How often do we comment: “I always enjoy listening to this speaker.” But what about the content of what they are saying?

John the Baptist may have presented himself to people in an unprepossessing manner with his locusts, animal skins and all, but his voice was another matter altogether. People flocked to hear it. They were not so much captivated by the quality of his delivery, but rather the content of his message. It had the power to change them.

“If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”(1 Corinthians 14:8) 

Childhood is meant to be the best time of our lives. To an increasing number it can be the very worst 

The womb is meant to be a place of safety and nurturing. It has become a battlefield like no other. 

If someone had told you 10 years ago that it would soon become tantamount to a speechcrime to say ‘Men cannot get pregnant’, you would have thought them mad. That would be like punishing someone for saying, ‘Humans need oxygen to survive’. And yet here we are, in 2017, where PC has spun so violently out of control, and the cult of gender-neutrality has become so unwieldy, that one of the most controversial things you can say these days is: ‘Only women can get pregnant.’ Apparently that’s offensive to transmen (women who identify as men). ‘Men can get pregnant, too’, trans activists cry. Which strikes me as a real-life version of ‘2 + 2 = 5’.

It isn’t only the usual suspects who want us to stop treating pregnancy as a woman thing. Yesterday the Sunday Times reported that in its submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Foreign Office suggested the term ‘pregnant women’ might be offensive to ‘transgender people who have given birth’. The covenant, a UN treaty, says society must protect ‘pregnant women’ and never subject them to the death penalty. The Foreign Office wondered if ‘pregnant people’ might be a preferable term, to avoid offending the infinitesimally small number of women who identify as men who have given birth.

Here is an abridgment of Gustav Dalman's "The Words of Jesus in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language".

Well this is interesting.  I had got used to the standard response to terror.  I had thought that when 22 young people get blown up by a suicide bomber in Manchester we were meant to say that it made ‘no sense’, that it ‘wouldn’t change us’ and that ‘love’ must overcome ‘hate’.

I thought that when a crowd of people get run over and a policeman stabbed to death we were meant to say ‘We may never know’ what caused such an outrage.  And that when people slit the throats of Londoners while shouting ‘This is for Allah’ we agreed that only perpetrators themselves were responsible for such inexplicable actions?  At most, weren’t we just meant to rouse ourselves to a chorus of ‘Don’t look back in anger’ and move on?

Well what a very different standard applies when the victims are a group of Muslims exiting a mosque.  Since that despicable attack I have watched with astonishment as British Islamists and the British left who are so insistent that we should all refrain from ‘pointing fingers’ after any Islamist attack have taken both their fists out for this one.

RABBI JOSEPH KRESEFSKY answers ...

G_d IS omniscient. He does know the beginning and the end.

Ps. 139:16 – “Your eyes could see me as an embryo, but in your book all my days were already written; my days had been shaped before any of them existed.”

Or consider many of the Messianic Prophecies:

Be hated without cause- Is. 49:7, Ps. 69:4, Fulfillment -John 15:24-25

Be betrayed by a friend- Ps.41:9, 55:12-14, Fulfillment – Mt. 26:21-25;47-50, John 13:18-21, Acts 1:16-18

Be sold for 30 pieces of silver- Zech. 11:12 Fulfillment – Mt. 26:15

There is an increased clamour to redefine marriage, even in the Church. Steve Maltz explains the dangers inherent in such thinking…

There was a piece of news recently that has been largely overlooked but, in the grand scheme of things, greatly overshadows even the results of the General Election. The Scottish wing of the Anglican Church has just voted to legalise gay marriage1. After giving his reasons, the head of the Scottish Episcopal Church, David Chillingworth stated that “we affirm we are a church of diversity and difference bound together by our unity in Christ” . The Bishop of Edinburgh, John Armes, added, “if the Anglican Communion is to survive it must embrace unity” .

If Church unity demands that Biblical doctrine on marriage is thrown out of the window, then I suggest that the Anglican Communion does not deserve to survive, whatever the implications. In terms of core understandings of what a Church is in relation to Jesus, this doctrine is far more precious than these Scottish clergymen seem to understand, far more important than the survival of a single denomination, regardless of how many clergy it employs or the size of its investment portfolio.

Nick Gray of Balfour 100 examines how Christians shaped the modern Middle East a hundred years ago 

There are many centenaries to be marked at the moment, as we progress through 100 years since the “war to end all wars” took place. So many of these remind us of the horrific and tragic loss of life incurred on all sides of the conflict in battles big and small between 1914 and 1918. November 2017, however, sees the centenary of a political expression of intent made in the midst of wartime strategy that went on to become one of the most influential yet controversial documents in 20th century history.

The Balfour Declaration, named after the Foreign Secretary of the day who signed it, was an expression of approval for the concept of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the area that was biblical Israel but was then known as “Palestine” . It was an attempt to combine British strategic needs and the historical justice of returning a dispersed Jewish people to their biblical and historical homeland.

Pages