'Jesus wept.'; Jesus threw over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple.

H-m-m-m!

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Answers

Jesus was complete.

He certainly wasn't a wimp -- note that the gospel accounts of Him overturning tables doesn't talk about Him being stopped. If He was wimpy looking, don't you think a couple of guys would have pinned Him down? Nope, no one wanted to mess with Him. Says to me that He must have built up an intimidating physique while He was working as a carpenter. Yet his gentleness attracted children.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

If you want to know what Jesus looked like, look at Arnold Schwarzenneger. Jesus worked at least 15 years in the physically demanding trade of Carpenter - be probably had biceps the size of hams.

Notice how kids are always drawn toward muscular men. Children rushed to Jesus because in their mind's eye, He represented power and might and protection - which He did, in both the Spiritual and Physical plane.

And "unless you become as one of these little ones, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Jesus and Arnold have something else in common:

"I'll be baaaack"

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

ISAIAH 53:1-12: [AMPLIFIED]

1: Who has believed --trusted in, relied upon, and clung to -- our message of that which was revealed to us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been disclosed?

2: For [the Servant of God] grew up before Him like a tender shoot out of dry ground; He has no [royal, kingly pomp] form or comeliness that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.

3. He was despised and rejected and forsaken by men, a Man of sorrows and pains, and acquainted with grief and sickness; and as one from whom men hide their faces, He was despised, and we did not appeciate His worth or have any esteem for Him.

4. Surely He has borne our griefs -- sickness, weakness and distress -- and carried our sorrows and pain [of punishment]. Yet we ignorantly considered Him stricken, smitten and afflicted by God [as if by leprosy].

5: But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and our iniquities; the chastisement needful to obtain peace for our well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes that wounded Him we are healed and made whole.

6: All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned EVERY ONE to his own way; and the Lord; and the Lord has made light to Him and the guilt and iniquity of us all.

7: He was oppressed, yet when He was afflicted he was submissive and opened not His mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb {silent}, so he opened not His mouth.

8: By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who among them considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living for the trangression of my [Isaiah's] people, to whom the stroke was due --stricken to His death?

9: And they assigned Him a grave with the wicked and with a rich man in His death, ALTHOUGH HE HAD DONE NO VIOLENCE, neither was any deceit in His mouth.

10: Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief and made him sick. When You and He {God the Father and Holy Spirit?} make Him an offering for sin [and he has risen from the dead, in time to come], He shall see His spiritual offspring, he shall prolong His days, and the will and pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

11: He shall see the fruit of the travail of His soul and be satisfied; by His knowledge of Himself [which He possesses and imparts to others] shall My [uncompromisingly] righteous One, My Servant, justify and make many righteous -- upright and in right standing with God; for He shall bear their iniquities and their guilt [with the consequences, says the Lord].

12: Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great [kings and rulers] and He shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because He poured His life unto death, and He let Himself be regarded as a criminal and be numbered with the transgressors, yet He bore [and took away] the sin of many and makes intercession for the transgressors -- the rebellious.

Of course, if you can resist going on and reading Chapters 54 and 55, you are stronger than I am.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Actually, I have preferred to have a different answer. Macho and wimp are opposing extremes in the "manly" continuum. Both macho and wimp are opposites of a similar defect. Macho is egotism and self- centeredness. Wimp is lack of confidence and self-centeredness (in the opposite direction). Neither Jesus nor the disciples (after conversion and receiving the Holy Spirit) had these traits. From what I read in scripture, Jesus and the apostles were "real" men. They were balanced and mature. They were mature, self-confident, and assured of themselves not through false pride but through the God who worked through them.

Jesus probably was muscular, as was Peter, Andrew, John and some of the others. (My guess is that those old time fishermen HAD to be strong to toss those nets.) But that isnt the real relevant point. It was what was happening spiritually that made them strong, not their physique. Their moral and spiritual strength made them "real men."

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Dr. Jon:

I just want to say AMEN AND AMEN! Your words are very clear and correct in this matter. An excelent scriptural and balance picture of Christ and the apostles. Amen!

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Mark Winstead:

I think you hit the nail on the head: 'He was complete'.

That was my point in asking the question. It's just that in the Isaiah description of Him, the most complete in Scripture, I don't get the picture of Him that seems to be promulgated on this forum; when Peter cut off the poor soul's ear Jesus told him to put up his sword, and then put the man's ear back in place and healed it.

Now, he had the voice of authority. He wasn't armed; Peter was. Also, Peter was a big and burly 'macho' guy who could easily toss around heavy fishnets, filled with fish. Jesus, in the description above, seemed to be much less so. He didn't get angry and berate Peter; he quietly and with authority told Peter to put his weapon away.

I discovered many years ago that it really is not punishment which gets a child to change; it is discipling ~ which requires time and caring. Punishment will usually eventually cause children to hate the person administering it. I'm not saying that an occasional failure where the parent, in anger and frustration 'loses it' will cause permanent damage ~ unless, of course that 'losing it' is violent or damages a child's feelings about himself.

Also, you have to speak with authority ~ the child has to understand that you mean what you say. I discovered with my oldest son ~ who has a very assertive personality (I wonder where he got that?) ~ that I had to hold on longer than he did ~ to outlast the contest of wills.

Dr. Jon:

I agree that those terms do not really describe the Godly man ~ he is neither, yet as those terms are used today, he is both.

Not a wimp, but capable of gentleness, meekness, sympathy and empathy.

John 11:32-36 [AMPLIFIED]

32: When Mary came to the place where Jesus was and saw Him, she dropped down at His feet, saying to Him, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.

33: When Jesus saw her sobbing, and the Jews who came with her [also] sobbing, He was deeply moved in spirit and troubled -- He chafed in spirit, and sighed and was disturbed.

34: And He said, 'Where have you laid him?' They said to Him, 'Lord, come and see'.

35: JESUS WEPT.

36: The Jews said, 'See how tenderly he loved him!'

Something I posted on the 'Different Bible Versions' thread but which I think applies here to a degree:

I have put my sandals back on. I may, in exasperation, shake the dust again, but for now I will walk in them. Now, how many of you, after I made that statement think I am actually putting on sandals?

If so, it is my opinion that you are 'figurative-reality' challenged, because I am speaking figuratively, and am still sitting here in my slippers.

Now why would we use figurative speech? We can say it in a way that would give the facts, but it make it less interesting.

But Jesus was our example in this, and used parables to convict.

Jesus is the one who said to shake the dust from our feet and go on, but He was referring to real dust and real feet; when we use that expression, we simply mean to drop what we have been doing and go on.

But then He adds, 'It will be worse for those who will not listen than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah.' [Paraphrased]

Now, Lee has said that I am a liar, unsaved, satanic, and not a Christian.

And very few have come to my defense, so you all must agree with him. 'If God be for us, then who can be against us?'

None of what he has said of me is true, because he is operating from a faulty premise: That I am not a Christian. But I am a Christian, so would some of you please give me some help in communicating with Lee?

The reason I usually use just Scripture is because it IS sharper than any two-edged sword. Are we to use real swords? NO! He told Peter to put up his sword, and then physically healed the one whose ear Peter cut off.

He said we war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in high places.

If you will notice, he met their physical needs before He started giving them the information to save them eternally. He fed them; He healed them; he comforted them. Talk about a compassionate conservative!

He used a lot of allegory and spoke in parables. Of course, the unregenerate of that day didn't understand them, either, so he had to continually explain. But he was willing to take the time, and make the effort. He didn't get His feelings hurt by their rejection of Him and His words. And he is to be our example.

To copy and paste Lee's passage:

" And take the Helment of Salvation, and the SWORD of the SPIRIT which is the word of God:" Ephesians 5:17.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon@mindspring.com), March 27, 2000.

I think I know part of what our problem is.

Lee, do you know what 'figures of speech' are, or what 'figurative' is?

For example, in the above quoted verses, is it your opinion that it is a REAL helmet and a REAL sword spoken of here?

The REAL meaning of the words are:

Helmet=Salvation Sword==Word of God

In other words, we are NOT talking about a helmet and a sword. We are talking about salvation and the word of God ~ the Bible, which we are to use INSTEAD OF A HELMET AND A SWORD.

People use these verses in support of physical weapons, when in reality, it is telling us what our weapons should be ~ spiritual weapons.

And the verses on baptism have a lot of symbolism. It is not ALL symbolism, I realize, but an awful lot is.

No criticism is intended, and I agree that the MESSAGE is a literal message, but even the most conservative scholars state that much is 'figurative'. WE have to be discerning and try to figure out which is which in each case.

Unless each of us begins to look at this from a new perspective (we are who must change ~ the message will never change ~) we will never be able to come to an understanding. You have heard of the definition of insanity?: 'Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.'

If we keep doing the same thing over and over, we will get the same result, and it is insane!

Also, falsely saying that I am not a Christian or that I am lying or that I am ignoring what the Bible says is in itself a lie. It is bearing false witness against me.

So you can batter me with repetitious haranguing ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) but unless you come at me in a different way, nothing will change.

And I have to find out how I can communicate with you, because the clear word of God apparently is not working. We are not communicating.

Galatians 4-8: [AMPLIFIED]

EVERY INSTANCE IN THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS WHERE THESE MARKS {} ARE INSERTED TO SET OFF A STATEMENT, IT IS MY INTERPRETATION, AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED ANYTHING BUT THAT. THE OTHER ONES: (); AND [] ARE IN THE AMPLIFIED.

4. But when the proper time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to [the regulations of] the Law,

5. To purchase the freedom of (to ransom, to atone for) those who were subject to the Law, that we might be adopted and have sonship conferred on upon us -- be recognized as [God's] sons.

{Here, the male gender noun means everyone, both males and females, as was the custom of translation of the time ~ to avoid the unwieldy way it is now done ~ sons/daughters, male/female, he/she, etc.; if it doesn't mean both, does that mean women cannot become children of God?} Of course, the people who are specifically mentioned as being male or female are not both. (Especially God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ~ but God does have some female attributes ~ the account of His wanting to gather us as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but we WOULD NOT. That was the one about the stoning of the prophets, i think, but they weren't the FALSE prophets they stoned; they were the ones who told the truth. (~They also stoned false prophets, I know).

6. And because you [really] are (His) sons {children}, God has sent the (Holy) Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying 'Abba!', (Father)

7. Therefore you are no longer a slave (bond servant) but a son; {child} and if a son {child} then [it follows that you are] an heir by the aid of God, through Christ.

8. But at that previous time, when you had not come to be acquainted with and understand and know the true God, you [Gentiles] were in bondage to gods that by their very nature could not be gods at all -- gods that really did not exist.

It goes on to say (in vs. 9-12 and on) to say that we are not to return to elementary things where we insist on legalisms, which we have been freed from, enumerating some of them. We are free in Christ! His Spirit, if we are in Him, is in our hearts.

We don't have a dead Gospel, where everything has already been revealed; it's just that what has been revealed and will be revealed has to agree with what is written in God's word.

I pray we can start listening to each other, and hearing each other.

Having been gifted with Eternal Life, and that life is in His Son, and God the Father has gifted me with the Holy Spirit of His Son into my heart. May He do the same for you. Praise His Holy Name.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 28, 2000.

Strength (the best kind) and compassion; Jesus exhibited these attributes. Peter was a little 'overboard' ~ no pun intended ~ with his aggressive personality, but that very attribute may have been why Jesus chose him ~ to complement Jesus' own less combative personality. In throwing over the tables of the moneychangers, Jesus was protecting His Father's house.

One sometimes DOES wonder why Jesus chooses whom he does. ('Many are called but few are chosen'.)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

How does the term "Gentle-Giant" sound?

One cannot work as Jesus did (cutting down timber, splitting it into lumber, then cuttting and shaping it into furniture, etc. without developing physically. It just isn't humanly possible and please don't say that isn't so with Jesus - that would be the equivalent of denying His complete humanity - a heresay promoted by the early century Gnostics.

Just because a man is big, doesn't mean he is not gentle and meek. In fact, it takes a "real man" to be meek, because meekness is not "weakness" - it is a product of internal strength and faith.

If you think about it, are not most of the "big" men you have known in your lives actually big "pussycats" once you get to know them. That doesn't make him weak, just wise!

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

I often wondered, with all the subtle ironies imbedded in Scripture, especially in the New Testament (anyone besides me notice how much God enjoys irony?), if perhaps Jesus and Joseph's carpenter shop made crosses for the Romans? Hmmmmmmm...

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Mark and John:

What you are saying is exactly what my point was in posting this question.

I'm not so sure about the 'Jesus as lumberjack' theory ~ can you give me the references? I know he helped Joseph in the woodshop, probably, (are we positive of that?) and Joseph was seemingly a 'Gentle Giant' ~ internally, if not externally ~. In most of the references to Jesus in His young years, he spent a lot of time in the Temple with the Rabbis, studying. A wimp? Not on your life! Let's look at all of the references to Jesus, to draw an accurate picture of the way He was, when in the flesh. I picture an 'I feel your pain' kind of guy, but mature, intelligent, well-informed and strong, with authority.

And Mark, ~ yes, most really tough-sounding fellows are really, deep inside, pussycats, not lions. That's why I'm waiting for Lee to say, "Meow"!

But I can't imagine Jesus going to the temple 'packing' as was referred to here someplace. It might have frightened the children, who were continually hanging around him.

Besides that, He didn't need one, because he was secure in the care of His Father.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

For what it's worth, the word that is used in the Greek for carpenter (tektonos) could just as easily meant a mason (a stone worker, not the secret cult group). There are respected sources that say both. In either case, Joseph and Jesus were builders, not cabinet makers. This would put Jesus in the muscular catagory.

Jesus was a man's man.

The comments about Peter et al is also true. Fishermen were not known for being fat couch potatoes. As far as I know, Matthew was the only one that had previously had a desk job.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Scott:

I agree that Jesus was a 'man's man' but he was also a 'woman's man'. He had all the attributes we all admire, in spite of, from what Isaiah said, a not particularly charismatic demeanor.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

From what I understand from archaeology, they uncovered a branch office of the Zebedee fishing company in Jerusalem, which would make James, John, Peter and Andrew not just beefy netcasters, but very successful businessmen as well.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Bruce, I mean, John,

I am not at all familiar with the discovery you mention. I would like to know your source of info.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Connie,

Something you said earlier just hit a chord with me while I was painting my son's bedroom (so maybe this is the paint fumes talking...;~). You said that Jesus "spent a lot of time in the temple studying with the Rabbis".

I do not believe that to be correct. True, we know of at least one instance where as a young man He was Teaching in the Temple, but why would He need to Study with the Rabbis. As a personage of the Godhead - HE WROTE THE SCRIPTURES that the Rabbis would have been studying. He had no need to study them as He could quote them like no man ever had or ever could. Which is probably why the people where always amazed at the way He spoke. His words carried an authority that no Rabbi could duplicate because they were His Words.

That's something to chew on...

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

I heard it "on the grapevine." I will have to dig myself and find out if its true. I know they've found some amazing stuff recently, such as the tomb of Caiaphas himself, so I wouldn't be too surprised.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John,

I am familiar with Caiaphas' ossuary. That was a very well published discovery back in '92. I am extremely intrested in something having to do with Zebedee. Let me know what you find.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

MarkWhiz:

Yes, except for the account in Isaiah 53, we don't have a very clear picture of what Christ was like before he started His ministry.

I DID extrapolate on the little bit of Scripture regarding His visits to the temple when he was 12. he was in a positon of teacher as much as inquirer, although I think it said he asked questions; they were all amazed at His knowledge, even the learned Rabbis.

In the 2 places where the connection to being a carpenter are made, in one place it simply says he was a carpenter, and in the other it was that he was the son of a carpenter ~ and in fact, were in the form of questions, so it sounded as though even THEY were not sure. So I don't think we can get 'lumberjack' out of that, either.

I know you didn't say "lumberjack ~ I did ~ but it seemed as though that was the job you were describing. (My brother is a retired Forest Ranger, so 'lumberjack' came to mind).

What I visualize when I think of Christ is a quiet, studious, yet strong, with the voice of authority, Person. He wasn't like Peter ~ a man of action ~ and even when he told Peter to put up his sword and healed the ear of the poor soul Peter attacked, he didn't seem particularly angry at Peter. He was a strong, but calm leader.

When he threw over the tables in the temple, he was defending the sanctity of His Father's House. Even there, He was not violent in a way that would physically harm another. He was gentle and friendly enough for children to want to be near Him.

He was an altogether perfect Person!

But I can't get the haunting desription of Him in Isaiah. 'A Man of Sorrows, acquainted with grief' ~ no attributes that we should desire Him. I don't think He quite had the appearance we in modern America have given Him. Whatever He is, I want to be on His team, and I am.

Hope this doesn't post twice.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Scott;

I found the following quotes at different places on the Net.

That would help to explain how John and Peter obtained access to the trial of Jesus. "There is a compelling tradition [also found in some apocryphal gospels] that Zebedee had a branch office in Jerusalem as he supplied, among others, the high priest and his family with fish" based on John 18:15-16. "That would help to explain how John and Peter obtained access to the trial of Jesus." No concrete evidence however.

I also found an interesting article on the Zebedee's fishing industry in Bible Review, at http://www.bib- arch.org/bas-archive/brfeat9906.html#ff (but no reference to the above tradition).

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Connie: one thing's for sure, they were most certainly not Monty Python-esque "lumberjacks"!

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Scott ... the first "That would help to explain how John and Peter obtained access to the trial of Jesus." is a duplication and doesn't belong there. The entire paragraph should have read,

"There is a compelling tradition [also found in some apocryphal gospels] that Zebedee had a branch office in Jerusalem as he supplied, among others, the high priest and his family with fish" based on John 18:15-16. "That would help to explain how John and Peter obtained access to the trial of Jesus." No concrete evidence however.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John,

Thanks for digging that up. I will check out the site and learn.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

I am at home right now so I do not have access to my books, but the Greek word used when it says that Jesus wept is a word which means that He was so angry that He wept. Look it up! He was upset at the lack of faith. It was NOT His sensitive side showing.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

I looked at several commentaries, many of which pointed out that the Greek word here was not the one to wail but the one to shed tears. Most noted that He was most likely sympathizing with His friends ("he was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief") but a few pointed out that there may have also been an angry element to the tears. You suggested his anger at the lack of faith of those present. May I make another suggestion? His anger at sin and death, that yet had the power to take a dear friend of His away from Him and from His friends? An anger that only served to spur him onward to the cross, to end the tyranny of death once and for all?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

MarkWhiz:

I have read 'Esther' and wonder what your point was. I suppose it was the killing which Esther and Mordechai were involved in. I didn't put this on the gun thread, because I thought Danny might be tired of seeing my name.

I thought we were no longer under the 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' philosophy. (We'll all end up blind and toothless under that system).

In Matthew 5, in Jesus' words: we're to forgive, 70 x 7, and we're to turn the other cheek, and we're not even to stay angry with our brethren. If we don't forgive, we won't be forgiven. Those were the words of our Savior. I think he's weeping in both anger and sadness.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John

I made my last post based on a study I did a few years ago. I will check out my references in the morning (more likely afternoon, there is a lady having a heart cathider(sp?)tomorrow morning. I'll get back with you later. Did you like my little gift?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John:

Since I'm old enough to be your mother (grandmother?) you'll have to explain who Monty Python is, if I am to understand your post. I sort of missed what was going on in the culture after we became Christians, because we completely turned away from it, not even attending a single movie for at least 10 years.

Then we started to 'pick and choose'.

There was some kind of lumberjack in Monty Python?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie,

You missed the point about Esther - it's not about killing, it's about dying or at least being willing to give up your life to save your brethren.

Mordecai was willing to forfeit his life by refusing to bow down to Haman, an Old Testament Hitler who was working to pass a law that would eradicate the Hebrew people. Esther put her life on the line by approaching the King unannounced (an act punishable by death if the King so chose) in order to expose Haman for the scum that he was.

It was ONLY because these 2 people were willing to look around, "smell the roses", and then ACT upon what they knew was truth that the Hebrew race was saved from extinction, thereby preserving the human lineage of Christ.

That is the point Danny, Jenny, and I were trying to make in the Gun Control thread. It's NOT about guns, the picture is much bigger than that. It's about people like Haman (Clinton, Gore, other bleeding-heart Liberals)that are working Diligently to pass laws that eventually will take away ALL of our rights. Rights such as the ability to gather together publicly in order to worship our Lord and preach His Gospel.

If a line isn't drawn somewhere, we will eventually loose that right - essentially removing the Kingdom of God (the Church) from the shores of America. The Gov't knows this and wants this, and they think that by removing the guns from our hands, they have removed the pencil with which we would draw that line. Their folly in this is that they have not accounted for God in their thinking.

God put the fate of the Hebrew race in the hands of 2 people back then, and they rose to the challenge and acted upon it. Is it not possible then, that He is willing today to put the fate of America and the Church on its shores in the hands of people such as Danny and Jenny and myself and anyone else (male or female) who will take the challenge, step up to the plate, and "swing for the fence" ??

So, is fighting these latest gun control measures Biblical? The Book of Esther - God's Holy Word - says YES.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Hello, Mark;

On an earlier thread, I stated my position inre: Obedience or Non- Obedience of government. If I were in a position to have to serve in the armed services, I would go and be a medic or a chaplain, but I would not kill anyone ~ medics are usually in the front lines ~ are they not?

Our government also makes provision for one to be a conscientious objector, but I would probably not use that, if we were under attack from a foreign government. If any armed conflict were to take attention away from the president's legal problems, I might.

I believe we should obey our laws, but more than that, I believe we should obey God's laws. I believe God can carry out His plans without my killing someone.

From what I recall of Esther's account, she worked within the rules of the household of the king (her husband). She 'pushed the envelope' to a degree, but her husband allowed it.

Mordecai didn't kill anyone, did he? (I can't remember every detail of the story). As stated by Modecai: "Who knows whether you (Esther) are come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"

I believe this situation was handled in a miraculous way by God. God was in the details. And I believe that God can be in OUR details, using us to carry out His will without breaking His laws.

Esther risked her life in behalf of her people (the Jews).

I say I would do the same, but I am not positive I would not be a coward if faced with an actual threat. Concerning end-times prophecies, the fulfilment of which is coming upon us, my feeling, while one of fear when I first understood it, has brought me to the conclusion that being in the firey furnace will be the safest place, because Jesus will be in there with me.

No one or no government can thwart God's plans, and perhaps He might require a Christian to kill. It doesn't make sense to me, when His clear word is NOT to kill.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Mark & Connie,

You're on the wrong thread.

John,

My bad. I had the right thoughts but the wrong word. The word I should have pointed out was in verse 33 where Jesus was "deeply moved" in spirit. That word is enebrimasato, which means literally to snort in an expression of anger. The word "troubled" is the Greek word etarazen which means shaken. He was so angry He was snorting and shaking.

Yes, it could be He was angry at the consequences of sin (death), but He had four days to deal with that anger. He arrives and then is shown a lack of faith - I still maintain He was angry over their lack of faith, and that anger led to His weeping. Strong emotions, indeed. But certainly not the ones our traditions have placed on Him during this time.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Also in v. 38 (John 11) enebrimasato is used when Jesus approached the stone and told them to remove it.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie, fyi: Monty Python's Flying Circus was an outrageous British sketch comedy show back in the 70's. There was one skit where a guy fantasizes about being a rugged lumberjack. He breaks into song with a girl on his arm and a Canadian Mountie chorus behind him, all looking pretty macho, but as he sings every verse of his song gets wierder and wierder until he is singing about being a gay crossdressing lumberjack, and his chorus and the girl leave in disgust.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Sorry for the interuption, Scott.

You know how warfare is, oftentimes it bleeds over and affects "innocents"

I now return control of thread back to you....... :~)

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

All of this talk of Monty Python is making me hungry for some Spam......... :~)

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Wiz,

This is not the Outer Limits (although it seems like the Twilight Zone at times)nor do I want control. I also apologize if it sounded that way. It just seemed as though we got some stray bullets from the Gun Control thread.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam

Spam is for wimps (got to keep to the subject ;o)

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Scott:

I'm sorry if moving the 'Esther' discussion from the 'Guns' thread to here creates a problem, but in a way it's appropriate.

As I said, i moved it here because I thought Danny was tired of seeing my name, and the answers all go to him on that thread, and on this one they all come to me. Also, that one is becoming long.

Sorry, and it's my opinion that it's the 'Connie and Dragonslayer' thread (Markwhiz's) that is the REALLY far-out one (thanks to me).

Actually, Spam isn't all bad, with eggs. (Not healthful, but better than nothing). Sort of like ~ not 'hyperbole' ~ not 'hermeneutics' er, but John's word (I can't think of it! ~ old brain!) and eggs. Not 'homiletics', ~ John, help me. It was a play on words that brought 'hominy' to mind, and I still can't think of it!

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Connie,

Monty Python also did a spoof about Spam.

John & Wiz,

What about a new thread on the spiritual intricacies of Monty Python?

NAH!!!

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam real men eat Spam! lol

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Scott,

Speaking of the spiritual inticracies of Monty Python, check your e- mail for a special .wav file

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

John,

I'm with the chorus and the girl: I'd leave in disgust. ;-) ;-)

I still need that Greek or Latin word you used to make a 'funny'. ~ Something for breakfast. (Not Spam).

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

'ad hominem' ~ 'ad hominem' ~ Latin. I finally thought of it. The brain must be getting too full of trivia.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Scott, I got the wav file! hahaha!!

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Acts 20:31-38: [AMPLIFIED]

31: Therefore be always alert and on your guard, being mindful that for three years Inever stopped night or day seriously to admonish andadvise and exhort you one by one with tears.

32: And now, brethren, I commit you to God -- that is, I deposit you in His charge, entrusting you to His protection and care. And I commend you to the Word of His grace -- to the commands and counsels and promises of His unmerited favor. It is able to build you up and to give you [your rightful] inheritance among all God's set-apart ones -- those consecrated, purified and transformed of soul.

33: ---

34: ---

35: ---

36: having spoken thus, he knelt down with them all and prayed.

37: And they all wept freely and threw their arms around Paul's neck and kissed him fervently and repeatedly.

38: Being especially distressed and sorrowful because he had stated that they were about to see his face no more. And they accompanied him to the ship.

Hebrews 1:7,8: [AMPLIFIED]

7: In the days of His flesh [Jesus] offered up definite, special petitions [for that which He not only wanted but needed], and supplications, with strong crying and tears, to Him Who was [always] able to save Him (out) from death, and He was heard because of His reverence for God -- His Godly fear, His piety [that is, in that He shrank from the horrors of separation from the bright presence of the Father].

8: Although he was a Son, he learned [active, special] obedience through what He suffered;

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Re: Kissing

You have to remember, these are Europeans and MiddleEasterners. Kissing to them is a lot different than it is for us. It is not just a sexual thing, as we in the US always tend to think of it as, but it is a common form of greeting. (Ever seen French people greet each other? ... Then again, it would be hard to make a case for the French being macho ...)

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Yes, John,

So much of what we do in this country is CULTURALLY based, not SCRIPTURALLY based. I think the treatment of women is one, and 'kissing' between men is another.

(And I deplore homosexuality, even though it is no different a sin than fornication or adultery. This reminds me of the furor over the 'Don't Ask -- Don't Tell' policy; I thought that if no homosexuals, or fornicators, or adulterers could serve in the armed services, then we'd have a very small armed services, indeed!)

So many of our forbears come from Northern ~ English and Scandinavian ~ backgrounds, where any kind of emotion from men is looked down on ~ and we have all sorts of physical problems because we suppress our emotions ~ the good ones; we are supposed to suppress the bad ones, because they create even more problems.

I personally have been trained to not like men showing too much emotion, but here from Scripture we see that Jesus and the Apostles were both strong and emotional.

Men in this country have been trained to show emotion only for athletic contests, (or hog hunts) which is sad.

We all have built up walls to prevent becoming vulnerable, so we are really just skimming across the surface of life. God wanted us to have life and to have it more abundantly.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I just read a couple of great commentaries on this, on the feminization of men in our culture, etc., by Greg Koukl at the Stand to Reason website. They are:

The Man Thing The Man/Woman Thing

Let me know what you think ... I think he is right on!

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

hmmm .. they were supposed to come out on separate lines. Anyway, there are two there, "The Man Thing" and "The Man/Woman Thing", and the URLs are right.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

John, in the article you linked:

Grant's point in the book is that a woman will experience her most satisfied life if she's in a committed, submitted relationship with a man she can trust. This is not because a woman can't take care of herself, it's just that a woman experiences more of her womanliness if she has a strong man to care for her in a kind, gracious and appropriate way. That encourages and brings out the femininity of a woman. She gets a chance to major in her major.

I think a woman can be competent and surrendered. I think, by the way, this is a skill women need to learn if they're going to relate well with men. They need to retain their own individual competence but at the same time be able to communicate to men that they have a vulnerability and they want a man's protection. I think that helps to assuage any kind of conflict that some men, out of their own sense of inadequacy, feel about the competition thing. On the other hand, I think part of what men need to do is to respect a woman's capability so it helps to meet her emotional need to be respected and so she won't feel a need to compete. Both have a part to play in responding to each other's needs.

Either extreme is destructive: a woman put under a man's heel so she can't do anything because a man is insecure, or a woman competing with a man to prove her own self-worth and who is therefore not capable of surrendering. Both are cut off from themselves and therefore they have less to give to each other.

I completely agree here.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Also here:

I said, "Wait a minute. When you go home and breast feed your child are you trying to prove your femininity? When you bake cookies, or decorate the house, or dress your children, or wallpaper the bathroom, or expect a man to open the door for you is that some kind of female thing you're 'proving' to yourself? Are you being 'femo'?"

I don't think so, and I'd never take that away from you or try to diminish it with pejorative euphemisms. I'd say you're just expressing yourself. You're merely living our your nature. You're enjoying being who you are. In other words, you're enjoying being a woman. You are doing something that is distinctly an expression of your femininity, your womanliness.

But why is it when a man enjoys being who he is and begins to live out his nature then it's always expressed in pejorative terms? He's got an ego crisis. He's got to prove something. He's got to be in control. He's got to be macho. I don't like that kind of stuff because it makes a man's pursuit of maleness look foolish and I think that's a very legitimate pursuit. Men express manliness in certain kinds of ways. They express it with tools or guns. They express it by watching contact sports. They build things. They occupy territory. They take control. Those are manly things to do.

My comments concerning what Mr. Koukl said above:

I believe much damage has been done by the feminist movement, and having four sons has made me aware of the ways our culture has emasculated them.

But I also feel that if men had been more sensitive to the needs of women, (as I tried to make my sons understand) they wouldn't have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. In saying that, I am not blaming men entirely for what has happened in our society.

Formerly, women would have preferred staying home, taking care of the children, cooking, caring for their husbands and their houses. Many of them still would. But when their emotional needs were ignored by husbands more interested in their own pursuits than in including their wives in their lives, and with a disdainful attitude, to boot, or silence in response to a reaching out on the parts of their wives ~ the wives, when given the opportunity, struck out on their own.

It has not been a good solution, and now, seemingly, we are stuck with it.

Years ago, we took the 'Bill Gothard' Seminar ~ all very firmly Biblically based ~ and got our priorities straight: God, Partner, Children, Job. Even if the job is 'Preacher'.

A strong man who is also tender and caring is almost irresistable to a woman.

Young people brought up going to public schools today are damaged almost irreparably (except for a powerful God) because all of the worst precepts of our culture are purposely ingrained ~ and THEY think it's a good thing!

I don't want to place blame, but I DO think that if men had understood the needs of their wives a generation ago, things might have turned out differently.

That same Bill Gothard stated that if a woman's spiritual and emotional needs are not met, she will look to material things to meet them.

Women shouldn't be trying to be men, nor men trying to be women, but to take a little care to understand each other's needs would help. Our parental models, over which we have no choice (unless that Parent is God) are extremely important. The most important choice we make (after choosing God) is in our life partner. If only young people could understand that.

And God DOES have feminine attributes: He compared Himself to a mother hen, seeking to gather her chicks. (But we WOULD NOT.) WE ARE A STUBBORN AND STIFF-NECKED PEOPLE.

Thanks for 'hot-linking' those articles, John.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Good Links, John.

I spent a little time reading through some different topics there too - I like the guy! He's on a par with Rush, everybody ought to go look around on that site for awhile.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I agree. Despite the fact that he's a Calvinist, he's one of the sharpest thinkers going today imho. And encouraging Christians to use their gray matter is never a bad thing!

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

John;

The Calvinists I know are very intelligent, very well educated, very devout Christians and very concerned for the welfare of their less well educated, less intelligent, poorer neighbors. The ones I know are mainly Christian Reformed.

I have thought in the past that they were a little legalistic, but that doesn't negate their devotion to Christ.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

And 'legalism' seems to be 'going around', like some dread disease.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I was not saying this man is not a Christian. I believe he is. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who can speak as eloquently and clearly as he, in the obvious power of the Spirit, would not be. I was merely offering that up as a caveat.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

O.K., John,

I wasn't judging you; I hope that what I said didn't come across that way.

Years ago, I thought that VERY FEW people were Christians, and that I was among those few. Now, after a lifetime of watching and praying, I think there are more than I originally thought.

And we all might not have it all right ~ but I am trusting God to be merciful not only to me, but to some others.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000