. Even Christians say that the ancient peoples like the Jews were primitive, while people today are much brighter, - because they have mobile phones? (To help them find their way and be on time, because they have no proper sense of time, space, events or geography, and their memories are so inadequate that everything has to be stored, in images, sound and text. Have you seen what happens when they lose their phone? They become helpless, lost and frantic.) You may have heard of a secret book or diary that Noah's wife wrote and kept, which somehow was found by who knows? We know it's fake, because written material was not necessary for these people. I think your suggestion is very insightful; however, memory development is not much a subject of natural science in modern times. It does play a significant role in the subject of psychology which I am familiar with, and I look forward to understand the role that memory plays in a historical sense in a greater way. It is actually a subject of I do a great deal of personal study in. Memory is a key factor in regard to our intelligence. So much of what we remember is essential to representing intelligence. Therefore, I think that our memory is a significant area of spiritual warfare. I think the enemy uses many tactics intended to affect our ability to remember. Maybe, that is a part of deception of the age of information is that there is so much information, that memory retention and critical thinking slow in response that the enemy can use to his advantage; and, you can see where memory becomes more and more important as a spiritual defense when God begins implementing the Old Covenant with the significance of the deliverance from Egypt Israel was supposed to remember in order to prevent them from falling away. This change in memory retention might have also been the result of the post flood judgement, "Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” (Genesis 6:3). The change in the number of years of our life might have changed our capacity for other things pertaining to memory as well that were supplanted with the statutes of the Old Testament Israel was to remember. Outside of this I think that firmament plays a significant role in the great flood and the foundations of the earth. If we could understand the firmament, we could understand the flood; and scientists would get further, faster; if they set the focus on scientific precepts like identifying the firmament. I do not see why He would not give understanding of the firmament to someone with a pure heart. The evidence that we do not understand such precepts is evidence that many who pursue scientific endeavors, do so more often out of selfish ambition, than a desire to understand the creator or His creation. Peace

Beloved My Take Is That When The Deep Was Broken Up, Terror and pit and snare Confront you, O inhabitant of the earth. Isaiah 24:18 (NASB) The Tectonic Plates Were Violently Formed Then it will be that he who flees the report of disaster will fall into the pit, And he who climbs out of the pit will be caught in the snare; For the windows above are opened, and the foundations of the earth shake. Isaiah 24:18 (NASB) And The Very Earth Itself Was The earth is broken asunder, The earth is split through, The earth is shaken violently Isaiah 24:19 (NASB) Knocked Of It's Axis The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard And it totters like a shack, For its transgression is heavy upon it, And it will fall, never to rise again. Isaiah 24:20 (NASB) And Terraformed So it will happen in that day, That the LORD will punish the host of heaven on high, And the kings of the earth on earth. Isaiah 24:21 (NASB) (One Again) By It's Creator They will be gathered together Like prisoners in the dungeon, And will be confined in prison; And after many days they will be punished. Isaiah 24:22 (NASB) That Is What I See Then the moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, For the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, And His glory will be before His elders. Isaiah 24:23 (NASB) In The Forecast Confirmed By The Earth's Story (Geology) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20 ~ This is interesting. It makes me wonder whether their were earthquakes before the flood or whether this is how the the earthquake of Revelation 6:13 connects to the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37).

This is a completely unbiblical response. Feminism is completely at odds with Biblical teaching. It is rebellion against God's order. If the husband tells his wife he doesn't want her to drive a church van, she should obey her husband as the Bible tells her to do. She is told to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, in everything. If she goes out and gets a job "to use her intelligence and creativity" as you suggest, and goes against her husband, she is in rebellion against both her husband and the Lord himself. The only way anyone could take the position you have is if they don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, but just letters written by men influenced by the culture of their day. If you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, you have to know you are teaching something totally at odds with scripture, both from the Old and New Testament. I am aware of your opinion on the subject and I believe your response represents the narrow mind and lack of empathy for anything that was gained for women from the feminist movement that gained the right for woman to vote, go to school, become a doctor or a lawyer, and for conviction of sexual offenders. I did a whole a research project specifically on the subject of rape myths that used to determine whether a man would be held accountable for rape because it was possible to not be rape if a woman wore a skirt above her knees. Then, it wasn't rape even if she said no. So, your response does not seem to understand the many benefits that I enjoy because of feminism and proves the point I was trying to make about the church dropping the ball in being the leader and setting the example for how a woman should be treated and what she should be able to do-like learn to read. But, maybe it was His will for a woman to be the one to do this, and not a man. Either way, you do not seem to understand the extreme prejudice that women have experienced throughout history, but this is because you are a man and have never experienced any of this. Therefore, a woman should have the capacity to make a decision for herself in the event that conflict is created over driving the van according to her understanding of what the Lord's will is for her. If she wants to drive the van, then her husband could just as easily see this as what the Lord has for her to do for Him. If she doesn't because she wants to do more in her home, her pastor should be able to see that this is what the Lord is leading her to do. Either way, she is not a ping pong ball to be pulled between two men taking authority over her because she is a woman.

Apparently, using the original Aramaic texts is something that is growing popular within the Messianic church. Here is a video that explains this verse in particular according to the Aramaic texts. The thing is that we can get so comfortable with our church scripts, that we neglect using discernment when we hear things. Instead we say what our customer service team called key words at key times, but then we can just keep saying something that is false that now appears to be true because it is what everyone knows. What I am saying again, and then I will stop because I can tell that there are no ears to hear here, is that the corruption in the Bible relates to the revealing of the Son of Perdition. Scripture should be accurate, but we should also strive for the best and be able to improve upon the work of many people who have blessed us with the opportunity to read the scriptures for ourselves. We should be able to question something in order to improve upon it. This is part of being a good Berean (Acts 17:11) There are many sermons from Messianic teachers on the subject of the original Aramaic texts on YouTube in anyone is interested in the subject.

For one very simple reason. There is a reason that the church today does manifest the same gifts as the time of Pentecost. Maybe, it is for the very simple reason that our translations could be taken to the next level. People like Tyndale and Wycliffe did their best, but it is as though everyone accepts the way things are as though there was nothing they could do about it. As though there were nothing that were oppressing their understanding. Breaking the barrier that separates us from the time of Pentecost could be easily resolved by a better understanding of what it was that they knew. Maybe, the difference between us and the disciples is that they heard and understood what Jesus said and our versions are still watered down to the point where we are not capable of doing the same. It is a very significant thing to consider when we are surrounded by tribulations not a question of making something more complicated than it should be, and it would be a much more worthwhile endeavor than the massive amount of time that the church wastes following politics. It would be a much better way to spend our time.

I would agree 100%. When we read Psalm 22 and see what it reveals about the sufferings of the Savior and His agony on the Cross (which were all necessities for our redemption) then we dare not put a different spin on this verse. Christ said again and again that He must suffer (in His body, soul, and spirit), and if the experience of the Cross had not be horrifying, He certainly would not have cried out to the Father to take away that "cup" of suffering. Stick with the King James Bible. But, He didn't cry out the same way or seem distressed in the same in the other Gospel accounts. It is like they are completely different narratives.

I have to agree it really missed what was happening there. What would you say is happening here Therese?

Thank you for pointing this out. I am even more interested in investigating this version because I do believe that we are living in a time when the mystery of lawlessness will be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and that this mystery is rooted in the early church councils which established a canon that they corrupted into the Vulgate like a bunch of Pharisees trying to pretend to be Christians. I think it is very possible for many of the books to have been originally written in the common language of Aramaic; especially, James and Hebrews in particular. We have been in a struggle to have the scriptures available to us as they should be since the beginning. It couldn't be counted against Wycliffe's for translating the scriptures from the Vulgate; and, it would not have been the fault of Erasmus to have only been able to use the Greek texts that were corrupted by the authors of the codex Vaticanus and the Vulgate (Ancient Word of God, page 27-28). Within this history of the attempt to corrupt the scriptures lies the trail that leads to the son of perdition and the unveiling of the mystery of lawlessness. So, the potential to understand and investigate the way the enemy has tried to withhold the Bible from us is a worthy endeavor because I do not think the efforts of these early reformers trying to remove oppression by providing the scriptures to the body of Christ is finished, and I am interested to see what they will say. I have posted a question and will hear back shortly.

Hmm, then how do you address the four Gospels presenting that Jesus said something different each time? Or, that this statement coming from the man who knew it was His will to go to the cross, sounds almost like He doesn't understand the will of God anymore. So, the point I am making is looking at the word on a deeper level and in recognizing that the word does serves a positive or negative way. When Jesus is saying this, He is not saying this. He is then saying this to identify with David in his suffering if we associate this with Psalm 22. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15). So, the experience is different because He is saying this in order to complete the will of God for Him, and not because during the time on the cross He is actually separated from God, which is a common narrative that is made up in order for us to understand the conflict between Jesus knowing the will of God at one moment, and not knowing the will of God in the next. Changing the word, challenges the made up narrative of this account scripture does not confirm anywhere like a defibrillator because no where does it say that Jesus was concerned about going to the cross because He did not want to be separated from the Father. That is something that we have completely made up to explain Him saying this. In truth, Jesus might not have wanted to go to the cross because it would be a painful way to die and He was able to feel pain because He was given a nervous system. Therefore, when He would say this, it was not because He was not being comforted that He has successfully finished what He set out for Him to do.

This is taken from the Hebraic Roots Bible, which was translated by a private ministry and is free online in different formats from http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php I was fortunate enough to find this about a year ago when I finally got fed up with the KJV only debates and Bibles printed by Zondervan. I do believe that the KJV corrupted the work of Erasmus and intentionally made it poetic and intentionally evolved the English language to create a barrier to understanding, and Zondervan prints questionable material. A Bible publisher should have standards that exclude material from being printed. If you can print some material that is questionable, it is suspicious that the Bible would be printed with integrity. I enjoy this version, as I do enjoy using Tyndale's version. Tyndale's version is very easy to read once you get past the differences in spelling. Anyways, Matthew 27:46 in the Hebraic Roots Bible reads: "And about the ninth hour, Yahshua cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama shabakthani; that is My El, My El, why did You honor Me to be here?" This is a very familiar verse that usually reads "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (KJV). which caused me to investigate the reason for changing forsaken to honor. The footnotes of the Hebraic Roots Bible reads "This verse has been greatly misquoted as the original Aramaic can mean to leave in a good way, such as if you were an owner of a company and had to go away and left someone very trusted to care for your business while you were gone. From Isaiah 63:1-9, we see that only Messiah qualified to redeem Israel and it is stating here the honor given to Him for His perfect life and sacrifice," (p. 1215). According to Strong's Concordance, the word in Greek can stress towards a positive or stress towards a negative. Therefore, the word might not technically be translated wrong, per se; however, English has many more words in our vocabulary and is not required for this word to hold a positive or negative meaning. We have other words to describe positive experiences, while we commonly use this word to describe negative ones. However, this has not stopped us in the church from creating a positive narrative to go with this word that describes a negative experience in English. I have heard many extra-Biblical descriptions like how this verse is describing a separation between Jesus and God for the time that He was hanging on the cross for our sins. We have created this story to go along with it that describes and dramatizes the experience of the cross with something that is mentioned no where else in scripture. No where does Jesus say that He does not want to die on the cross because it will separate Him from the Father. It is common that we attach His time in Gethsemane to accentuate the way we have reconciled using a word that more often has a negative experience in English from a word that carries both meaning in languages of antiquity. We explain that this experience of separation would have been why Jesus asked that this cup might pass from Him-because it would be too much for Him to have to be separated from the Father during His time on the cross (Matthew 26:39). So, we know whether we know that the word held a double meaning in the original language or not, that using the word forsaken does not hold the same meaning that we commonly believe when we use this word at other times. We instinctively know that this is not the same meaning, which is why we have created multiple narratives to explain this verse in a positive way. In other words, we know that He does not leave Jesus because He is dying on the cross whether we use the word forsake or not. Now, when compare this verse with the last words of Jesus from the other Gospels how does it compare. "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). Mark is said to be the first gospel and Matthew is said to have been derived from this original text, so the verses repeat for the same reason. The actual word translated is used to stress positively and negatively. "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46) Luke is also said to have derived from the gospel of Mark; however, he transcribes a experience that translates in a positive experience of finishing on the cross using different words. "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30). John's gospel speaks of a positive experience of accomplishment as well. Therefore, all four gospels translate towards a positive experience. So, if we change the word forsake to a word that more clearly translates a positive experience in the English language, we are given a completely different experience from the text. Instead of reconciling the way it sounds like Jesus is saying He is forsaken because we instinctively know that is not what is happening. When we use a word like honor, he is no longer separated from the Father on the cross the way He does not appear to be in the other gospel accounts. He is being comforted. It is as though the Father is with Him while He is on the cross, comforting Him, telling Him how He will be honored and how all the things He has promised to Him will be fulfilled because He has been obedient to the point of suffering death on the cross. It changes what we expect if we were to experience suffering as well if we were to clearly see how the Father never left His side, but was comforting Him and reminding of the reward that was set before Him for finishing the race set before Him (Hebrews 12:1). This is a narrative that is much more more consistent with the other Gospel accounts and the rest of scripture considering how frequently we read "he will never leave you nor forsake you" (Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:5; Genesis 28:15; 1 Kings 8:57; etc). In fact, it is probably because of this that we have never been comfortable believing that Jesus was ever saying He was forsaken. What do you think?

That's really awesome John. I like it.

That is primarily because the true New Testament teaching on church leadership and shepherding (a plurality of elders) has generally been abandoned, and a pastoral ministry is considered a career rather than a calling (hence academic qualifications). At the same time, there is blame on both sides. You will hardly find an evangelical church today that is advertising for a pastoral opening and not insisting that the man have a Master of Divinity degree, instead of whether he has the spiritual maturity and the qualifications of an elder, and the gifts ans calling of a pastor, teacher, and evangelist. Above all that he preaches the truth without fear of favor, and is a genuine shepherd, not merely a preacher. Let's examine one ad: You know I have to agree with what you are saying. However, I do think there is an important lesson within the phenomenon of feminism and the positive effect that it has had on the church as well. I think this represents the responsibility that the church should have had to lead in this area rather than holding to former patriarchal views. I have a book called "In Her Place" by S.T Joshi, which is a collection of essays from prominent men from about mid 19th century to early 20th century sharing their opinion for why woman should not vote, go to school, and should stay at home because this was her place. The church was never at the forefront of encouraging women to be educated or be able to vote, neither of which hinder their ability to stay home and raise children. I think there is a lesson in this, because I read some of these essays and men were not so likely to share what the Bible says about woman the way that they do now from a Christian perspective that has had to accept the impact of the feminist movement in the many ways that were not contrary to the what the Bible says about the role of women. Therefore, I think that the pastoral office has a long way to go before they will be able to regain the reigns of leadership within our communities; and, unfortunately, they do not appear to be actively trying to do this as you have pointed out about the increase in career pastors rather than pastors who make a career of a calling.

I had one of those days last Thursday to be exact. I went shopping for yarn because I love to crochet and I felt better. It helps me develop patience because it is not something that is done quickly, and it is nice to make something pretty when there is so much ugliness in the world. Hobbies are good because He is in control. Peace.

Rick, Many of us believe as you do so hold fast to your beliefs. Those who hold other views will never change them so we will always be at an impasse. They are still brothers and sisters in Christ -- simply misguided.( Just wondering, but doesn't that actually mean that YOU will never change your mind, that no matter what anyone says or shows you from the bible that you have already decided what's correct? You could certainly interpret it that way. I have yet to see one passage of Scripture that states that the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation are meant for the Church. This is a period of judgment and wrath on the unbelievers and the ungodly before the Second Coming of Christ. "I am the vine and you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit. Apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5). If the vine suffered on a cross for our sins, doesn't it stand to reason that the branches will also suffer tribulation? Personally, I think that the pretrib rapture argument is a little bit like Peter trying to tell Jesus that He would not die on a cross-and Jesus rebuked him for this (Matthew 16:22-23). I think the problem comes because of the impression that we have about suffering; and, because we may have no experience with it. Tribulation can be a blessing. It can cause you to rely on faith in a way you never would have otherwise. Picture it, if you were left in a lion's den (Daniel 6) with no cell phone or anything that would allow you to find help from another person, what else would you do but put your faith in God to deliver you? There are too many examples like this to assume that scripture even teaches that believers won't experience tribulation. I do not believe we will experience the same tribulation. I expect to stare in the face of a lion till it is over, is what I expect to do. Not that I think that is a easy thing, but I don't think I will experience the same judgment because that is what the tribulation is about-the judgment of the Lord. It will be like being in a rainstorm of acid that burns many, but I am actively seeking to be able stand in the rain like I would imagine Elijah would have been able to do. Therefore, what we should be doing because of this is finding ways to fast and deny the flesh to alleviate the sting of additional tribulations that will take place around us, so they will pass over us; instead of telling each other that we are not capable of doing things like Elijah did, and we will be raptured like cowards instead. Ezekiel is a very good example of this. He made such an impression on me the first time I read about how God told him to lay on his side to bear the iniquity of Israel (Ezekiel 4:4). There are many things that we could be doing like this to seek His favor as we approach the day of the Lord. But, I will not allow myself to be deceived into thinking that I will be raptured when prophets like Ezekiel were not raptured. Elijah was taken in a chariot of fire, but he could also ask for rain and it was given to him (1 Kings 18-19). I don't know many people who would be capable of this without a time of tribulation either.

Frankly, in my opinion, the most disappointing aspect of considering this subject is how poorly men lead in the church today period. Unfortunately, being a woman in the church today often puts you in the position of being chastised for being disobedient if you do not submit to inadequate men in authority. It is just really pathetic. I mean really, even the illustration. The pastor wants her to drive the van and the husband wants her at home. Oh my goodness. It just baffles the mind the way men insult the intelligence of a woman and will still defend that this is not an attempt to insult their intelligence, and that there is Biblical support for the tug of war between the pastor and the husband and the wife who just drives the van all day. What's a girl to do? I tell you what a girl does. She says forget both of you trying to spiritually oppress me, and goes and gets a job that allows her to use her intelligence and creativity for more than driving a van while the men battle over who she supposed to listen to, from a Biblical perspective. The problem with the way the church teaches the feminist movement is that they forget that they were completely inactive in the endeavor to provide any equality and creative freedom of expression for woman. The secular world had to do this. Just like Jesus offered salvation to gentiles after His people rejected Him as well. "And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’”(Luke 5:39). Frankly, the structure of pastoral ministry is very outdated overall. The church would be better off participating in some sort of study than sitting in a Sunday service. Like babies drinking bottles is what a Sunday service is in our day and age. It is no wonder so many are distracted by the many things being fed to us in the media when they gain no spiritual maturity in modern church settings and are forced to see stagnating spiritual maturity as obedience to a pastoral shepherd. We would probably all be better off without what we have come to expect of a pastor in the church today.

I agree with the consensus that it would be okay to have a friend or couple of friends do this somewhere like a lake or ocean or whatever. I don't think you have to be in a church especially if you feel uncomfortable with that. Baptism is special. It should be a special experience. Even if there are only a couple witnesses of the actual experience, you will have the testimony to share for a lifetime. So it should be a experience you would want to enthusiastically share with others; or, something you could suggest for someone else one day who wants to have the same pure experience of baptism without the politics that are suffocating many churches today. I think that would be preferable if I couldn't find a church that I felt comfortable with.

But how is God's love perfected / made complete as indicated in 1 John 2:5? I mean, isn't God's [agape] love complete / mature / perfect already? I think His love is perfected; however, ours is not because of fear. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love." (1 John 4:18). I would have to say that the root of fear has to do with the experience of sin evidenced in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were hiding from God out of fear of punishment for disobeying His command (Genesis 3:8). However, scripture shows that He has patiently taught many people to overcome fear and walk in faith. I think Gideon is one of my favorite examples for how we can learn to overcome fear from the story of when he would lay down fleece to know for sure that the Lord would be with him before he could confront the Midianites. Even after doing this, he was still too afraid to destroy the altar of Baal during the day, and he did it at night when no one would see him (Judges 6). David shares a similar story before he approaches Goliath. He learned to overcome fear defending his sheep from bears and lions (1 Samuel 17:34-35). Moses is another example of someone who didn't feel adequate to deliver Israel from the Egyptians. Scripture may be teaching us in 1 John 4:18 that what Moses was really worried about was not his inability to speak well (Exodus 4:10), but his fear that if he spoke, he could be punished for doing something wrong. I can sympathize with his fear because it is like I know instinctively, without having to be told, that I am capable of messing up from time to time; and, that I have to overcome this fear in order to be perfected in love and pursue righteousness completely (Proverbs 21:21). Therefore, what John may be saying is that when love cures fear it is perfect and complete.

The problem with Christian science trying to promote miraculous healing is that the false doctrine contained within Christian science prevents any healing the way Mirium grumbling about Moses kept Israel from moving towards the promised land (Numbers 12). It has been years since I read a textbook for the Christian science camp as a new believer interested in a career in healthcare. The book was a utter disappointment. It has nothing to do with the Bible or with any sort of God given capacity to heal from infirmities. It was about how God was love; and God is love (1 John 4:8). However, man is also made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). God is not just a gaseous ball of impartial love governed by mans choice to see Him this way. He is a decisive being with supreme authority capable of creating a man in His image. Therefore, I think they represent the potential for healing that we have as believers poorly. I do not believe we are dependent on man made medicine for healing. We are dependent on truth. Where there is no truth, there can be no healing regardless of the method used. Nosocomial infections are a leading cause of death, which are infections caused by seeking help for one medical condition, and contracting another ailment because of seeking help from the modern healthcare system. You may die using the Christian science approach, but you may lose your quality of life using the modern healthcare system. So, in my opinion, we need to keep looking for a better way to approach the often unavoidable trial of sickness experienced in this life. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." (John 14:6).