Results 21 - 40 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184524 | ||
Hi, You ask for evidence that millennialism was an intertestamental Jewish teaching? How about, 'and I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not counting, endless, with neither years, nor months, nor weeks, nor days, nor hours' (2 Enoch 33.1-2). And -- 'the Messiah will then begin to be revealed, -- the earth also will yield its fruit ten-thousandfold, and on each vine there will be a thousand branches, and each branch will produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of wine, moreover also they will behold marvels every day' (2 Baruch 30.4-6). This was in fact the source of the ideas of Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian etc . Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
22 | Amalekites show up in 1st sam 30:1..???? | 1 Sam 30:1 | jonp | 184511 | ||
Hi The Amalekites defeated by Saul were seemingly roving in the Sinai peninsula which explains the presence of the Kenites. The Amalekites in 1 Sam 30:1 were a different tribal grouping from those slaughtered in 1 Sam 15. It was the latter who had caused the trouble to Moses. Amalekites wandered over the whole of the Arabian peninsula as well as over the Sinai peninsula. We are not told where the base of operations was in 1 Sam 30, only the areas that they attacked. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
23 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184508 | ||
Hi Clearly Jochebed could not have been both the direct daughter of Levi and the direct mother of Moses. If she was then her age would have been around 400 years which would have been a little old for childbearing. And Amram died at 137. You can put SHE BORE in capital letters but it does not alter the fact that the Hebrew can indicate that she bore him through her descendants. I could put WHO WAS BORN TO LEVI in capital letters but again it would not alter the fact that the Hebrew can mean 'born to him through his descendants'. So we have to accept that we are not sure which it is. It is much the best not to be dogmatic about such things. This is made more complicated by the fact that in 1 Chronicles 6.1-2 we are told that the son of Levi was Kohath, and the son of Kohath was Amram, and the son of Amram was Moses. Again it is clear that this is unlikely to be the whole family tree covering 400 years. The normal way of seeing this would be that Levi was the patriarchal head, Kohath was the sub-tribal ancestor, and Amram the clan ancestor which would mean that he was the 'father' of Moses as his ancestor. Compare similarly 1 Chronicles 23.12-13. Recognising this is important if we are to reconcile the different genealogies. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
24 | I can use Galatians 4:16 as a support. | 1 Tim 5:19 | jonp | 184484 | ||
Hi Thank you for your note. I had read you original question as signifying that you had problems with the leadership of your church as a whole. Later notes have revealed that you had one particular person in mind whose life was inconsistent with his profession of the Gospel. That is clearly a very different issue, and I actually agree with what you say :-))). Your course in that case would be to follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18.15-17, keeping in mind 1 Timothy 6.17-20. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
25 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184483 | ||
Hi Let me immediately make clear that I do believe in the literal second coming of Christ to the earth in accordance with 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 (and all that Jesus taught on the subject). But no, I find that neither Jesus nor Paul taught a millennium, so I am in good and sound company :-))). On the other hand I do believe that the Book of Revelation is the inspired word of God. What I do not believe is that the pre-tribulationist position correctly interprets it. Pre-tribulationism is a comparatively new teaching which arose among the Plymouth Brethren in the 19th century, and was popularised by Dr Scofield (whom I admire even if I cannot accept all his teachings). Neither John Calvin nor Martin Luther nor George Whitefield nor John Wesley were pre-tribulationists. Millennialism was an intertestamental Jewish teaching which was never accepted by the wider Christian church. Thus I stand in the long line of saints who hold to the truth of the Gospel without getting caught up in fancy ideas. Possibly you are not aware of the fact that while in the US such teachings are widely influential, in the remainder of the Christian world they are very much secondary. And that is not because only Americans understand the Scriptures. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
26 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184482 | ||
