is well prepared to talk and I would like to have instructions here that include just read this thing or just look at the picture on my phone. Things I wrote on the board in my office, so bear with me if I forget a step or two here and there. So let me state our setting for today and the theorem that I hope to prove throughout today will let x mu be a standard. It fell towards, scared you to just think of the unit interval with limit measure, that is actually perfectly general. Philosophy of ergodic theory, I mean it's kind of not starting with physics, but the mantra that people want to show was that time average and space what I mean by test-fix, by an integral in particular. We can take f to be Borel, NEL or the functions of time, time average. So what you're going to do is I'm a point in my standard Borel space, the transformation moving over here and I move over here and I do that a few times and I just record the average of the value of the function that I saw. So to be precise, I'm going to say for a natural number, N is just going to be the average of the sum from k. Space average, let me just state the theorem first, then it might become clear what we need by space average. This is the point-wise ergodic theorem, the Birkhoff, it was proved in 19th-century averages, function that exists on everywhere. It's a point-wise limit of a sequence, so it's going to be Borel also. We can think about what function this actually is. It's going to be equal to the space average, i.e. the expectation. What is sigma twiddle? This is the sigma algebra. If you're not familiar with what expectation is, this part is kind of just a secondary approximation. We're going to be most interested in this. Here's a sequence of functions, let's get point-wise levels. How do the analysts prove a statement like this? The proof that I've seen before, I think this is more or less Birkhoff's original proof, maybe with a few modifications, but what you'll see in an analysis textbook is you might define this to be the supremum of these averages, of the actual value of the averages. You're going to prove which is the statement, or does that statement as the state measure of a point, f star is larger than alpha, is less than or equal to the one norm of f. The next thing you do is just, through some ad-hoc method, somehow prove the theorem, prove the Birkhoff theorem for a dense subset of l1. And so then once you have the Birkhoff theorem on a dense subset, you pair that along with the maximum type of equality, and then you get the whole thing. So for maximum, it's going to imply for you the whole result. Please, I mean, one is just a definition. Three is not that hard.  It's easy to show that for functions of this form, and these are going to span a dense subset of l1. The tricky thing is this one. This is very non-trivial and requires some work. So we're not going to do that work. What we're going to do is instead follow a very slick proof recently discovered by a new center young. I'll be writing down the name quickly so that if you're interested at all in this proof, or just basic background and descriptive set theory, there's loads of awesome notes on the website. So you should check it out. Let me just write it down. So in particular, she wrote this. This is the entire thing. It's one page. A descriptive set theorists' proof. So I kind of break this apart into three main ingredients. Two of which are kind of philosophical, more than anything else, and one of which is actually allowed that they need to do some work to prove. You can't either way would know or get to do something. So the first one is kind of philosophical. All standard Burrell spaces are the same. I guess this is underpinned by a theory of the proof that given any two uncountable standard Burrell spaces, there is actually a Burrell isomorphism between their corresponding sigma and algebra. That's not too difficult. In particular, there's wanting to be a point in time where we're going to really want our space to look like cancer space, and that's going to be convenient. So I'm just going to be free to do that because they're all the same. Oh, so there's no measure floating around again. So this is just a statement about the Burrell spaces. And so yeah, and then a corresponding statement is true for uncountable spaces with non-atomic. So the second one is another kind of philosophical to set theorists often something that we do. So we have this transformation floating around our probability space. Oftentimes, that transformation is too rigid to work with. So we kind of want to be a bit more flexible. And instead of just working with the transformation, we work with the equivalence relation. The equivalence relation to points is equivalent to y if milliliter found the same orbit. So there will be times when we kind of we deliberately mess with the transformation and tweak it a little bit, but in a way that still respects the equivalence relation. And that added flexibility, the ability to tweak the transformation that we're thinking about and even time can be useful. So those first two were more sort of just how should we think about this problem? The third one is actually a result. The third one, which requires... I mean, it's not a hard puzzle. I hope to prove it at that time. This is the sling and steel part, which I won't define just yet, but it's going to sort of be the technical tool. Let me elaborate a little bit on... I'll call these things under 3. Let me elaborate a little bit on 2. And I'll return to... So I'll be defined this orbit equivalence relation. Two points are equivalent if they're in the same orbit. So think of this a useful visual to keep in mind is we have the standard Burrell space. And this transformation kind of organizes the space into a whole bunch of z-lines, where I just have a point and then t of x and t inverse of x, and then it starts to give me a z-line. And so I'm breaking up the space into lots of z-lines. You might have some finite cycles. That's okay. Finite cycles for the purposes of... Oh, actually, I left out an assumption that this is an a-curiotic and a remarkable transformation. There are no finite cycles. Everything is a z-line. If you want to deal with the cycles, they're really easy. You can just deal with them in a finite way. Yes, that is a good... So think of that as breaking the circle apart into these z-lines. So the philosophy in 2 would need some terminology to back up this philosophy to deal with the equivalent relation is better. It has to be a subset of x squared on the equivalent relation with a sub-equivalence. Theoretically, you can just say it's a subset of e t. More graphically, we're breaking these z-lines apart into even smaller chunks. So a sub-equivalence relation is going to have more classes, which no one really likes, but it's just standard and now we're stuck with it. Is this abuse of the word finite? So we say that f is finite, but it's not set-theoretically finite. It's just we're breaking up the space into a bunch of finites. We're often going to modify... We're not just going to deal with any old equivalence relation. I might use the word Borel equivalent relation. There's going to be Borel in the subset of this product. You may have classes by sub-equivalence classes. Um, I mean, this definition doesn't depend on being a sub-equivalence of e t. But I mean, everything I'm looking at is going to be a sub-equivalence of e t. And we're going to be breaking these z-lines up into finite chunks. Can I answer your question? I'm going to answer your question. I'm going to answer your question.  So here's say that I have a t-class. E t classes look like these z-lines. And I might arbitrarily break this apart into smaller chunks. So here's a smaller chunk. Here's a smaller chunk. And so, I'm going to... So here's, like, x of y. And so I might say here that x is f related to y because they're in the same chunk. So f being finite just means that all of these chunks... Another definition that's a little bit weird, but really sort of underpins this philosophy that the equivalence relation is sometimes better to work with than the transformation itself is this following definition. So we had a measure-preserving transformation. And that just means that transformation moves the Borel set and the measure of the Borel set appears the same as it was over here. Let's talk about the notion of a measure-preserving equivalence relation. It's a little bit weird, because what does that mean? So this restricts to the... Actually, I don't even need to restrict. So let's say I have the measure of mu on my space x. It's called, so let's say, it's mu-preserving in the equivalence relation. Oh, let me give this a name. This equivalence relation is named e. Measure the philosophy here. What should we keep in mind? So a transformation gives rise to an equivalence relation. And an equivalence relation could in turn give rise to loads of different partial transformations, i.e. those partial transformations where a point has to be e-related to its image. But aside from that, I allow a lot of flexibility. So this just says whenever I have a partial Burrell function, or a partial Burrell injection from some subset of x into itself so that every point is e-related to its image, I demand that the measures stay the same. So one way of producing measure-preserving maps that we're going to do is we have our measure-preserving t from before and we're going to do something like break up the space in the chunks like this and then we're going to do something where we follow t until we're about to leave a chunk and then go back. So we're going to mess with t a little bit. It's going to look like t on a lot of the space, but we're going to have the flexibility to perturb t a little bit on the set of small measures. Oh, yes? x is the standard Burrell space. I'm suppressing the notation for think of it as the unit interval and it just comes with its signature of Burrell sets. Right, so I don't understand why you say so each x relates to y and you say that x and y are... They're just... So f is going to... f just breaks the space x so forget about the sigma algebra for a second. So x is just the set. f is going to be some equivalence relation and it demands that all the chunks are finite, all the equivalence classes are finite. So then in addition to finite we can also demand that the equivalence relation be Burrell as a subset of the product sigma algebra. But we can sort of... Those are independent constraints. Yeah, so f is going to be the set of pairs in the same chunk. So I'm going to define these of this function f that we're talking about. So now I'm going to define equivalence relation averages of the function. So m at point x is going to be 1 over the cardinality of brackets over every y in x's equivalence class. So this operation just takes a point, looks at every other point and its finite equivalence class and just takes the average. So the finiteness is p, and that definitely wouldn't make sense if the class was not finite. So