O WITHOUT! WITHOUT! WITHOUT!

often, when i see the word "sin" i think about the fact that in Spanish that means without. i wonder if it also in Latin is like that and if that is truly the root of the word in English. there IS another word in Latin- scandalon, but i think that like in English it more refers to the exposed sin. Those two concepts are so close, theologically: sinning, and being without God.

FELLOWSHIP MEAL

Shalom, Friends. This day i am watching on Houston channel 55 a group of tv preachers/ teachers. These different ones seem to be humble, sincere followers of Jesus (Yeshua). (4 teachers - independent, Catholic, independent, Church of Christ- all seeking to speak the true truth, helpful truth of God's Word.) ok, I'm listing five. Sunday mornings 6:00. Terry Anderson Lilly Grove 6:30. Jeremy Pfiels Accelerate Church 7:00. (fr.) Chapin in West Virginia 7:30. Phil of Abba's House, Tennessee 8:00. Phil Sanders church of christ we do not watch all five of these on any given Sunday (i am concerned about us followers of Jesus spending too much time consuming even wonderful "God's Word" and ending up with less time for living out His will for us.), but i like to think they are connected amongst themselves and in God's beautiful, glorious family, endeavoring to give out God's good news all over the place.

THEY?!?

this post is about the violence being done to the English language by SOMEBODY. (I don't think I've commented on this yet.) the word "they" already had a solid specific meaning. it meant PLURAL other, third person plural. please, people, it doesn't make sense to use a word that has a specific, established meaning attaching a different meaning to it. i have read many articles in the newspaper and other public forums where the use of "they" to mean a person who wants to be called "they" had really confused the facts of the article. In newspapers especially, conveying facts is the primary job of the organization (supposedly). that makes this additional confusion caused by this kidnapping of this word so ironic.

DEVALUING THE RICHES IN YOUR PRESENCE

Devaluing the riches in your presence

This post is all a bunch of conjecture. I'm just admitting this and warning you up front.

It is about my idea that in the history of the English language, there are some words that came from Hebrew and Jewish languages that are not correctly   identified  as to "give credit" to Hebrew.
I was going to keep this maverick theory to myself, except that recently I have learned that England as well as much of Europe is living through a time ofdecrease in Christian commitment, influence, activity and observable relevance. The reasons for this decline are many, but I wonder if my theory is correct and that we are reaping harvest from that particular wrong that needs to be righted.
SHALL --- from shalom;
Salvation --- Might better be translated "shalomization"?
"robin" from "raboni"; robinhood from " chad" a group (must put discussion of "chad" first. I suspect that "Chad" from the Hebrew (pronounced "hod") is the source of hood. "chad" in Hebrew is the word used in the Shmah where it is translated as " ... the Lord your God is ONE. "Chad" means"one" there. that describes the Jews' monotheism, believing that there is only one God. Jews are very uncomfortable or rejecting of the Christian belief in Jesus as the "son of God" because they see that as Christians saying they worship more than one god. this is where the concept of the Trinity comes in. We Christians believe that God is one ("chad") and that the three parts of Him/ Them work in total agreement and unity. In GENESIS and other parts of the Bible, God DOES refer to himself in plural.

JESUS SPEAKS OF GOD'S TIMING

GUS ELOWITZ was the rabbi of BETH YESHUA HA MASHIACH in Houston, Texas up until his passing. This, as you can tell by the name, is a messianic congregation (not considered a "real" Jewish congregation by other Jewish groups that do not accept Jesus Yeshua as the Messiah spoken of in the Bible.) Brother Elowitz came and spoke to our women's group a few years before his passing. the first year he gave his testimony of how he came to believe in Yeshua. The next time he came, he asked if he could speak based on a paper he had written and had submitted to, i think, the NEW YORK TIMES. We agreed, of course. (the NYT had rejected his submission.) The title of Brother Elowitz' paper was THE SEVENFOLD ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: WHO KILLED JESUS? First let me list the seven that bro elowitz names, as best that i can. This talk was almost 20 years ago, i think. i haven't tried to remember the entirety in quite a while. please bear with me. God, the Father JESUS the Jews Satan the Romans every human being, individually (i don't know who was the seventh. Maybe you can think who that might be.) Bro Elowitz, of course, had scriptural references for each segment of his stated theory (SEVENFOLD ... WHO...) For example, perhaps, verse: EPHESIANS 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself...."v.7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, ... v.8 which He lavished on us.... intention... purposed" these all indicated that the Father (and Son Jesus) choose to cause Jesus' death, as a sacrifice for all who would call on Jesus to be their sacrifice and take their punishment. Now, I want to turn to the aspect of God's plan that i will call "timing". If it was God's plan that Jesus die for the sins of the World, the Lord and Jesus had to "make" it happen. That means that They must choose the time in history of Israel when the people in charge were antagonistic to the plan and will of God. And, They, the Planners, Father and Son, had to even push the (free will) wrong-hearted leaders (that is, aggravate, "egg on" the antagonists) in order for the sacrifice to happen. Jesus spoke of "timing" a few times. He said things like: My time is not yet come; it is not yet time i wonder if He also referred to God's timing when He said "one does not light a lamp and put it under a bushel." Could He be referring to God's very specific instructions to Gideon wherein the warriors were to in fact have lamps lit and confined to a jar until the appointed time when all were to break the jars and shine the lights and defeat the enemy by confusing them? i wonder, too, if Jesus' pointing out the "poor fig tree" i referred to earlier, another day, might be another instance of Jesus speaking of timing. those verses indicate that Jesus was looking for figs when it was not even the time for figs. is that right? is that what happened? was Jesus saying that it had to be this way? that the Jewish establishment had to reject Jesus as the Messiah in order that prophecy be fulfilled? that God PICKED this WRONG time when the Jewish leaders of that day did not have the fruit of being open to the Lord's work in their days?

N T WRIGHT AND SEMINARY DROPOUT

Bro Shane, with his blog SEMINARY DROPOUT, interviewed Brother N.T. Wright. i was so thankful and blessed to be able to hear their discussion . bro wright summed up his understanding of what we, as Christians are called by God to do. (this is my recollection) "As Jesus to the Jews, so the Church to the World." Meaning that our job as Christians is to do amazing and beautiful and loving and challenging things that cause non Christians to ask what and why. and then bro wright said, answer them with a cryptic parable expressing God. Well, that's what n.t. said. any way, the first part makes sense to me. maybe the second part has to do with people- hearers- internalizing God's truths by coming to conclusions themselves instead of having another explain something to them as a superior to an underling. oooh! Did i use the word "underling"? Anyway, that was a wonderful, inspiring interview. SEMINARY DROPOUT and N. T. WRIGHT

THE "UNITED METHODIST" SHIFT

A few years back, i was talking with our minister of music (ordained by the UMC after getting additional degre and going through the ordaining process.) He was on the committee to interview candidates seeking to become a part of the UMC ministries. (becoming a UMC pastor was one goal.) From him and from other subsequent sources, i learned that candidates must vow that they hold (and will defend?) certain beliefs that have been part of the UMC historically. It seems to me that during this time of "change", candidates have entered into the ministry by vowing that they have one set of beliefs while in truth their hearts were elsewhere. is that possible? I'm sure that many of those who have become more and more "liberal" over the decades have done so as a result of influence and reflection subsequent to their entry into the ministry heirarchy. However, surely there are some who misrepresented themselves when they initially signed on. would be possible to invalidate the individual's ordination because they lied about their convictions during the ordination process? i think that what is in the heart of each one must be judged by Our Most High God. So the end of the "unity" of the UMC cannot be untangled (truly) by mere men and women. However, other denominations may learn the lesson that people can appear to have one set of beliefs, unconcerned that what is in their heart is not what they are representing to others. How might a denomination guard against that? The prompt for my writing this post now was our Sunday school consideration on the passage in ACTS where Ananias and Saphira lied to the Holy Spirit (God Most High) by slightly misrepresenting themselves to their church community.