I hope all is well. Concerning 1 Cor. 14:34-40, it speaks of women not speaking during the coming together of the church, that if they want to learn something, then by what is “also” written in the Law, they should ask their husbands. Then it goes on to say “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

So how does this tie in with “for those that are in Jesus, there is no male, female, etc…” And why, even though it is a commandment from the Lord, does it seem like a “letter of the Law” type commandment? Does this apply to a female praise/worship band leader? And how does this apply to single women?

May I know the verses which describe the Holy Spirit as God? I already know the verses which tells Jesus Christ as God.

I agree with your assessment in “Why Is Cain’s Line Called Rebellious?” It does raise a question, however. I was born with a creative gene and all things creative come naturally to me without having to work for it. People say, “How do you do that?” I don’t know I just know how. The Bible says we’re not to build earthly treasures. Am I supposed to stop painting? Songs come and go and I doubt that any of it is eternal. Should I stop writing songs? My question is, does this place me in the rebellious line of Cain because the arts provide pleasure and can provide rest when you experience them? You said, “And while all these so-called talents from Cain’s line have been used in the glorification of God, they have more often been used to promote great evil.” Isn’t it possible that talented and creative people also came from the line Seth? Are all earthly treasure to be avoided?

I home school and each year our home school co-op puts on a Christmas play. The play this year has a theme about the real meaning of Christmas. It’s done in a modern stance with the children playing reporters and such. It has a part about Jesus’ birth. The play director lists that Joseph and Mary were engaged when they went to the Inn. I have always thought that Mary and Joseph were married when Jesus was born as Joseph calls Mary his wife in Matthew 1:24. But one of the mothers insists that they were still engaged because under the Jewish traditions a couple was not considered married until after the union was consummated. Which is right?

Thank you for all you have written. You have so helped clarify things for me. Your writing is not something I have to ‘wade through’–it is profound, yet easy to read and grasp, not textbookish. That is a real gift you’ve been blessed with and have nurtured.

I just finished reading the recently posted “2012” commentary. I couldn’t help but make a connection (in the paragraph where you speak of the earth possibly spinning faster due to the dual reversal) to Matt 24:22/Mark 13:20 about “unless those days were shortened”, and Rev 8:12 “a third of the day did not shine, likewise the night”. An earth spinning faster would certainly shorten the days, wouldn’t it!

At the end of last week’s feature article “2012 … The End of the World?” you quoted Amos 5:18-20. Considering 2 Timothy 4:8, how are the two verses reconciled?

I’m sending you several video clips on the apparent drying up of the Euphrates River. By the way, does Rev. 16:12 [The sixth angel poured his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east.] have to do anything with this drying up now, because this bowl judgment is a tribulation action, right?

I enjoy reading the questions and answers in the newsletter you kindly provide. I find them extremely interesting and thought provoking.

One of my current avenues of study is the exploration of the rite of baptism on behalf of those that have passed on without knowing Jesus. To this end I am using the Bible and the Patrologies (writings of early Church leaders). Reading the text (of 1 Cor. 15:29) it appears that (Paul) considers the practitioners of proxy baptism actually do believe in the resurrection from the dead and that is the reason they make attempts to save non-Christians that have died, as many have lived and died without even the name of Jesus falling upon their ears. Have you considered the beliefs and practices of Early Christians regarding their belief in this rite, and, if so, do their beliefs and teachings make any kind of sense to you?

I have a question regarding those who have died without hearing the gospel. While I believe that God will do what is right and just, I did run across a strange (to me) article that used scripture to try to prove that after the millennium Christ will give these newly resurrected people the chance to be saved. The writer of the article used 1Cor 15:22 and Rev 20:5 as a basis for this belief. I read both, actually both chapters to try to get the context, but could not. Can you see anything in these verses that would make the writer believe that those throughout the history of the world who died without hearing about Christ will be raised to life after the millennium and be given an opportunity to accept salvation?

Would you please explain why Satan is released from the bottomless pit for a short time at the end of the millennium? Why doesn’t Jesus just throw him into the lake of fire right away?