then here's the level which is going to be kind of another technical tool which is going to be sort of the idea that if I'm going to cook up wacky transformations that look like this but they will still be finite, still going to preserve the measure. So if I start with a finite measure preserving equivalence relation and create a transformation of that, I don't change the measure. So the limit is at the integral of d mu is equal to the integral of m of d mu. First thing I'm going to do is the equivalence classes are all finite so let's partition the space into kind of many pieces based on the size of these equivalence classes. So this will be this joint union of x of n where x of n is going to be the union of all those classes with exactly n dollars. This will be the class of philosophy that all standard Burrell spaces will say. I mean I guess it is possible that the x n is countable but that's all that can always be worked with with this idea. What I'm going to do is let's say that I have only a ring of x n in order of type of theory or maybe x n. So this is x n and say that I have one of these classes of size n. So here is four elements of this class. I'm going to distinguish the least element and I'm going to let b be those set of points of x n is least. And this is Burrell just because this is a Burrell in here. So we'll notice that this b is what is called an a. This is a Burrell transversal of f. b meets every equivalence class exactly once. I'm going to use here the fact that we have a new preserving equivalence relation. So it's going to be the integral over b of the sum. What's really going on here this is saying that this is using the measure of t i inverse of b is the same as the measure of t. I haven't told you what t is. Let me use a different letter because it's not the same t as before. t is going to be the following order. I don't want to use t. Sigma Sigma is going to equal I'm just going to draw what Sigma is. Sigma is going to do this. Sigma this is a Burrell transformation. It's just t. This isn't this is not quite t. This linear ordering on xn has nothing to do with t. Right now it's just a I'm sorry I didn't tell you what assumptions I'm using. So f needs to be a finite finite new preserving. So all you need are these assumptions and then Islam goes through. And so I'm just going to cook up this in a sigma. Since Sigma the graph of Sigma is contained in f because I just map points to equivalent points the equality points and then if we read what that means this is going to be the same thing as I'm just adding up to the points the points in an f class I can also add up their averages. That's the same thing. And then I go back once again using the fact that these are all new and this will be the integral ones. Yeah this is over yeah this will be over xn. And so we do this for every xn. So this is where the background needed for this equivalence relation of philosophy. So now let me talk a bit about sling and steel. And what I think I'm going to do is I'm going to state sling and steel and then use it to prove the theorem and then given time I'll try to prove sling and steel. I might not have time to get some definitions. The sling and steel marker lemma was proven by sling and steel in the early 90s or the late 80s. Do you remember when I was proven? So I think the existence of things called marker set is. For this definition we're going back to our setup of xmu t is the same transformation of marker set which meets 3t. Equivalently it meets every et class because we think about equivalence. It's bi-infinite. And then writing down an annoying to write down definition I was going to draw an easy to draw picture. It's the same thing. It has to meet so here's an equivalence class it's just a z line with respect to the transformational t. Remember every t equivalence class looks like a z line because we're dealing with a neighbor and forever. The marker set a has to meet a point somewhere in this line. Bi-infinite just means are eternally many points in this direction and are eternally many points in this direction. So no class has a leftmost member of a or rightmost member of a and it meets every class infinitely often to the left and to the right. And here is the statements of the marker remember. Let's think for a bit about what is and is not a permissible marker set. Claude mentions the example earlier of irrational rotation and one of the easiest ways to cook up a non-measurable set is to try to cook up a marker set that meets each equivalence class exactly once. If you attempt to do that you're going to cook up a non-varyl set. So often times you're not going to be able to get a varyl selector. So necessarily our markers they meet the class but not just once lots of places in some way. But we can try to get those meetings to be more and more sparse and that's the content of this label. There exist marker sets in a subset whose intersection is there. So sometimes this whole system is called vanishing marker sets so slang and steel prove the existence of vanishing marker sets. And so this is good. This kind of means that we can get arbitrarily sparse markers and that's technically useful for including the proof of this theorem. So let me actually prove the theorem using the marker limit as a black box to be on the link soup less than or equal to the link. This is what we're trying to show this group. So towards a contradiction let's say yes so there are some a less than b so that the following set would write down less than b less than equal to f over loss. So notice this x prime is going to be invariant. We're going to see like more and more of the points neighborhood in its orbit. So x prime is going to be a t invariant set. So I'm going to say that x prime is going to be not just like throw, throw out the rest and then blow up the measure to get back to the problem. We're going to say that we have this bad behavior. So let's fix epsilon greater than zero this small is going to depend on like b minus a and we'll just have what it is like an actual number of z less than or equal to n less than or equal to this very small measure measure smaller and so on. Oh, even even worse I want the integral integral over z of 1 plus f can we do that? Why? Because I'm assuming that the limb soup, the limb soup is above b. So I can't always have, I can't always be in this situation for any x almost everywhere there's going to be a point where x is greater than or equal to n. The idea is that most of the time as we start looking at more and more averages we know that the limb soup is above b or at least as big as b so we're going to see n's where this is at least as big as b. So I can't no it's not, it's a less than than. It's less than but then as n as l gets larger fewer and fewer points are going to satisfy this and then it has to vanish eventually. And it has a very small measure. This is if x is in z or otherwise we're just going to set it to 1. And a useful notation will be the set of the interval related to x that's going to be x tx all the way up to t. So in particular if I'm not in the second case and I look at the averages here I know that we'll see what happens. I might want that to be the smallest one in either case unless if we're going to be counting the left or something. We'll see what happens. Use the marker lemma The marker lemma is going to have an important extra bonus in the conclusion of the marker lemma. These are going to be by infinite. So let's grab use the marker lemma. Not necessarily. I defined the marker set and then I defined by infinite. So I want to buy it on the marker set. So use the marker lemma to find it by infinite so that I want to have a really small measure but actually not just s, but I actually even fatten s up a little bit using t. So these are the union of i less than l t minus i of s. The integral over s prime less than it's going to be really small. Marker sets are useful for. So let's think about these markers. So these blocks appear by infinite we often in every z line. These are the members of s. So here's a member of s. Here's a member of s. Here, say that l is like 3 or something. So here is like s twiddle. So so there's going to be a region behind each block that looks like s twiddle. Twiddle isn't too big. The s twiddle blocks are like pretty far spaced but they do small enough things and now we're going to take the z line and split it up into a finite burrell subgroup. So again I could, lemme write down the definition but I'm going to draw a picture that's better. It is z so that s of x I'm not told you what s of x is Here's an x. Here's s of x. I'm going to start looking left until I hit the point of s and that's s of x. So there's a z so that s of x equals s of y equals s of z and x y equals z and the whole s of z to z is quote unquote. So yeah that's a mouthful lemme draw a picture. So here is a point in this and we're going to start marching forward with our transformation. So remember every point had this L of x which is just some number that we assign every point and we had had this interval corresponding to that number and that point. So here's the first point on this I'm going to draw a little interval so here this first point would be if this was a point of y this would be t sub L of y of y and then this point is going to have its own notion of interval et cetera a bunch of intervals are popping up. Oh wait here's the next point of s that's kind of bad we don't want to approach it and worse yet s total kind of reaches out further next point of s here's s total kind of reaching out that's bad so maybe here's a point and it's not in but then the end point of its interval it starts meeting so that's the last one we're going to consider and then with the equivalence relation the equivalence relation is just going to be it as follows here's a class here's a class here's a class here's a class here's a class but then everything after this is a single term so this is the picture and the one thing I want the picture to make clear is that any non-trivial class of the classes are either just going to be points or they're going to look like some one of these intervals and this is where my notes tell me to just follow the paper so we're going to see what happens this is I didn't write it down formally but it's the elements of s next to the left so you transform x to the left I march left, I march left, I march left wait, I get an element of s that's fantastic so we're definitely using the the bi-infinite assumption is creeping in so the demand of the non-trivial classes do not hit the same as at the set supporting non-trivial f classes z satisfies this way 1 plus f is less than something like 2 fs and what's worrying me is this claim that the demand of fs will be supported outside of s twiddle kind of looks like we might hit s twiddle just a little bit I'm going to use the fact that the way that I've defined I think domain here is being used the union of the non-singleton equivalence classes so let's call that the domain no, I'm silly, the domain contains okay I'm silly I can't read set conclusion the domain of f contains x less s twiddle it may also contain parts of s twiddle that's fine, that's how subsets work okay each of the equivalence classes love the form iz okay, I just can't read it's going to be small I guess this is where I had to tell you what epsilon was um, so what was epsilon so the way she does it g says epsilon at the beginning and sets it so that b minus a so this was the third of our contradiction we have a soup of b that I'm into below a so b minus a the measure of x, oh but I'm just going to say that x is a probability to be greater than epsilon absolute a absolute b okay, that seems reasonable so 2 epsilon is less than okay yeah, this is going to kind of remember what z was so remember z was the set of things it's not going to be z so f is in the domain of f z in particular that means that the f average, you're just a singleton because we set that little l of f equal to 1 in particular f of x has to be greater than or equal to b for those points so here so that's this observation for y in y and f of y just equals f of y it has to be greater than or equal to b so outside we want to claim that we're less than 2 epsilon because because so the domain of f was what's x plus y x plus y is either things in z things in things in z or things in s twiddle so the things in s twiddle to be small s twiddle is really really small all of us are not explaining this terribly well it is cooked up to work so what is the takeaway the takeaway is we have this so the takeaway is that the integral of f of t mu is greater than the integral of f of t mu minus 2 epsilon which is greater than or equal to b minus 2 epsilon absolute b and then we have to mimic the argument for limit from a and then we're going to get a contradiction we're going to get so let's see if I can solve some of this so yeah more than epsilon small and then here we're concerning epsilon to be kind of big the way that we're doing that is we're breaking up our space over here we have a lot of control over our function looks over on x less y in these equivalence classes x less because the domain of f is huge the domain of f is going to contain x less s and this is s twiddle I think this was just meant to be we said s twiddle to have really small measure x twiddle has really small measure I think they call it depth delta it really just needs to be epsilon so this is size not just measure epsilon but like measure epsilon okay so s twiddle on x less s twiddle we see most of the function z is very little of the function so this is okay so this is actually really easy I'm sorry this was not hard at all this is literally just the assumptions that we cooked into these sets how we solve this take away this take away we use the fact that f is yeah let me explain this last step a little bit we're going to use minus 2 epsilon fudge factor and we have a lot more control over this average because it's going to look like it's at least b measure of y minus 2 epsilon and the measure of y is not bigger than 1 and so that's where we get b measure of y or b yeah so then this is greater than or equal to b 2 epsilon so this is all just fudge factor the key thing here this is the key step the measure of observable step okay so apologies for bundling that a little bit let me try to I'm not going to have time to improve the marker level let me explain some of the ideas going to the marker level because that's also a cool descriptive set here are you trying to justify the box oh so we cooked in a lot of assumptions so we cooked in this set z was super small x plus y is contained in z union so we're assuming that z is super small we're also assuming that s twiddle is super small yeah so that's the relevance I can't see that that's sort of a subset of z union plus 2 and we actually cooked these up to control the integrals of 1 plus x and most of them act as as a trailer so this is just the first one the integral of I think it's this very last to sort of you know we're controlling the integral oh it's this set right I forgot an important subscript here's the integral over x here's the integral over y so I'm just integrating so I'm changing where I'm integrating over and then just forgetting the rest and calling the punch factor and then this is over y this is the way the measure of y pops up again some punch factor 5 minute 5 proof of the marker line worked earlier that we want our standard burrell spaces to be uncountable standard burrell spaces going to be anything we want so I'm going to take it to the counter space and we have this this is totally in the burrell context there's no measure so t is just an a periodic but I have these z lines I'm thinking of them as equivalence classes here's counter space counter space also has this topology that's kind of nice so I'm going to think about some given phi of y some y's closure so you might you might be a little skeptical like why not for this burrell it's because we are closure plays nice so you can talk you can reason about this entirely in terms of like the finite strings that define the neighbourhood so I say this neighbourhood contains an element of bracket y any lexicographically proceeding neighbourhood does not contain a member of bracket y and since there are only kindly many finite strings that's that number and now a rough idea a first approximation to these a n's is that a n is going to be close to those those y's so that y restricted to n is phi of y this is super close to working but there's a problem which is that the intersection over all the a n's it might not be empty it might contain it could contain if this let's say a member of the closure is actually in the class itself it might contain it, that's bad and there's no guarantee that these a n's are by infinite so now we have to tweak it to get by infinite and to get the by infinite it's really easy to tweak it a little bit further to get this property I don't want to keep you any longer so I think I'll stop there so you're too close any closed subset of cancer space is going to look like a subtree and so I have the leftmost branch of this subtree and so the a n's are requiring that the members in the equivalence class agree more and more so if I have some subtree I'm shrinking towards the left and so I'm demanding that I have more and more agreeance with the leftmost because I'm on the philosophy so the maximal inequality is not why I favor this argument is it's very natural these are very natural things to do if if you're comfortable with some ideas from descriptive set theory this idea of carving out sub-equivalence relations and reasoning about those shows up all the time in descriptive set theory so the idea that those touch styles of argument can prove something like this is kind of cool and that being said it is obviously easier if you are a more comfortable with these things also it might look less scary if I presented it in a clear fashion but that's subjective is this being applied to prove some of the that is an excellent question the issue here because it's a time that we're in question what groups have plant-wise ergodic theorems and marker lemmas are totally general you can generalize marker lemmas in all sorts of directions the bit that gets a little bit harder is the the geometry we really use this z-line geometry to carve out these finite sub-equivalences it's similar we're really touring around this idea that equivalence relations created by z-actions are hyperfinite and that's a big open question do all of the groups generate hyperfinite equivalence relations I believe so I don't want to say too much but yeah it seems like if you can get a reasonable finite sub-equivalence that does the things that you want that's the correct maybe maybe


Very good morning to everyone and welcome to this green building awareness workshop. So we have, basically we have some people here. This is a workshop that is a collaboration between the National Mission of Education through ICT and Team Shunya which is basically it consists of students and faculty from Academy of Architecture and IIT Bombay. Team Shunya is the first ever Indian team to be selected for an international competition called Solar Decathlon Europe which the aim of which is to build a design build and operate a green building or a house that is solar powered that is energy efficient attractive and affordable. So they have been charged with building this house and they'll be building it in IIT Bombay as well as building it in France in 2014 June and July. So this is this workshop the goal of this workshop is really to create awareness and spread education about green buildings. All across India in the academia in in the industry professionals and for the public. So this this workshop is the design of this workshop is meant to really give you a very broad overview of what we mean by green buildings, how energy efficiency, how a passive architecture plays a role in defining green buildings and you will get insight into some of the technical aspects of how energy performance of the buildings can be measured. And we will have six lectures so the first five lectures will be given by the faculty of IIT Bombay and Academy of Architecture. The lectures range from giving you a macro level view of sustainable construction to going into how inherently the vernacular architecture of India has sustainable features in it to going into the energy modeling aspects. There will be case studies that will be discussed regarding some of the green buildings in India and what are the energy alternative options that are available for the buildings. And the last lecture would be would be a special lecture by the Team Shunya students who will be talking to you about what solar decathlon competition is about and where how they are building and designing the house that they are calling H naught or a net zero house. We would like you to so we are actually grateful for this overwhelming participation and there is such a huge number so we have two interactive sessions each of 45 minutes. The first interactive session will be after the third lecture and the second one will be after the sixth lecture at the end of the lectures. So we would like you to prepare your question and answers which we will try to answer in these two interactive sessions but we would also like you to use the online forum if all the questions are not answered. The other goal of this workshop is to gauge the interest of the academic community regarding what kind of what topics you would be interested in to take this further into a much more detailed training workshop at in few months or in some time in the future as part of the NME ICT a continuing education program. So we would like to hear from you after the lectures on the online platform the Moodle platform that is created as to what topics you will be interested in. I think I have that only that much to say about this so again a very warm welcome to everyone and we will soon start with our lecture series.


the scripture says in here after she got healed well he was still speaking some came from the ruler of the synagogue's house and said your daughter is dead and then they added this thing why trouble the teacher any further it was dying and now it's dead and then they gave him this question why trouble the teacher any longer and when Jesus heard that the scripture says as soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken he said to the ruler of the synagogue don't be afraid only believe if following Jesus made things worse I have a word directly from the throne of heaven don't be afraid only believe if fasting for your children made them worse as soon as he heard the word he said to the man don't be afraid only believe the devil whispers say why trouble the teacher why trouble fasting what trouble praying what trouble giving what trouble selling yourself why trouble serving as soon as Jesus heard the word he said don't be afraid to follow me when things get worse don't be afraid to follow me when things don't turn around at once don't be afraid and only believe God is saying to somebody in this room today the situation in your house got worse when you started to believe for the breakthrough in your church things started to get worse when you started to tie things in finances started to get worse and now you have voices in your head tithing is wrong you have voices in your head I was better before I started to pray I was better before I cut off those things I was better things seem to be better in my life before I really pressed into God Jesus is grabbing your hand right now and he wants to look in your eyes with the fierceness in his eyes and tell you do not be afraid to follow me when things get worse because they tend to get better a few years ago when I felt that that prompting to give a year and to give pretty much gave all my savings away and then decided to take one year where take every single month and to take my savings for each month and give them away to the missions and I made a promise to God I say Lord for the next 12 months I'm going to give myself entirely I want to see revival in this ministry but God I know you want to change this man before you change the hungry Jen in the first month it was so exciting but I had two rental properties and one of my rental properties I lost renters that month intra-series rental market was very hot very good 98% of all the properties were rented out I always had two three days and I would find renters first month passed and no renters but I gave promise to God I will give my savings away and I don't have money to pay for rent a girl named ifra on facebook might be watching right now she has no idea for some weird reason she messaged me and says what is your address and I said why she said I want to send you a thousand dollars I said here's my Social Security as well I'm just kidding I did not say Social Security but little did she know she sent an exact amount exact amount to pay for the rent and to pay for the promise I gave to God that month things in the ministry didn't change in fact things started to get worse with my properties second month no rent third month no rent fourth month no rent and I was like you're kidding me when I wasn't sacrificing I had rent I started to sacrifice and I have financial problems and things in the ministry aren't moving I'm like I'm losing my mind things are not doing good and this is what got me through I felt a strong word from Jesus holding my hand and telling me this Vlad do not be afraid to keep following me when it's getting worse and on a fourth month in Walmart line because I was wiring the money overseas to the missionary to the mission work there I had these questions there were this question came and says why trouble the teacher why sacrifice why give why believe ministry is not moving nothing is here why do that but there was another voice that says you gave a promise don't be afraid only believe within two weeks rent was found within a short amount of time one of the guys that first to remember within that month came is louis he's somewhere with the camera right now who's married now to my cousin the people started to come one by one and today I think probably there's not one service that we have or we don't see people getting saved we see people getting baptized we see internships now we see conferences we see a movement of God there's somebody in this room you need to hear this word right now don't be afraid to following God when things get worse Joseph don't stop leaving your purity just because you got betrayed and thrown in jail because of your purity David don't stop worshiping God just because you heard the promise from God and things got worse for you Paul and Silas don't stop singing songs because you landed in jail for deliverance do not stop doing what you're doing just because things are not turning around your children are acting worse that does not mean it's a sign from God that God wants you to stop praying it's a sign from God do not be afraid only believe keep on fighting keep on praying keep on giving keep on believing keep on dreaming keep on stepping forward because Jesus the son of the living god is holding your hand he is supporting your position he is holding your life and he's telling you we are on the way to a miracle we are on the way to a miracle if you're in this room right now when you felt like this was for you you know what i am that guy things are actually worse and i'm about to give up to slip up your hand if you're saying that's me this this is exactly for me i feel like giving up things are actually gotten worse ever since i started to press in just keep your hand up for just a few 60 seconds if you see a hand next to you place your hand up on your shoulder right now let's begin to speak that word do not be afraid only believe do not be afraid only believe do not be afraid to keep walking with God do not be afraid to keep pressing into the holy ghost do not be afraid to keep fasting do not be afraid to keep dreaming come on somebody lift your voice in next 60 seconds begin to fill this room right now with an encouragement i silence every voice of the devil that says why trouble the teacher i silence that voice of the accuser that says you made a wrong mistake i silence that voice that says to you it's not worth to keep pressing into God come on 30 more seconds 30 more seconds 30 more seconds pray until they get breakthrough pray until tears roll down the eyes pray until something shifts until they hear the voice of Jesus do not be afraid till they hear the voice of Jesus don't be afraid till they hear the voice of Jesus keep on walking keep on walking keep on walking keep on walking keep on walking keep on walking


Hey everybody, Dr. O here. So we just got on talking about the functional classification of joints, but classifying them on how much they move, synarthrosis are immovable, amtiarthrosis are slightly movable, and diarthrosis are freely movable. Now we're going to look at these structural classifications of joints, and we're going to see three, but there is really four. So a structural classification, we have fibrous joints, which are joints that are held together by fibrous connective tissue. We have cartilaginous joints, which are joints held together by cartilage. And then we are going to have some bony joints. I'll show you an example of a synarthrosis, which is a joint that used to be a joint, I guess, that's connected by bone. And then we'll have our synovial joints, which are our diarthrosis or our freely movable joints. They're going to be held together by joint cavities. All right, let's go ahead and dive in. So the three types of fibrous joints we have, as you can see here, are the suture, the gonfosis, and the syndesmosis. So I have a picture of each one to show you here. Here we see the suture. So the suture is going to be an example of a fibrous synarthrosis, meaning it's held together by dense fibrous connective tissue, and it's an immovable joint. So only found in the skull, these are going to be the suture, the four sutures you learned about that hold your skull bones together. Then on the outside of the right here, we have a gonfosis. So a gonfosis, I actually call it a tongue-in-groove joint. The gonfosis is another example of a fibrous synarthrosis. So it's held together by dense fibrous connective tissue, and it's an immovable joint. Your teeth shouldn't move. If they're moving, that's a problem, unless you're losing your baby teeth, I get. Yes, so this is the kind of joint that binds your teeth into the sockets. Remember, the alveolar process of the maxilla and mandible are going to be the sockets that your teeth are actually connected to. So those are two examples, the suture and the gonfosis. Here on the next slide, we have the syndesmosis. So this is an example of a fibrous amphiarthrosis, meaning it's held together by fibrous connective tissue, but it is slightly movable. So the picture here is the radius and ulna, the radio ulnar joints here being held together by this introsius membrane. So it does allow for a lot more movement. Your forearm should move a lot more than your teeth or your sutures in your skull. Another example would be the similar joint holding the tibia and fibula together. So that's an example of a syndesmosis, which is a fibrous amphiarthrosis. All right, next we have the cartilaginous joint. So as you can see here, we have a synchondrosis, chondromeaning cartilage. So we have a synchondrosis and then we have the symphysis here. I have a picture of each one of those and I also want to talk about the bony synostosis. So here we see the synchondrosis, this is a cartilaginous synarthrosis. This joint should not move. So the example here is an epiphyseal plate or the growth plate. So the cartilage plate between the shaft of a long bone and the ends that's there while your bones are still maturing. Once you reach skeletal maturity, this should actually be replaced by a bony synostosis. So a bony joint, the bones will actually fuse together. So I don't know if you really want to classify that as a joint or not, but that's what it's called a bony synostosis. So I don't have a picture of that here. But as that epiphyseal plate is replaced with an epiphyseal line, once bone lengthening has ended, the synchondrosis would now be gone and the synostosis would take its place. So that's a synostosis, a cartilaginous synarthrosis. It should be an immovable joint. Then we have the symphysis here. So the symphysis is a cartilaginous amphiarthrosis, meaning that it is slightly movable. So the example I'm showing you here is the intervertebral discs. There's movement and mobility between your spinal bones because of that cartilage pad, the intervertebral disc. The other example in your body would be the symphysis pubis, the fiber cartilage pad between your two pubic bones. All right, so that's the synchondrosis, the bony synostosis, which you don't see here, and the symphysis. And then we have our last group are going to be structurally classified as synovial joints. These are all diarthrosis, freely movable joints, because they're not directly connected. They come into contact with each other inside the fluid filled joint cavity. So synovial joints are all freely movable. And I'll cover each of the individual movements here. You see like gliding, hinge pivot. I'll cover that in a separate video. But the other key thing to note here, though, is that we do have all these different types of movements. But for this video, I just want to talk about the fact that we can classify them by how many planes they're freely movable in. Like to say the elbow is freely movable is true. But the elbow is a hinge joint, meaning that it's uniaxial or monaxial. It's only freely movable in one plane. Whereas my wrist, for example, is biaxial. It's freely movable in two planes. Mine isn't very much because of my wrist injury. But and then my shoulder is freely movable in all planes. So it's going to be multi-axial there. So those are important terms to know. But we'll dive more in the detail with those later. All right, so that's going to be the structural classification of your joints. We have the fibrous joints, which are generally held together the tightest. So they're the most stable and least mobile joints. We have the cartilage joints. That one example of a bony joint, if you want to throw it into this category. And then we have your synovial joints, which are freely movable joints. Okay, I hope this helps. Have a wonderful day. Be blessed.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com coming at you with 2020 Bowman Baseball Jumbo pack number 18. This helps sell out sell out the that Bowman mixer Which is coming up in a separate video So we're gonna do the the pack break itself first and then at the end we'll re-randomize your names and the top X amount of names right here. I guess the top ten names will get teams So good luck with that. We're gonna do the break itself first. Thanks everyone right there. Let's roll it And randomize it five into six eleven times for each list one two and eleven the final time After eleven times we got Nick down to Wade Eleven times for the teams and eleven the final time after eleven times Padres down to the twins All right, there's the first half of the list right there.  Zach Paul you have the A's I'll highlight some of the key teams right here Adam Copperman Yankees could be something in the single pack Where are where's Kansas City? I lost Kansas City down there Fred Williams. All right, so let's sort by team Let's print. Let's rip that would be cool Dustin May and there's a Bobby with Junior paper. That's not bad. All right. There you go Bobby with Junior Paper the second overall pick going to Fred Williams All right So now let's re-randomize that group and let's see who gets what? Let's roll it. Let's randomize it one and a five six times top ten after six one two three four Five and six and final time after six Congrats Adams on top. You got my Dodgers Now apologies to everybody, but I do appreciate everybody else. I do appreciate you giving this a shot All right, so let's see who gets what right here All right, so Adam You get my Dodgers in the next break SKS with the Rangers Scott with the Tigers Adam with the Marlins Wade with the Brew Crew Patrick with the tribe Robert with the Nats SKS with the Fills Adam with the Giants and Fred with the Rockies everyone else listen. Thank you Appreciate you giving this a shot. We'll get him next time on that but congrats again to these folks Thanks for watching break coming up next jaskiescasebreaks.com. Bye


Hi guys, welcome once again. Good to see you all back in class. Yeah, again I request one of one of you to do this in prayer. It started. Yeah, father, we thank you for bringing us together this morning to attend our classes. We want to thank you for the life of our teacher, our pastor. We want to thank you for the life of a PC. I want to thank you for everything that you are doing in our life. Father, I want to exalt your name. I want to humble ourselves, open our hearts and our minds so that we can take in whatever we have been taught. And let us be a good receiver and later on deliver properly. Father, make us the people you want us to be. I want to thank you for everything you are doing. Bless us, bless our classmates, bless our family, this and every other masses we ask in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Thank you. Thank you, Isaac. Thank you for sharing. All right. OK, so let's continue. In the last class, we concluded with section three and we spoke about, you know, correcting and also, you know, encouraging people to have the right conduct, so to speak. Right. And as a conclusion of the previous chapter, you know, one of the last passages that we looked at was how would we restore fallen ministers in page one, thirty two. Right. That's what we looked at.  How do we handle that's what we kind of studied in the whole chapter and the last week. So as a conclusion, we saw that what do we do in such situations? You see, it's best that we don't take it personal. Someone else's inability to receive correction is not your fault. OK, so don't be too hard on yourself. But beat yourself up and guard your heart by not getting offended with all these shortcomings and whatever people might have to say or people the way people treat you and whatnot. It is natural, a natural response of feeling towards such behavior will be to get offended and whatnot. So I've been there. I'm sure some of us have been there, but it's time and time again just to keep guarding our heart and say, OK, you know, how do you react after getting offended is very important so you can choose to forgive or you can choose to move on, right? Or you can choose to retaliate. So guarding your heart is important when when you've been confronted or you're confronting a difficult situation, giving time for people to change, allow them to move on in peace, not to have the fear of missing out kind of a thing. You know, what we discussed is OK, this is this person is a very good musician in church, you know, what if I correct any leaves? He or she leaves the church and be one good musician short. That's called the fear of missing out, isn't it? In today's generation, they say four more. But don't be afraid to let people go if they want to. That's fine, right? So those were all the things that we saw. We learned about in the previous chapter. And now today we move on to the different section, chapter 21. Church order in gatherings. This is a section four to page 134, chapter number 21. So we've completed 20 chapters, and I hope you've learned quite a bit as much as I have learned just teaching. You know, this this course, OK, so chapter 21 talks about church order in gatherings, right? Church order in gatherings. So we're going to discuss quite a bit about administration and how the importance of order and what happens when when there is no order, right? So what would you guys have to say? Why would you say that an order is important to have an order is important in church? I mean, if I ask that question, everybody I know would say, yes, it's important to have order. But why is it important to have an order? OK, God is God of order. All right. For the smooth, for the smooth running of the church, because where there is no order, there is disunity, there is disorder. And like John said, order is the first law in heaven. So order is necessary for the smooth running of the church. Right? OK. Order is necessary for the smooth running of the church. Yeah, thank you, Isaac. God is God of order. JP said, Jeffyna says, so there won't be any confusions or chaos. OK, so when we don't have order, there will be confusions of chaos. OK, what else? Because where do we need to have order? It's like the judge says in the courthouse, isn't it? Order, order, order, three times, order in the court. OK, what are some of the I know the consequences are already mentioned by Jeffyna. So what happens when you don't have order in the church? Only confusion and chaos? Yeah, yes, you know. Morning, sir. Morning. Yeah, when you don't have order in the church, the only spirit will not even move because our God is God of order. Right. Everybody will be doing what they think is right. So there should be an order so that the only spirit can move so that people also can lay. Thank you, sir. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for sharing. Yeah. OK, what else? Have you had any personal experience where you've seen? OK, there is a certain aspect in a particular church where you've seen, OK, that happened because there was no order, any personal experiences, not asking you to name any ministries or churches, but then just an example of a personal experience. OK, I guess all our churches are perfect. All right. Cool. So no personal experiences, guys. All right. OK. Cool. So there seems like there was at least one church that was not perfect as some of us. That's the Corinthian church. So I mean, there were Corinthian church. It was it was a complex church to say the least. All right, there were a lot of disorderly manners that was taking place in the Corinthian in the Corinthian church, right, among the believers of and fellowship and whatnot. And so Paul addresses all of these issues in an in an epistle. So we know the first Corinthians and the second Corinthians, right? So he goes on to say first Corinthians, Chapter 11, verse 34. And if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home unless you come together for judgment. Now, if you remember the context of what we read this verse in the previous class was in line with what? What was the context? Lord's table. The Lord's table. Thank you, Anita. OK, someone is alive. All right. So it's a lot stable and how they were participating in the Lord's table in a disorderly manner. That means there was no reverence, right? And Paul is addressing that one that's one issue. And he goes on to say, and the rest I will set in order when I come. And so he's correcting them in an epistle saying, OK, hey, you've been doing all of this, all right. And there are other things which I will set in order when I come. And then first Corinthians four, thirty, fourteen, thirty, three goes on to say for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, right? And so when you do have order, there is no confusion, right? Like what Jeffine has mentioned, so there won't be any confusion or chaos as in all the churches of the saints. And first Corinthians 14, verse 40 says, let all things be done decently and in order, right? It's interesting to see the word decent being used before order. And so there's something about being, you know, something about being in order or doing things in order that your decency is kind of shown or displayed, right? So, yeah, as most of you have said that God is a God of order and one of the examples that I can think of is even when Jesus had to feed the 4,000, 5,000, I made them sit in the pockets of 50, isn't it? And then imagine that one, the people are all hungry. And when people are very, very hungry, at least if I'm very hungry, I'm also angry. So the last thing I want, the only thing I want is to eat immediately. Is not for someone to say, OK, sit in pockets of 50, 50, 50, 50. Nobody is going to get the food unless all of you all sit in the pockets of 50. And then they start distributing the bread and the fish and whatnot. So, yeah, I mean, talk about order and God is a God of order, isn't it? So. So, yeah, it is important to say the least, to have order in our churches, to have, you know, to be organized. It says something about us, isn't it? And so some of the areas that we strive for excellence for our services and meetings include how can we be in order, right? Is being punctual, that means starting the services on time. Good planning for whichever event or church related or ministry related event that you are planning. So good coordination, no waste of time, no unnecessary announcement, cleanliness, efficiency and similar things. Right. So all of these things. So and we need to constantly look to how we can improve so that we can serve one another better, right? We can function one another better. Imagine, I mean, there are so many other teams, which we will learn maybe in the next hour, at least at APC Central, there are 19 different teams that function together to make one service happen, right? 19 different teams to make one church service happen. So someone can come to church and sit and enjoy the service and go back home, right? Imagine that and every team needs to work in harmony, right? The team itself needs to work in harmony. If the setup team doesn't show up, if the sound and setup team doesn't show up. Wow. Yeah. Good luck having, you know, the streaming team, everything, the media team, the worship team, the pastoral team, the parking team, children's church team, all of the so many teams, right, needs to be organized. They need to be punctual. They need to have a plan organized, right? A good coordination, communication, no waste of time or resources, right? So the goal here is to be efficient, right? And to be, you know, to be orderly. Okay, so we're going to learn some of those things and how we can, you know, be organized in church and have some sort of an order in the church, right? So one of the things is that can kind of create some kind of a confusion or even chaos if you want to use the words is the use of tongues in corporate gatherings, right? The use of the gift of tongues. We all need to use tongues to sing and speak and say hi, hello and whatnot. But what we're trying to address is the gift of tongues, right? So, and it'll be, it'll be amazed how there can be a certain, so many pockets of people in the charismatic churches that some believe in the gift of tongues and speaking in the gift of tongues and some don't. Some don't feel the need to, you know? And there are a few in, among my circle as well. So John, and I've had this conversation so it's pretty interesting. So we need to set things right, isn't it? Especially about this topic. So, can we use tongues in corporate settings? Okay, so the famous passage that we often use is first Corinthians chapter 14. Okay, so what does it have to say? A, those who do not understand what we are doing. B, when giving a message in tongues. Okay, the main concern is, one is those who do not understand what we are doing, right? And the second thing is when we, when we, when giving a message in tongues. And so it is in that context, right? If there is no one who can interpret a message in tongues, then let them keep silent is what Paul is writing in the first Corinthians chapter 14. Now, I want you to remember those two words, keep silent, okay? Can you do that for me? Remember those two words, keep silent, all right? It's important. So Paul is using that in the context where you're giving a public message, a message to the entire corporate body, the congregation itself. And if you're going to, if there's a, if you're delivering a message from God, right? If you're inspired to do that, and if there is no interpretation, then nobody's being encouraged or empowered. So it's better to keep silent and release the word when there is an interpreter, okay? But then it goes on to say, so we can all speak in tongues in a corporate setting. Just follow along with me in the notes, right? So we can all speak in tongues in a corporate setting so long as we fulfill what is required of the proper use of tongues in public setting. It is perfectly fine for individual believers to speak in tongues between themselves and God in a corporate setting, right? In the corporate setting, you know, let's say for example, if the worship leader encourages or says, you know, hey, all the pastor says, all right, for the next two minutes or five minutes, let's all just lift up our voices and pray in the spirit. It's a corporate setting, right? So we, it's absolutely fine. So it's, we are praying together, or as well as an individual, if you are inspired to just pray in the gift of tongues, release or pray or sing in tongues, it's absolutely fine, right? And so the only, we need to understand the context where Paul is saying to be silent is that if you're giving a public message to the entire congregation, if you're speaking in tongues and nobody's able to understand, then he says, keep silent. It's better to release that word when you have an interpreter, right? And another setting where it's okay to speak in the gift of tongues is if we are in a setting where everyone knows what speaking in tongues is, where everyone knows, okay, okay, gift of, you know, we have pentecostals or charismatics or what are the radicals or if you have any denomination that understands what is speaking in tongues is, then it's again, perfectly fine for everyone to speak in tongues, loudly as well, right?  So, all right, are you guys with me? Any thoughts that you all have on this, okay? So, I think it's very important to address about the gift of tongues and talk about it and make sure that your congregation, you know, knows that you believe in this and being able to teach everything flows from teaching, isn't it? There is a revelation in teaching and so making sure that your congregation is being taught on the subject of the tongues is very important and talking about all of this. It clears the confusion, it clears the miscommunication or the perception that every individual have about the gift of tongues and by doing so, you are also creating a culture, saying, okay, this is who we are. There's an identity that is being released, right? When you speak about such subjects openly, right? And we've seen that, as you mentioned that our God is a God of order and not chaos. We see that in John chapter three, verse eight, he also says that the wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who was born of the spirit. And so I'm 115 verse three, but our God is in heaven. He does whatever he pleases. So the scriptures there are also to say that while we are pursuing order, right? While we are pursuing to be organized, we must never forget to let God have all the control, to invite him, to let him do what he does best in everything that we do, corporately or individually as well, right? If at any time in whatever we are doing, we feel that God is directing us in ways we, which you have not planned for, which is not in your schedule as a ministry or as part of the plan. And if you feel strong, very strongly led by the Holy Spirit, it's always beautiful to obey and be sensitive and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, right? There can be any times. I mean, so again, please forgive me if I keep taking the example of all people's church because that's where the church I attend, I work. So we use these words, right? For a service is, what is the order of service, right? Every church service has an order, isn't it? So we use those words, you know, when we are planning for a service, okay, this is the order of service.  So there's an order of service, but we are familiar with and now that we have that order and what happens when there's a worship lead, a team is leading worship and pastor comes on the stage and he senses that God is doing something different. He's moving. So because pastor is sensitive to what the Holy Spirit is doing and saying to him, he would want to have an extended time of worship, right? Sometimes the entire service can be of only worship where it's happened a couple of times, right? So, and that's what it is about, you have the order, but then you let God be God, okay? You guys with me? I'm not sure how many of you know Jeremy Riddle he was a worship leader, right? But he leads at Binyad, Jeremy Riddle. He says, he's addressing the worship team. He says, prepare like it depends on you and lead like it depends on God, right? I'll say that again. Prepare like it depends on you, okay? So, I've seen some of the worship leaders, you know, before surely not from ABC, but you know, say, okay, you know, let's just do spontaneous worship. Let's just go prophetic worship and I'm not going to plan any songs. I'm just going to flow and whatnot. So there's no plan at all kind of a thing, you know, it's, I mean, if that's the case, every time you lead worship, everybody is going to be nervous and nobody's going to want to follow, right? But, and that's why that quote is so beautiful. He says, you prepare like it depends on you, right? I'm going to sit, I'm going to make the set list, right? I'm going to be sensitive to what songs to be chosen, you know, sung. So you're preparing like it depends on you and when you start leading worship, you're leading like it depends on God. Now, Lord, you're on the driver's seat. You take us wherever you want to go and we will follow, you know? So that's the importance of being in order and also being able to be sensitive and to follow the Holy Spirit, leading of the Holy Spirit, right? Another thing that can cause confusion and chaos when there is no order is that people can manufacture the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, right? Some people may engage in attempting to imitate the work of the Spirit through their own fleshly zeal. I know you, all of you understand what I'm saying. Is this real or is that, you know what I'm saying, right? Well, okay, that's where as leaders, as ministers, it's super important for us to be, has to have that intimate and a deep relationship with the Holy Spirit, with God and for us to be able to discern if that is off the Holy Spirit or not. That is key for us. Otherwise, there is absolutely no way we can know, isn't it? It's very important for us as ministers, as leaders, for us to have that very intimate relationship with the Lord and that you know him so much that anything which is not off him, and you're easily able to identify, okay, hey, I know my God, you know, that seems a little off. Hey, it is possible, right? I mean, nobody's perfect, you know, people, it can happen. And so if a certain individuals are incorrectly, you know, like, motivated or manufacturing, you know, with an intention through the flesh rather than the spirit, it is important that we deal with them in private, okay? You take them into your room or meet them after the service or have a call with them and say, hey, about that word you gave in church, about that thing that happened, what was that about or what was going on, right? I deal with the motives of the heart, okay? It's important to do this in private as well because, you know, if you're releasing, one of the things that we encourage when it comes to moving in the prophetic or flowing in the prophetic is that gift gets better and better as you are willing to take risk, right? So the intent, it all boils down to the intention and the motives of the heart, you know, a person's heart might be absolutely genuine and authentic and clean when they're releasing a prophetic word or a gift or a word of knowledge and it might be incorrect or whatnot, but it's okay. We are encouraging them, we are giving space for mistakes. That is different from another person whose intention and motive of the heart is only to show off, right? And so that is very different, right? So it again comes down to us as leaders and how we handle the situation, how sensitive you are to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Okay, are you guys with me? Any thoughts and any questions so far? Now, there's only a couple of things that's been mentioned in this chapter, right? That requires order and whatnot. Now, again, the list is endless. You can, you know, have a custom made list for your own church, for your congregation, that you feel there are certain areas that needs to come and, you know, have a certain order. And so you can add to it and address that. But any other thoughts, guys? Anything that you want to share? Okay, all right. So let's move on to the next chapter, chapter 22. Women in ministry. Okay, should women be in ministry? Yes, no, maybe. Okay, that's the end of this chapter. Let's move on to the next chapter. Okay, yeah, we have our answer, guys. You know, it's a little hilarious that we need to even discuss about this thing, but let's do it because, you know, for the sake of it. Now, let's see what we can learn from this chapter. Okay, women in ministry. I mean, how many examples do we need of women mentioned in the Bible, right? Okay, so chapter 22, page 137, there are multiple mentions of women in the Bible. We have Miriam, sister of Moses, who leads worship with the tambourine in our hands and all other women, you know, who follow her and with tambourine and dances, and they sang to the Lord. Verse 21, it says, answer them, sing to the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously.  The horse and its rider, he has thrown into the sea. Right there declaring, that's awesome. So Miriam and we know Deborah. Deborah is one of my favorite judges from the book of Judges. They were, how many judges were there? 16 judges in total? I always get that number wrong. 15 or 16, I'm not sure. Anybody, help me out, okay? I might be incredibly wrong, but okay. But yeah, Debbie was, Debbie is really one of my favorite judges, Deborah. Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapido was judging Israel at that time, and when she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Rama and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim, and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. Right, so a judge, in other words were, it's not just a person who gave judgments, okay? It was someone who, it was a word used for as a leader or as a savior, so to speak. That's the root meaning of the word judge, okay? So, I mean, all those years and days, they would look up to Moses and Joshua and Gideon and whatnot, and then you have Deborah, and where people of Israel are looking up to for guidance, for wisdom, for, you know, to say, okay, what can we do next? What are we supposed to do? So, there's Deborah, there's Huldah, who was the prophetess, right? She was the wife of Shalom, and there's also mention of Isaiah's wife who was also a prophetess, but there's no mention of her extensively. Of a name is just mentioned very, very, very briefly in Isaiah chapter eight, verse one and three, and Esther, some of them have, even have debates saying, why do we need to have the book of Esther in the Bible and there is no mention of God? And all of that has like, yeah, okay, we can have those conversations endlessly. But Esther was an amazing, you know, was such a powerful, she had all the characteristics of a leader, of a warrior, of an intercessor, right? So who prayed for the deliverance of her people? So Esther, Anna, Anna was more again of an intercessor, you know, she was more living a life of fasting and she also taught in the temple, the scripture says, right? You can read all about it in Luke. Phillips' daughter, in Acts chapter 21, 8 and 9. So, and the list goes on really, guys, you know, it's not just, I mean, there's so many mentions in which we will look at some more names of a few more people. We see that Paul talks about Priscilla, who is the wife of Aquila, right? In Romans chapter 16, talks about Junior in again, same chapter, Romans 16. I mean, there's quite a few mentions of the name, right? And he also mentions a couple in the Philippians, you Odia, you Odia is a tricky name, guys, okay? And again, so this is just to give a few examples of women who are mentioned in the scriptures, right? So, and so which leads us to the next question, can women be a minister for which you have all answered, you know, unanimously, very energetically? Yes. And again, to minister simply means to serve, right? Somehow we've complicated that. It's like, to minister means, oh, this is position, there's this, there's that. Can women minister or simply means what you're asking is, can they serve? And absolutely, isn't it, right? So we see that the grace to serve has been given equally to man and women, right? There is equality in the grace that is given to both genders, right? Galatians chapter three, verse 28, it says there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus, right? It should appear that that should be enough and for us to move on in life, but no, we need to talk about it more. Right? This is passage, right? And Matthew chapter four, verse four, which says man shall not live by bread alone. And the word, the Greek word man used this, Anthropos, which is gender neutral. That means it is, can be for both male and female, right? And guys, one of the, what is I saying? One of the tools that I have mentioned quite a bit that I would encourage you to use it for your Bible study and whatnot is Esor, right? If you are using a Windows system, it's a free download. If you're using a Mac, I'm sorry, you have to pay, but you have to pay, okay? And so there you get to download different versions, translations of the Bible. And you also get the Greek, what I would speak in interlinear version and also Hebrew interlinear is there. So what it does is about below the Greek words, the English translations are also there. So you know, you can see the words that is used. So it's very important for your personal growth Bible study and whatnot. So, okay, so coming back to this topic. So the Greek word used this, Anthropos, which is gender neutral for it's for both male and female, man and woman, right? And second Timothy chapter two, verse two, see what it says. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses commit these two faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Now again, this scripture has been manipulated or misused or misinterpreted saying, okay, commit these two faithful men. Only men is mentioned there. So women are not there. So they're not supposed to be in ministry. So don't equip them, don't train them and whatnot, right? Once again, coming back to the Greek word, the Greek word used there for men is the plural of Anthropos, which is Anthropois. Okay, it simply means a human being. Okay, it's a plural word for Anthropos, which means a human being, male or female. Doesn't matter. So the Greek word for man is aner, a-n-e-r. That is not the word that is used there. Okay, which is completely or totally masculine, as it says, right? So the general neutral word Anthropois is used in second Timothy chapter two verse two. So guys, we are just building a case right now that women can be in ministry. Okay, so that is our argument is absolutely yes. Efficient chapter four verse eight and 11, he says he gave gifts to men. Once again, it's the same Greek word, right? And he gave some. It could be he or she, general neutral, the same word that is being used there. Okay, so when God poured out his spirit on the day of Pentecost, it was for men and women, right? Male and female, it was not just for men, right? He poured out his spirit for all of us. When he died for us on the cross, he just didn't die for men. He just didn't die for man to experience his love, or just didn't die for man to experience his grace. The forgiveness was not on just for man. You know, it was for everyone. And we just saw that in Galatians that there is no Jew nor Gentile, nor slave, nor free, nor male, nor female, man, not woman. Everyone is one in Christ Jesus, right? And that is the beauty of the premise of this entire argument, isn't it? It's that we are all one. And his grace is same for everyone, right? In the New Testament also, we observe equality for both men and women in the receiving of spiritual power and grace and exercise of spiritual gifts and ministry offices. So in Ephesians, we see, right? There are five offices, pastors, teachers, the evangelists, apostles, right? And those offices are not just for men. For men can also function in those offices, right? We saw in a couple of examples in the beginning of this chapter where Hulda was a prophetess, Isaiah's wife was a prophetess. Okay, so that means they can also function in the offices of one of the five offices that's mentioned in the book of Ephesians. As mentioned, Paul talks about Priscilla, Junior and Phoebe, who are all leaders in their own right in the early church. Okay, so we've kind of established that yes, women can be in ministry, right? Okay, the next topic is the other section that talks about is women in leadership. Okay, can I request someone to read Romans chapter 12 verse four to eight, as mentioned in the notes, please. Romans chapter 12 verse four to eight. For us, we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function. So we being many or one body in Christ and individually members of one another, having them gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them. If prophecy, let us prophecy in proportion to our faith or ministry, let us use it in our ministry. He who teaches in teaching, he who exports an exhortation, he who gives with liberty, with liberty, he who leads with diligence, he who shows mercy with cheerfulness. Okay, yeah, thank you, Trefina, right? So again, to reiterate the same statement that we've made before is that the gift of leadership has also been given to both men and women just as there's grace that's been showered upon both men and women for ministry. Even the gift of leadership is poured over us and everybody is expected to function in that role, right? And so, and there are so many examples, isn't it? In our own lifetime that we see who God has used like Catherine Kuhlman, Amy Semple, McPherson, who was an evangelist, Maria Woodworth at Joyce Meyer, et cetera, et cetera. And so many other generals of God who are women in our lifetime who've gone on to do such beautiful and great things, right? I mean, guys, just to say the least, I was born in a Pentecostal family, right? There was always a sound of prayer and singing in my own family, right? And one of the most beautiful sounds that I will never forget is the sound of my grandma praying in the morning, every morning at 4 a.m. faithfully as a kid. She doesn't live with us anymore. But then at the time when she used to, every morning faithfully at 4 a.m., her sound of prayer was the sweetest sound I've ever heard. That it made me sleep even more peacefully for some strange reason. And I would miss her sound, her voice of prayer. And so, I mean, thank God for women in our lives, isn't it? So yeah, I mean, should there be, if should women be in leadership? Absolutely, yes, okay. The next section talks about the same thing, the head and the headship. So we've come to the bottom of page 140. Okay, remember, I asked you to remember those two words, keep silent, right? So, first Corinthians 14, 34, 35. Can someone read that please? First Corinthians chapter 14, 34, 35. That year, women keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask them shameful for women to speak in church. Okay, yeah, thanks, Jeffrey. So we've discussed quite a bit about that and we know we come and read this passage and we are like, whoa, whoa, okay, all right. And so, it's a perfect scripture why they should not be in leadership, why women should not speak in church, isn't it? And that's what it can look like when we take that verse out of context and just take a look at that text for its face value. But in first Corinthians chapter 14, that entire chapter, it's from the same chapter where we read these two verses, 34, 35, Paul uses those words, keep silent three times, right? And so now we sort of, all of a sudden it makes sense. It's like, oh, okay. So let's look at those situations, okay? Different situations that Paul uses. One is in between first Corinthians 14 verse 27 to 28, he says, speak in tongues to the church audience if there is someone who will also flow in interpretation. Else, keep silent, right? That's the first time. The second time is verse 29 and 30, immediately after, take turns to prophesy when you have delivered your prophecy, then keep silent. So, I mean, just because he said keep silent in the first part, when he talks about speaking in tongues, do we say, you know, I shall not speak in tongues ever, even if you're a Pentecostal. I mean, imagine saying that to a Pentecostal. He'll be like, what is the meaning of my life after that, right? Isn't it? What do you mean I can't speak in tongues? I'm a Pentecostal. There's no other meaning in my life if I can't speak in tongues. It's like that. And imagine, we don't, just because Paul says, keep silent after giving a word of prophecy that doesn't mean you don't release a word of prophecy again, ever again, right? Like it's all coming down to the context, isn't it? And it's the same way there is women, if you have questions, keep silent. Just ask your husband at home later. And then that is the context here, right? And so the whole point, the objective in that whole chapter or the context is order, okay? Not the stopping of the exercise of a spiritual gift or leadership, right? So we, as it says in the notes, we do not use the keep silent injunction to prevent speaking in tongues or prophecy. So why should we prevent women from preaching in church using the same injunction? It doesn't make sense, isn't it? No, that's not fair. That's just manipulating, misusing whatever you want to use. So we can't use that verse, makes first Corinthians out of context and stop women from speaking in church. And that's not it, okay? And the next section talks about, I do not permit a woman to teach. There's another famous passage from 1 Timothy chapter two verse 11 to 15, right? This is the, remember, this is the epistle or the letter that Paul is writing to Timothy, while Timothy, who is right now, pasturing the church in Ephesus, which is the church of Ephesians, okay?  And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first and then Eve and then Adam was not deceived, but woman being deceived fell into transgression. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control. Okay, now again, as we've always learned that if you just take the text without the context, you're going to misunderstand it, isn't it? And this is where also studying the Bible comes into play, studying the letters, who's the audience, who's writing to whom and what is the cultural background of that audience, of that region, what was happening at that time, what was, which date, which year was it written?  And when you dig a little deeper, you'll, as it's mentioned in the book called, I Suffer Not a Woman, which is written by Richard and Catherine Clark. It was during that period where there was a cultic worship practice that crept into the first century church where they would worship, involving a female priestess of Diana. Diana was a Greek goddess, right? Diana was a Greek goddess and the priestess of this god would, there were a lot of malpractice, cultic worship practices, teachings of sexual immorality and whatnot. And saying that, okay, the men are superior or you should need to have superiority over men and all of that. So that is the context, right? So what Paul is saying to the Ephesians was, I do not allow a woman to teach these cultic heresies, nor do I allow them to usurp authority from men by performing pagan rituals. That's what Paul is saying. I'm not going to allow them to teach about all these things or perform pagan rituals, right? That's what he's saying. What he was not saying, like we've misunderstood, is that I do not allow godly Christian women to teach the Bible. That is not what Paul is saying, isn't it? And so now that we have this context, this background of why, okay, what's happening, now it makes sense, okay? So he is trying to protect the congregation, his flock from all these false practices, false doctrines, and it's not even doctrine, it's just cultic, isn't it, in its nature. And that's the basis of Paul's argument of what he's saying to Timothy. And again, that scripture has been taken out of context and misunderstood, misinterpreted and whatnot. But as a conclusion, we must recognize that God has always used and continues to use women in different ways for the purposes of his kingdom, right? He continues to use that. And any healthy church should encourage women to excel, you know, still more in what they've been described in scripture as, you know, they're already doing so. Any healthy church should be doing that, right? I realize that we've gone five minutes over time. So we'll pause here and we'll take 10 minutes break. We'll come back in 10 minutes, all right? And we'll go into the next section, right? Thanks guys, see ya.