Hi I am sorry if you found my note too long but as you will appreciate it is not always easy to be simple when dealing with complicated issues (But you did ask :-))) ). Each of us has to make up our own minds on eschatology. It is a question about which evangelicals have different viewpoints. But what is important is that we recognise that such issues are secondary. The moment the Lord has come for His own what follows will be in His hands entirely, and we may all be wrong. That is why there is so little agreement on the issues. What matters is that we concentrate on the primary issues, while by all means discussing the others in a friendly and loving way. What is undoubtedly wrong is to fall out with other Christians because of their views on the events connected with the second coming. When the Lord takes His own it will include amillennialists, pre-millennialist and post-millennialists, as well as preterites, and all will be equally welcomed. The purpose of eschatology is to be a comfort and a spur, not a cause for division. I used to believe in millennium, but I began to see that the idea contained far too many problems to be true, not least because neither Jesus nor Paul mention it. And alkso because it is neither one thing nor the other. I believe in the centrality of the true Gospel and prefer to have my eyes fixed on the eternal kingdom. 'Set your mind upon things above, and not on things on the earth, for you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God' (Colossians 3.1-2). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
27 | Once saved, always saved? | Matt 25:14 | jonp | 184481 | ||
Hi Azure, Yes, you could put it that way. Jesus' emphasis is on the fact that because he saw his Lord as a hard taskmaster he did nothing with what the Lord had given him. He saw his Lord as fearsome and unresponsive. Many sadly do see God like that, and therefore do not respond to Him. But the emphasis is not so much on that as on the fact that he did nothing, when he should have done something. We are all given gifts of one kind or another (see for example Romans 12.6-13) and sometimes it is the one with the least important gift like this man who hides it away rather than using it. Jesus concern was that all should use their gifts to the glory of God, even those who think themselves unimportant. All can give a cup of cold water in His Name. His point is that not to do anything is unforgiveable. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
28 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184455 | ||
Hi You will note that I did deal with your question concerning the meaning of olam, in other words what I considered was most important about your question. I avoided what I felt could only lead to absurdity. But if you mean do I believe in a coming mythical hybrid kingdom which is neither fully earthly or fully heavenly, with resurrected Apostles, who have amazing powers given by the resurrection, rather unsuccessfully ruling on thrones over sinful earthly people, where some second rate 'Gospel of the Kingdom' is preached which is a pale shadow of the true Gospel, and where Jesus is in charge of a failing experiment in Jerusalem, while the lambs which are at perfect peace with the lions and the wolves are only terrified of the men in the Temple who are slaying as many lambs as possible in what are called 'memorial offerings' (which are nothing like Old Testament sacrifices but are simply the product of vivid imaginations), and there are trees of life of which the fruit is for the heavenly favourites, and the leaves are for their earthly counterpart, then no, I don't. In my view it is a monstrous distortion of the truth. Do you consider that Jesus sacrifice of Himself was an allegory of the Old Testament sacrifices? No, of course not, it is the reality of which the sacrifices were the shadow. In the same way the Old Testament provided shadows of which New Testament truth is the reality. It was impossible for the prophets to teach New Testament truth in an Old Testament environment. There was no conception of a heavenly existence for men. Any such talk would immediately have been connected with polytheism. To them it was the gods who lived in such places. Thus it had to be presented in terms of a future EVERLASTING kingdom. When the early missionaries went to the eskimoes they proclaimed 'the great igloo in the skies'. They had to use ideas that the people understood. In the same way the prophets depicted heavenly realities, not by allegories, but in earthly terms, the only ones understandable to their listeners. Like the offerings and sacrifices they were the shadows of the great reality to come. It is quite frankly unbelievable that if Paul had believed in the Millennium he would not have mentioned it. Can you imagine any preacher who believed in it not doing so today? Of course not. And neither would Paul. So yes, I do consider that the Old Testament provided shadows of what was to come and no, I do not allegorise it. I accept it for what it is, a picturing of indescribable greater realities in the only way in which they could be sensibly portrayed. Best wishes Peter | ||||||
29 | Same supper as John 12? | Luke 10:38 | jonp | 184364 | ||
Hi Jeff Thanks for your kind comments. However while as you rightly say John picks out what Judas said, and his motive, Matthew 26.8 brings out that a number of 'disciples' were involved in criticising her. Compare also Mark 14.5, 'they' reproached her. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
30 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184353 | ||
Hi Azure, Kung hey fat choi on the same basis. I lectured in Hong Kong for a few years and had good fellowship with the churches there. Do not be discouraged at having started a little late. For you it is but 'the third hour of the day' (Matthew 20.3). You still have much of the day before you in which you can serve the Master. What matters for us all, whether we start early or late is that we are faithful so that one day He will welcome us with the words, 'Well done my good and faithful servant'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
31 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184333 | ||
Hi Thank you for your contribution. Please see my note to stj just submitted with which I have signed off. I feel this is far too sensitive a subject for us to go into too deeply. (It is after all aired in a thousand commentaries). We are dealing with One Whose judgments are unsearchable and Whose ways are past finding out and I think it best to leave it in that way. I do of course believe in the doctrine of the triunity of God. It is not that that is in question. But when the seven blind men were 'looking' at an elephant each 'saw' something different. Theology is often like that and in some things we are all like blind men feeling in the dark. Best wishes Jonp, | ||||||
32 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184332 | ||
Hi stj Thank you for your previous note of support and your present note. With regard to Genesis 1.26 I had only cited it as an example. I am very happy for anyone who sees it in that way to take it as indicating the triunity of God as I said to CJBD. It is clearly a subject on which there is wide disagreement. In such a case it is only The Yorkshireman who said to his friend, "Only thee and me is right, and even thee's a bit wrong sometimes' who would argue about it. Dr Constable commenting on 1:26-27 puts it this way, "Us" is probably a plural of self-deliberation (cf. 11:7; Ps. 2:3), though possibly God was addressing His heavenly court (cf. Isa. 6:8). This word involves "in germ" the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we should not use it as a formal proof of the Trinity since this reference by itself does not prove that one God exists in three persons.77 "Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage."78 The theological controversy in Moses' day was not between trinitarianism and unitarianism but between one self-existent, sovereign, merciful God and many limited, capricious, often immoral gods.79 Perhaps it is best if we leave it like that? Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
33 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184307 | ||
Hi I'm afraid I must be a bit thick but I fail to see how the verses you have cited reveal the triunity of God. My answer would be 'Almighty God'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
34 | word saved definition in Romans 10:9 | Rom 10:9 | jonp | 184305 | ||
You said that you would like to know more about ‘salvation’, so here goes. Salvation is both the act by which Jesus Christ accepts those who come to Him through the cross, accepting them on the basis of His sacrifice for them when they come to Him in faith for salvation, and the resulting process through which He works in that person in order that He may present them perfect in Himself. That is why the Bible teaches different aspects of 'salvation'. It speaks of someone as ‘having been saved’ (Titus 3.5; 2 Timothy 1.9). These verse are in the aorist tense, and indicate something that has happened once for all. This occurs when a person turns to God from sin and commits himself to Jesus Christ in faith that Christ will save him. He is ‘saved’ once for all. And because the work is totally dependent on Christ it is guaranteed. It also speaks of those who ‘have been saved and are therefore now are saved’ (Ephesians 2.5; 2.8). These are in the perfect tense and and indicate something that has happened in the past the benefit of which continues to the present time. These two definitions are what is in mind when we say a person has been ‘saved’ and is therefore now saved. But the Bible also speaks of those who “are being saved” (1 Corinthians 1.18; 2 Corinthians 2.15). These references are in the present tense and indicate a process that is going on. God is at work in them to will and do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). And then the Bible speaks of those who will be saved (1 Corinthians 3.15; 5.5; 2 Corinthians 7.10; 1 Thessalonians 5.9; 2 Thessalonians 2.13 ). These are in the future tense and indicate something that is yet to happen - and equivalents. In other words, when God ‘saves’ someone they are from one point of view saved once and for all, and it is fully effective. But if it is genuine it will then result in a process by which they are being ‘changed from glory into glory’(2 Corinthians 3.18), with the final guarantee of a completed process. If the salvation is not progressing, even though slowly, then its genuineness must be questioned. The Saviour does not fail in His work. Consider a man drowning at sea, in a fierce storm, clinging to a life raft with one hand, his other arm broken and trailing behind, and both his legs paralysed, having been many hours in the freezing water and suffering from hypothermia, more dead than alive. Then along comes the life boat and drags him out and he gasps, hardly able to speak because of the seriousness of his condition, “I am saved”. Well, it is true. He is no longer doomed. But he has a long way to go. He would not have much confidence in his salvation if they put him to one side in the bow of the boat, with the waves lashing over him, and said to him, “Well, you’re saved now”, and then went off and played cards and then practised turning the lifeboat over. His confidence and dependence lie in a fully trained and capable crew who are dedicated to warming him up, treating him and getting him to hospital so that he can be fully restored. So as they get to work on him, wrapping him in a blanket and gently warming his frozen limbs, trying to set his broken arm and doing everything else necessary to restore him to some kind of normality, he can begin to have hope and think gratefully to himself, “I am being saved”. But he may well still be aware of the winds howling round, and the boat heaving in the heavy seas, and the pain and agony of his limbs, and he may then look forward and think, “I will soon be saved”. If those crewmen, and the ambulance waiting for him on shore on that terrible night, can be so dedicated, can we think that the One Who died on a cross for us on an even more terrible night, will be less dedicated? He does not just want us in the lifeboat. He wants us fully restored. And that is what He is determined to have. And if we want to be saved that is what we must want! We cannot say, ‘Lord, save me, but leave me as I am’. This salvation is entered into by an act of faith and commitment. As we genuinely recognise our need to be saved (in every way) from sin we commit ourselves completely to the One Who Saves (the Saviour), and trust Him to carry out the work, knowing that once He has begun the good work He will carry it out to the end (Philippians 1.6). We are then ‘saved’, and have entered the process of ‘being saved’. |
||||||
35 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184258 | ||
Hi Steve. May I say that I have no objection to entrenched positions. I have a number myself and two of them are concern for the glory of God and a recognition that Scripture is the sole authority for our knowledge of God as it shapes our inward awareness of God. But I am unable to agree that we should not use 'worldly' illustrations. I have often been blessed by a good 'worldly' illustration, and Jesus used them often. Perhaps my illustration could be interpreted in the wrong way. Unfortunately this is true of all illustrations. Someone will always pick up the wrong angle. It is even a problem for our Lord Himself. You only have to read commentaries on the parable of the Unjust Judge to realise that. The point behind my illustration was that when someone says 'let us --' it does not necessarily signify that all are going to take part in the action. Perhaps a better illustration might have been a committee. All the committee may be called on to back a proposal but it does not involve them all in the action. Quite regularly the proposer is left to carry out the action with the full agreement of the committee. (And please do not come back at me because you do not like the idea of God being on a committee :-))). It is simply the principle which is involved, not the fine details). And I am quite happy to exchange 'heavenly court' for 'heavenly companions' or heavenly escorts' or 'heavenly servants'. All I really wished to say was that God wanted to involve His heavenly servants in the same way as He seeks to involve us. There does not seem to me to be anything degrading about that. Indeed it appears to me to reveal infinite condescension and love. But I may be alone in this (although actually I am not as a vast number of commentatotors agree with me) but I really cannot see how 'the man has become like ONE OF US' can be seen as simply indicating the triunity of God. It would be exalting man to far too high a plain, especially as it was very much sinful man who was in question. I had not intended to say anything more on the subject, (although not for the reason that you gave), but thank you for giving me the opportunity just to add these final explanations Cordial best wishes Jonp | ||||||
36 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | jonp | 184254 | ||
Hi In fact the Gospels regularly depict Jesus as a prophet, for that is regularly how the people saw Him. Indeed He made clear in Luke 4.18-21 that that was one way in which He saw Himself, as the Anointed Prophet of Isaiah. Thus He did initially introduce Himself as a prophet (compare also Matthew 13.57 and parallels; 14.5; 21.11; Luke 24.19), although this would gradually build up into the recognition that He was the Messiah, and indeed the very Son of God. Do you not think that prophets were purposeful? Psalm 69.9 originally had in mind a mere Psalmist. Of course Jesus was totally purposeful, but He responded to situations and it is quite clear that initially He did not press His Messiahship. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
37 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184206 | ||
Hi Jeff, A good principle in Scripture is to commence with what is clear, and then to move on to what is not clear, and finally to interpret what is not clear by what is clear. So much false teaching arises because people speculate on what is unclear without measuring it against what is clear, and then try to fit what is clear into it. Let us now apply this principle to the Genesis 1.26. Of course if this verse stood on its own we would not have too much to go on. But the Scriptures in fact do provide us with another similar verse where the issues are much clearer. If you turn to Genesis 3.22 you will find another reference to ‘us’. And in a similar way to 1.26 the ‘us’ remain unidentified. So by all laws of reasonable exegesis, being in the same general context, we must surely see it as referring to the same ‘us’. However I would suggest that in this example the situation is clearer. In 3.22 God says, ‘Behold the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil. And now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever --’ therefore the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim --- to guard the way to the tree of life.’ Here there is specifically a reference point for ‘us’. It is the Cherubim to whom He gave the task of preventing access to the tree of life. But we do not just have to rest on that connection, although it helps. We can also consider God’s words. Here a change has taken place in man. He has now begun ‘to know good and evil’, and the verb used suggests to know by experience. And furthermore by this he has become ‘like one of us’. Now we can of course argue that the triune God knows good and evil, having experienced it not in Himself, but in His wider creation. And that is true. But ‘like one of us’ here gives a decided suggestion of plurality far in excess of what we would expect to find in a book which emphasises the oneness of God, if God alone was in mind. Indeed if its reference is to God alone then it leaves itself wide open to being interpreted as signifying more than one God. And it would surely be a really strange way of speaking. For the Hebrew is very clear and specific. It is not ‘like us’ which could just possibly be explained as signifying the triunity of God, but ‘like ONE of us’. So we must ask, who else ‘knows good and evil’?. Clearly not someone in this world for up to this point good and evil were experientially unknown. Thus it makes us look to those beings who had seen for themselves what evil as evidenced in the behaviour of the sinister figure who lay behind the snake. They had seen Heaven rent by good and evil. Thus I would suggest to you that in this case the ‘us’ clearly has in mind those heavenly beings who surround the throne of God, including the Cherubim who are at each corner of His throne (note the cherubim on the Ark, which represents the throne of God, and the Cherubim who accompanied the throne of God in Ezekiel 1. See also the four living creatures in Revelation 4). And when we see its connection with the Cherubim in what follows the answer appears to be even more certain. But if this unusual and unexpected ‘us’ means the angelic hosts in 3.22 I personally do not see how it can mean any other in 1.26. That would be to make two mysteries, and to fail to accept the guidance of Scripture. For it is my experience that if we look carefully Scripture always explains itself. Thus we now come to Genesis 1.26 with a recognition that ‘us’ in the opening chapters of Genesis has in mind the heavenly court. But Genesis 1.27 makes clear that it was God Himself Who was involved in creating man, just as He alone created all things. Why then a reference to His court? I would suggest that the answer is because He wanted them to feel involved in what He was doing, for once He had done it He had a special purpose for them in it. They were to serve the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1.14). And every now and again throughout the Old Testament and then throughout the New we find them performing those services. Who was it who guarded the prophets? Elisha’s answer was that it was the hosts of God (2 Kings 6.17). Compare also Joshua 5.14. Often as a father I have said to my children, ‘let us do this’, even though I know that it is I who am going to do it, simply because I want them to be involved in what I am doing. And it gives them a far greater interest in it. They feel as though they have a part in it. And that is what God wanted His court to feel. Thus to me this verse in 1.26 indicates the graciousness of the Creator in involving in His creation, those beings who surround His throne, so that they have an interest in what He is doing. For He wants them to be involved in it and to be interested in it and His final purpose is the unity of all things. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
38 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184204 | ||
Hi, I have just made another posting answering a question that arrived earlier than yours, but I will not just pass you on again. You might think I am trying to avoid you :-))) Perhaps we should first consider Geneis 3.22. Who did the 'us' include then? There it sounds far more likely to me that He is including moral beings who have seen for themselves the consequences of the fall of Satan and thus have come to the experience of 'knowing good and evil', than just a conversation with Himself. And this especially as He will then despatch the Cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life (3.24). I agree wholeheartedly that creation was His work, and His work alone. But I have often said to my children 'let us do this' when my intention was to do it myself, with the simple aim of drawing them in on my plans. Then they felt that they had a part in it. Thus to me God is drawing in to His plans the angels who in the future will have a duty to serve the heirs of salvation (Henbrews 1.14). They would recognise from this that it had been their charge from the beginning. After all if He can draw me in on His plans, how much more the angels who always do His bidding? But I have no wish to alter an entrenched position. I hold my view because 1) I cannot see how when God clearly purposes in the Old Testament to establish His oneness over against men's polytheistic ideas (Exodus 20.2; Deuteronomy 6.5-6) He would undermine the idea here. 2). Because no one who read these words from an Old Testament perspecive could possibly have seen it as referring to the triune God. 3). Because the revelation of the triunity of God is so important that while there are certainly hints in the Old Testament, it could not really be presented fully until the coming of Jesus without seeming to give a concession to polytheism. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
39 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184203 | ||
Hi CDBJ, If you are happy with your own interpretation of the words then stick with it. Like you I seek to understand His words. But unlike Him we are all fallible. Of course the angelic court did not actually assist in the creation, for it immediately goes on to say that God did it. It was just an indication of the graciousness of God that He sought to bring them in on His plans, just like He does us. He worked together with them like He works together with us. He brought them in in this part of the creative work because they were going to be involved in it in the future. If you think it unusual that He would discuss His plans with the angels think how even more incredible it is that He discusses His plans with us. If you were all powerful and had at your command a myriad angels, would you trust you with the evangelisation of the world?. And yet He has. He could have done it on His own, but He works together with us. And why? So that we will benefit. So in my view in Genesis 1 He wanted His close servants to enjoy His creative work along with Him, for He had planned that they were to have their part in helping along the salvation of this vulnerable creature called man (Hebrews 1.14) and He wanted them in from the start. How often I have said to my children 'let us do this'. And then I have gone and done it. But the joy is that they then felt a part of it. They were doing it along with me, and theyhad an interest in it from then on. Consider how in 3.22 He says, 'Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.' Do you not think that that sounds more like a conversation with the angelic host? God wanted all His hosts to feel that they were a part of His plans. Of course the word elohim, when used of God, incorporates within it the idea of the unique make up of God (how careful though we must be when we talk about God as though we were able to understand Him). And yet He is also called El which is in the singular, but still includes the triune God. No human words can really describe Him. And we must recognise that our understanding of the triunity of God mainly comes about through Jesus. I think in fact that your final suggestion is a good one. God did not need to discuss it in Himself. Within His own being the whole thing had been already planned from start to finish. But consider the possibility that once He came to the part that the Cherubim, and the Seraphim and the angels were to have a part in He drew them into His plans. However, we must each see it as God reveals it in our hearts. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
40 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184180 | ||
Hi. The whole point of my statement was that it is only because the church is 'in Christ' that Satan cannot touch it. The reason that that little group of people survived was because they were under the protection of God in Christ. I have constantly pointed out that Satan must obey God's authority, and that Jesus had 'bound ' him. I cannot see how I can make it clearer that Satan is very much subsidiary to God, and can do absolutely nothing without God's permission. We cannot talk about God and Satan in the same breath. God is God and Satan is only one of 'the sons of the elohim' (Job 1-2). But that being said as a created being he is very powerful (Jude 9). We must therefore be thankful that our lives are hid with Christ in God' and have been transported into the kingdom of His beloved Son where all he can do shoot his arrows at us. I have dealt with the other part of your question in another posting. Perhaps you will look that up and then come back with any questions. I do not want to overheat the matter. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |