Results 41 - 60 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184179 | ||
Hi Jeff. I had no intention of bringing up such a delicate question in order to cause controversy. I believe in the tri-unity of God like you do. And clearly the triune God was speaking in Genesis 1. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is why God said 'us'. We must ask, would a writer who was very concerned continually to stress the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6.4-5; Exodus 20.3 - note the 'Me') be so careless as to use 'us' in a polytheistic world. It would immediately number him among the polytheists. And this is especially so as in a creation account we should expect to find some indication of where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. So there is nothing unlikely in their being introduced here. Any early reader of this account would tend to read it like this. The alternative is that it is an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur. Moving on to your questions about God's image. We must ask, what is the image of God in man. It is surely 'that in man that makes him different from all other creatures'. It is the breath of life that God breathed in to man (Genesis 2.7). See Job 33.4. It is the spirit within man that can have contact with God and can worship God. And the angels have the same. Now in fact Genesis 1 says that man was created in 'the image of ha-elohim'. Now regularly ha-elohim means God. Ha-elohim always means God when it is used with a singular verb. But it can also mean 'heavenly beings' when used with a plural verb. Thus the spirit raised up by the witch of Endor that appeared to Saul was called 'one of the elohim' (1 Samuel 28.13). The angels are also called 'sons of the elohim' (bene ha-elohim) that is in most translations 'sons of God' (Job 1.6; 2.7; 38.7). This is a clear indication of 'the image of God' in the angels. They too could know God, worship God and love God. Something of the triune God is revealed in the Old Testament in that we have the Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord. But it is only with the coming of Jesus that the idea of the triune God is made apparent. In polytheistic days it was important first to establish the unity of the Godhead. For God is not three gods but One God in threeness of personality. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
42 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184177 | ||
Hi, Firstly may I say that I recognise that good Christians can quite genuinely have differences of opinion on various controversial subjects. And no subject is more controversial than this one. Thus I never seek to persuade people to turn from an established position (unless I feel it is totally unscriptural). However I do seek to answer questions and try to present a case which defends my answers, without falling out with those who disagree with me. I am assuming that your reply was in the nature of a question so I will seek to put my position. There are many good Christians who hold your position. I did myself consider it as a possibility. Isaiah 14 is especiallt alluring as it seems to fit in with other things said about Satan. But when I looked into it in more detail I felt that (rather reluctantly for there is nothing nicer than to think that we have solved a problem) it did not fit in with the facts. Firstly I would point out that 'Lucifer' means light bearer. And that was precisely the kind of name that Mesopotamian kings did claim for themselves. There are many examples archaeologically. And they certainly associated themselves with the stars. Furthermore they did make claims about ascending into heaven and sitting among the gods on the mountain in the north and being exalted above the stars. In fact they regularly made the most extraordinary claims. They had a very high opinion of themselves and it established their authority among their people. It also meant that people were less likely to rebel. After all you would not want to get in the bad books of someone so exalted. Thus there is nothing unlikely about a person making such claims in the time of Isaiah. Now you say that it is only up to verse 11 that refers to ancient kings. But I see nothing in the text which suggests a break at verse 11. Furthermore similar to what is said in verses 10-11 is said about 'the Light-bearer' in verses 16-20. But even more devastating for your view is that this 'so-called 'Light-bearer' descends into Sheol, the world of the grave. Satan is never said to die. And on top of this the dead kings say if him "Is this the man who made the worlds to tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities and did not allow his prisoners to go home". Now speaking of the kings of Babylon this is very apposite. They were precisely like this. On the other hand as a desciption of Satan it is just not on. And there are absolutely no reasons for separating verses 12-14 from the rest of the text. We must not treat Scripture as though we can just pick and choose, as I am sure when you think about it you will agree. With regard to the king of Tyre we do know that in the Tyrian temples they did try to emulate Paradise and had temple gardens which simulated Paradise. Thus this is precisely the kind of thing that a king of Tyre would claim on the basis of the then current mythology. You will note how totally different this Paradise is from Eden. This is a kingly Paradise not that of a working man. That was the difference between mythology and Biblical truth. Furthermore let me assure you that these kings had no difficulty in transporting themselves in their imagination wherever they liked. And the idea of creation ties in very well with myths about the beginning of things. Thus in my view both these descriptions fit precisely in with the ideas of those days.------------- with regard to the use of 'US' in Genesis 1. This was of course written before there were either Jews or Christians. And it forms the beginning of a long history which is careful to stress that there is only one God in opposition to the ideas of the polytheists. It would be totally out of character for a plural to be introduced speaking of God unless of course it was an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur . It is far more likely to have in mind the angelic court. After all some explanation is required for where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. And as we know from the Tabernacle (and from Ezekiel and Revelation) the Cherubim were God's close companions. This is not a Jewish explanation. This is part of the original script. I do not of course deny for one moment that we can see the Triune God as included. But I very much fail to see how this New Testament idea could be introduced here by the writer deliberately. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
43 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184163 | ||
Hi The angelic court is detailed for example in 1 KIngs 22.19; Daniel 7.9-10. By the church I meant the infant church and I am basing it on what Satan did to Job's family, on Jude's warning in Jude 9, on Ephesians 6.10-18 which says that without the armour of God we cannot hope to stand against Him, and on the havoc wrought by Satan in Revelation 12.13-17 even though he was under restraint. The point was that without the Lord's protection and the armour of God we are helpless before him. By the grace of God we have both. That is why we survive in the face of his great power. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
44 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 184137 | ||
Hi, As I pointed out Revelation often gives its own key to what it is saying. In Revelation 17.12 the horns of a wild beast are declared to be rulers. Thus it seems clear that the same is true in chapter 13. The wild beast with two horns like a lamb probably indicates religious authorities who supported the wild beast (Caligula? Caligula's reign fits the details). They no doubt used conjuring to imitate the wonders described in Scripture. The two horns of a lamb contrast with the Lamb in Revelation 5. They are false prophets, even false Messiahs. Caligula especially had it in for the Jews, as he did for aristocrats. Both refused to worship him. In interpreting Revelation we must let it interpret itself not try to fit it into our theories. I note your surrender on the question of Luke's sequence of events. I did not expect that you would be able to answer it. I have never met any full preterite who could answer it in detail. That is why I am not a preterite although no doubt some would call me part preterite. With cordial best wishes Jonp | ||||||
45 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 184093 | ||
Hi Tom Your preterism is certainly wonderful. It takes a Roman procurator and turns him into a two horned wild beast who makes fire come down from heaven in the sight of men (a picture indicating a false Elijah) and works great signs so as to deceive those who dwell on earth. (Perhaps you are unaware that two horns means two rulers? compare 17.12) And I never realised before that Gessius Florus did such things. Then you can take an inconvenient verse and move it to another place to suit your theory. But best of all you can take the date of Cyrus, which is firmly fixed by external archaeological evidence and move it a hundred years. And while you are confidently stating that no onw has produced any time sequence which contradicts your theory I seem to remember that I suggested one to you to which you have not yet given a reply. I will repeat it again, 'when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,then know that its desolation has come near -- and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled -- and then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (Luke 21.2-0-27. Now what I would like you to do is explain it phrase by phrase, taking each word into account, and tell me what it is saying. For to me it appears to be saying first the destruction of Jerusalem then the scattering of the Jews, then a period following when Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles, and all this FOLLOWED by the coming in glory of Jesus Christ. What I am concerned with is the coming of Jesus Christ, not all the theories about it of which there are too many. And before you play around with the word glory perhaps you will note that in those days the idea of glory related to the visible appearance of God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
46 | what does ephesians 4:9 mean-"descended" | Eph 4:9 | jonp | 184090 | ||
Hi I expect that PDAL has in mind such Scriptures as 'If a man love Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him' (John 14.23). And 'behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and He with me' (Revelation 3.20). Or 'that according to the riches of His glory He may grant you to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith' (Ephesians 3.16-17). The heart is of course indicative of the inner being. If we are to be truly saved each of us has to have Christ within us and living through our inner being (compare Galatians 2.20). Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
47 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184085 | ||
Hi further to my previous note the Spirit of God is said to be the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12.3, and in Ephesians 4.30 He is called 'the Holy Spirit of God' combining the two titles. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
48 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184076 | ||
Hi If you are not prepared to see that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord and the Spirit of God are one and the same then I will not be able to help you without writing a book on the subject. I would however point out that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God in Romans 8.9-17. You seem awfully keen to prove that the Bible disagrees. But if you wish to do that fairly then you have to read the Bible on its terms not on yours, and not lay down your own conditions. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
49 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184066 | ||
Hi In 1 Corinthians 2.11 we read 'for what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of man which is within him, so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God' and we could add 'no one comprehends the thoughts of YHWH like the Spirit of YHWH'. We can agree that the parallel is not exact. A man's spirit does not have a separate personality like the Spirit of God has in relation to Father and Son, but the point is clear, there is a unity of being that is so close that all the thoughts of one are known to the other. Thus the spirit of a man is the man, the Spirit of God is God, and The Spirit of YHWH is YHWH while carefully noting the distinction mentioned above. However if you cannot agree it would probably be best if we agree to differ unless you have different questions that arise in your mind. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
50 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184050 | ||
Hi, The Bible speaks of the Spirit as 'the Spirit of YHWH' (e.g. Judges 6.34 and often), YHWH revealed through His Spirit. And that is why Matthew 28.19 speaks of him under the umbrella heading of 'the Name'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
51 | John 10.3The sheep hears his voice | John 10:3 | jonp | 184041 | ||
Hi Sometimes the writer wanted to say 'The Lord YHWH' (adonai YHWH). That is then translated as 'the Lord GOD' (e.g. Isaiah 50.4, 5, 7, 9). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
52 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184039 | ||
Hi I am not quite sure how we disagree :-)) You are quite right in saying that 'the Lord' (kurios) was used by LXX to translate YHWH, and that the Lord YHWH is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Thus YHWH is 'the Name' of Father Son and Holy Spirit that Jesus was indicating. Is that not what I said? | ||||||
53 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 184038 | ||
Hi I do not really want to argue over words but the value of something depends on how it is seen. Paul had certainly put great value on his keeping of the Law. It had been his life for years. It was the most important thing in his life. So moving from that to become a Christian would certainly have been a sacrfice for him at the time and his compatriots would definitely have seen it in that way. Of course later he recognised that it was no sacrifice at all. So in that sense I agree with you :-))) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
54 | The Passover Celebration | John 6:53 | jonp | 184035 | ||
Hi Searcher You will note from John 5.18 that these latest hearers were the same men who were plotting to kill him. They were men of blood. They carried death in their hearts. This explains the change that now takes place in Jesus’ tone and the change in His illustration. Their presence had brought home to Him what lay before Him. From now on He would not talk of ‘the bread of life’, the life-giving bread, but would use the Old Testament simile of ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’, which meant killing someone, or benefiting by their death. It would still give life, for finally that life would be made available through His death. In order to fully appreciate this we need an awareness of vivid Jewish imagery. In the Old Testament the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalm 14.4; 53.4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3.3). Thus ‘eating flesh’ or ‘eating people’ signified killing them or doing them great harm. In Zechariah 9.15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies, and David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Isaiah brought both metaphors together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49.26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death. This can be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament for in Matthew’s Gospel the people said of their 'fathers' that they were 'partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Matthew 23.30), because they contributed to their deaths. Thus when Jesus spoke of ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’ He was using easily recognised metaphors. Initially Jesus signalled the change in tone in His words by saying ‘The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh’. This had more sinister overtones than what had gone before. His flesh must be given for the life of the world. Previously the eating had been by coming to Him and believing in Him. Now the thought entered that it must be eaten through His death. We could paraphrase what follows like this - ‘you are plotting to kill Me (to eat my flesh and drink My blood). Well, let Me tell you this. It is necessary for Me so to die so that this offer of life might be provided. Paradoxically, unless you do put Me to death (eat my flesh and drink my blood), the life will not be available. But as a result of the death you are plotting for Me, men will be able to partake of the benefit of My death by believing in Me and finding life through it.’ This is not a message He had been preaching to the crowds. They would not have understood. But now He has been forced into going public, for He is facing those who are after His blood, and He will declare it. These men were planning to kill Him, to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Well, they will be permitted to do so. His death was necessary for men to benefit from His life. Indeed if life was to be made available it was necessary for them to put Him to death, to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”. And paradoxically the result would be that they could then, if they came to believe, partake of the benefits of His death by receiving life. Indeed all who would come to Him must recognise that they were responsible for His death and must partake in that death and the benefits that spring from it. The innocent listeners would be puzzled, but the plotters would be fully aware of at least part of the import of His words. They knew what their own sinister intentions were. They knew what they were plotting. They knew that they were ‘after His blood’. And so did He. Yet still He was offering them life. He would not give up on them. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
55 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183996 | ||
Hi Coper. If you read carefully I pointed out that the old covenant had passed away for all who had heard of Jesus Christ. Of course many Jews in the dispersion had not yet heard of Jesus Christ, and so the spiritual ones among them still benefited by the old covenant (just as Gentiles who had not heard of Christ benefited from general revelation and could respond to it and find mercy). Neither of these situations was affected by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The ones mainly affected had rejected Christ long before. They were therefore no longer benefited by the old covenant. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
56 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183992 | ||
Hi, I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says that the old covenant cannot pass away until all prophesy is fulfilled. If you are referring To Jesus' words in Matthew 5.18 then I am afraid that you are misunderstanding them. Not one yodh or tittle of the Law will pass away until after this earthly life has ceased, and all prophecy is fulfilled, for until then it will be required by man whichever age he is in. The Law is included in both covenants. Paul was equally concerned that we fulfil the Law as rightly used (Galatians 5.13-15). We are under the Law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9.21). The Law is good when a man uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1.8). Paul had nothing against the Law when used as a mirror. Indeed he commended it. What he rejected was the idea that a man could be justified by the Law. But the Law was never intended to be a means of justification, even under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant offered mercy on the basis of God's gracious redemption (Exodus 20.1-2)and the Law was to be the people's response to that mercy providing a way of atonement and a requirement as to how to live. It was Israel's teachers who misrepresented it. We too need that example of how to live. When we sin as Christians (it is for all sinners, not just unsaved ones) the Law is used lawfully in pulling us up and telling us to get ourselves sorted out, just as it is lawfully used by making the unsaved realise their need of justification in Christ. But we can never be justified in God's eyes by trying to keep it. We are to be justified in Christ first, and then the Law becomes our friend, a necessary signpost on the way. That is why in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clarified it. We are still required to live by the Sermon on the Mount. But the Sermon is for believers, God's blessed ones (Matthew 5.3-9). So yes the Law is still as solidly required to be kept by God's people as it was. It will never pass away until there are no more sinners to be condemned and no more saints who need guidance. So your question is based on a wrong premiss. It also fails in another way. Are you really suggesting that the Old Covenant did not pass away until 70 AD? It passed away as a result of Jesus' death and resurrection. After that it no longer had any validity for anyone who had heard of Jesus Christ. They either believed or were condemned. Israel was no longer the Jews. Israel was now the people of God who had believed in Jesus, the Israel of God. The old covenant had passed away. But the Law continued in its rightful use, showing God's people how to live. So the new covenant came in, and the old passed away long before the destruction of Jerusalem (see the letter to the Hebrews). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
57 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183949 | ||
hi Thank you for your attempt at an explanation which I am grateful for. However firstly when I read of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and then the people being put to the sword and the people being led captive among all nations for the period called the times of the Gentiles I can only see it as special pleading to suggest that this is before Jerusalem was taken. (You rather skipped over that bit :-))) ) That is clearly a picture of the end of the siege. Thus the judgment was over and what follows is AFTER the siege. Thus the coming in glory occurs some time after the judgment on Jerusalem. It seems to me that if words mean anything there can be no doubt about that. In which case it cannot refer to Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem. Your very noble attempt to explain it has not in my view succeeded. Perhaps you could think it over again and revise your comments and give a DETAILED explanation of verse 24. What in your view does each clause mean? Verse 25 then follows verse 24 so it cannot refer to the days of the siege. I did not suggest that Jesus came in glory at Pentecost. Then He came in power (Mark 9.1). The difference is carefully maintained. Nor does it say anywhere that He came in glory to judge Jerusalem. Coming in glory is described in Matthew 25.31 as being the judgment at the end of time when the final decisions concerning mankind will be made (Matthew 25.46). That certainly has not happened yet. I regret to have to say that I cannot accept your logic with regard to Revelation 1.7. It sounds to me like playing with words to obtain the meaning that you want. Peerhaps you would be kind enough to explain that in more detail too and do it step by step so that even the slowest of us can see the logic. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
58 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183936 | ||
Hi stjames7 First may I assure you that I have read the Roman Catholic catechism and have studied the early fathers in depth. Ignatius of Antioch was a godly man and a martyr, but he was hardly a competent theologian. The others you mention came 300 years after Christ and more. Do you really consider that as near to the events? Do you consider yourslf as near to the American War of Independence and therefore able to comment on it with special authority? I do trust in the church that Jesus founded on the Rock. But did you know that of the early fathers that you want me to take notice of 44 said that the rock was the words that Peter had spoken, 17 said that it was Christ Himself, and only 18 said that it was Peter. So listening to the early fathers and taking their majority vote I would have to reject your suggestion that Peter was the rock. And please note that that is on your terms not on mine. In fact the authority of the majority of the books of the New Testament was generally agreed among the churches long before there was a Roman Catholic church. And it was done by the consensus of churches around the world (most of whom did not own allegiance to Rome), not by one church, in the second century AD. Now they were near to the event for men wers still alive who had known the Apostles, and they knew where the Gospels and letters came from. The first in fact to authorise our present canon was the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. And it was confirmed at the Council of Hippo. Thus the Eastern church were the first to confirm it. The Roman church followed their lead. With cordial best wishes jonp | ||||||
59 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183935 | ||
Hi Coper. Yes there are Scriptures which refer to Jesus returning in different ways. For example. 'I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you,' (John 14.18). Does this not refer to Pentecost? Again in Matthew 28.20 Jesus says, 'And lo I am with you always'. Does this not have Pentecost in mind?. Again Jesus says, 'If a man loves Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love Him, and we will come to Him and make our home with Him.' Here we have Jesus continually coming a million times over. Again in Matthew 18.20 we read, 'where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.' He could not be in the midst of them without coming! Hebrews 9.28 refers to a physical coming. I did not suggest that Jesus came physically at Pentecost or in the destruction of Jerusalem. My point in using Luke 21 was in order to demonstrate that Jesus made absolutely clear that there was a period of time between what happened to Jerusalem, and His glorious appearing. He demonstrated that there was a fairly large gap between them. Now please do not go off at a tangent. I am waiting to be convinced (I am not a pre-tribulational rapturist). If you can go through Luke 21.20-26 and show me what it means step by step then I will consider that you have an argument. If you cannot then my case is proved. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
60 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183910 | ||
Rehi stjames7 At least we can agree on the fact that salvation is offered as a free gift which cannot be earned by merit, and that no one is forced to accept that gift. But what is equally important is how that gift is obtained. You follow your church's belief that it is mainly obtained through the sacraments. But that is not what the verses you have cited say. Jesus' words to Nicodemus were to Nicodemus, and they were spoken before Christian baptism existed. They cannot therefore refer to Christian baptism. They could just possibly include a reference to John's baptism, but it is not really likely that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus 'you must be born of John's baptism' Rather as I mentioned previously His words have in mind the many promises in the prophets that speak of the Holy Spirit coming like rain and like water from Heaven (Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5). Thus His point is that he can be born from above throughthe Holy Spirit. But how does John see this as happening. He explains it in chapter 1.12-13. 'To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His Name --- who are born of God. He illustrates it in John 4 where the woman is to drink of spiritual water be listening to His words and as a result receiving the Holy Spirit to be like a spring within her heart. There too water is mentioned but there is no conception of baptism. It is true that baptism illustrates these experiences but it is never said to bring them about. You cite "Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." And that is good. But I do not see there any reference to a sacrament. These words were spoken in front of His disciples to the antagonistic Jews long before there was any thought of the Lord's Table, or as you would call it Holy Communion or Mass. They could not possibly have been expected to see that He was speaking of a sacrament. But Jesus wanted them to understand His words. In fact He was taking well known figures of speech from the Old Testament where 'eating flesh' and 'drinking blood' first of all meant killing people, and then receiving benefit from their death. Thus Jesus was making clear to them in a very vivid way that if they were to find life it must first of all result from their putting Him to death. He was describing the inevitability of His sufferings knowing that they were already plotting His death. But He then brings out from that that by eating and drinking of Him (something that He has already explained the meaning of in verse 35) they can find life through Him. And what does eating and drinking mean? It means coming to Him and believing on Him. So you see if we take these verses in contex they have no reference to the sacraments at all, although we will all agree that the sacraments illustrate them well. Best wishes. jonp. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |