Results 41 - 60 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | why is Barak cited in Hebrews 11:32? | Judg 5:12 | Brent Douglass | 38497 | ||
Those listed in Hebrews 11:32 are those who performed the actions in Heb 11:33-34. Barak put armies to flight by faith. Deborah may have had greater faith than Barak, but she did not put armies to flight or conquer enemies. Those mentioned are those who performed the acts listed. Faith, whether that of the people mentioned or that of others associated with them, was the power behind the acts committed in Hebrews 11. Another example of this is Hebrews 11:23; it was not the baby Moses' faith that caused him to be protected from Pharaoh and hidden along the Nile. We have come to associate this passage with "heroes" of the faith, but it is more accurately a chronicling of the power of faith. Those who exercise faith are heroes, but faith itself is the point, not the heroes themselves. They are simply witnesses of the effective power of faith. |
||||||
42 | Speaking in tongues? Use by women? | 1 Cor 13:1 | Brent Douglass | 37854 | ||
I don't think that the carnality of the Corinthians is the issue here. The issue is proper use of the gifts and the precedence of true prophecy over true tongues. I'm confident that, as I mentioned earlier, in this case the meaning of verse 22 (not vs. 14 incidentally) is not as it seems at first glance. 1 Cor 14:22 does not signify that unbelievers may respond to the exercise of the gift of tongues; that is almost the direct opposite of what the context conveys. Taken in context, such an interpretation would be contradicted by the very next verse. Verse 25 very clearly states, by example, that tongues do not cause belief; they are not a sign unto belief. ("Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" 1 Cor 14:23) The response of the unbeliever is scoffing, NOT conviction. In actuality, tongues may convince believers of God's presence among other believers (as they convinced Jewish Christians of the presence of Christ in Gentiles in Acts 10, or as they demonstrated to the presence of the Spirit among Christians to believing Jews who didn't yet know of Christ in Acts 2). However, there is no example of tongues convincing anyone to turn from unbelief to belief. This is what it means that tongues are not a sign for believers but for unbelievers; they can not be a vehicle to draw an unbeliever to belief, and I know of no examples of them being used to do so. Prophecy, in contrast, is for believers -- that is, its can be used directly to move an unbeliever toward belief. The example laid out in the following verses provides the immediate clarification of this. ("But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you." 1 Cor 14:24-25) Prophecy can lead an unbeliever to the feet of God, bringing him to conviction, belief, and worship. |
||||||
43 | Speaking in tongues? Use by women? | 1 Cor 13:1 | Brent Douglass | 37806 | ||
To get things started on this -- it seems to me that there are at least 2 reasons indicated for tongues in 1 Cor 14 (and supported elsewhere). 1) Personal edification through pure undefiled praise and prayer. (1Co 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.") Pure spiritual worship edifies the worshipper, and the flesh does not interact with this worship; since it comes through the Spirit to the tongue without any personal interpretation, any fleshly attitudes of the mind CAN not affect the message. If the speech is then interpreted, the mind of the speaker -- as well as other believers who now understand the praise or prayer -- can join in the edification through agreement ("say the 'amen'" to your prayer worship or thanksgiving (1 Cor 14:13-17). The tongues in Acts 1 and Acts 10 also fit this pattern of being supernatural prayers of worship. 2) A miraculous sign for those who already believe, so long as they can understand the language. (This is confusing to follow in most translations of 1 Corinthians 14:22-25, but I believe the actual meaning of v.22 is clarified pretty directly by vv.23-25. The point, as clarified in vv. 23-25, is that TONGUES DO NOT LEAD TO BELIEF for those who don't want to believe, whereas PROPHECY DOES LEAD TO BELIEF because it exposes the sinner's heart. Only those who believe and/or understand can see the miraculous nature of tongues, and there is no edification (except to the spirit of the speaker) for anyone who can't understand what is being said. |
||||||
44 | IS MICHAEL AND JESUS THE SAME PERSON? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 37490 | ||
This is a valuable question to consider and look at carefully in the Scriptures because it is a point of doctrine common to some cults and is a sign of danger when encountered in teaching. 1) No, Michael and Christ are definitely NOT the same person. Michael is one of the archangels, and Christ is greater than the angels. The angels of God worship Him. (Hebrews 1:6). This concept of linking Michael and Christ has been an attractive idea to some who seek to expand beyond the Scriptures to some "deeper" understanding, and it seems to be a repeated tendency among cults of different ages (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). Be very wary of any group or teacher who comes to you with this suggestion, and go to the Scriptures directly to test it. There are numerous references to Michael as one of the angels, and specifically as an archangel -- or one of the chief princes among the angels. For example, the angel speaking with Daniel in Daniel 10-12 refers to Michael as "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), and identifies Michael as the archangel specifically assigned to watch over the nation of Israel (Daniel 12:1). Some actually argue that the one speaking to Daniel in chapters 10-12 is the pre-incarnate Christ. The speaker refers to Michael in the third person as a prince who fights alongside him in battle. Regardless of the identity of the messenger, Michael is clearly identified by him as simply an archangel and not God. As already pointed out by srbaegon, Michael did not dare pronounce a railing judgment against Satan in Jude verse 9 either. God the Son would have no problem pronouncing judgment if He so decided to do. Michael and Satan are archangels, one faithful and the other fallen. Michael is not the judge of Satan. Finally, again in Revelation 12 Michael is identified as the leader of an army of angels who defend Israel against Satan and his army of angels. He is again portrayed as the faithful counterpart to the fallen Satan. (Rev 12:1-9). In contrast, Christ is carefully distinguished from all the angels in Hebrews 1 and elsewhere as being unique and unlike any of the angels. He is "the radiance of [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3) 2) The Angel of the Lord, on the other hand, is God. He receives worship (Judg 13:20), is referred to by Himself and others interchangeably as God Himself (Gen 22:12; Exodus 3; Judg 2:1-4; Judg 6:22; etc.), and conversation with Him is treated as conversation with God (Genesis 16:10-13). It is reasonable to assume that He is the pre-incarnate Christ, since their qualifications match and their roles can be seen as parallel (One "The Messenger of God" and the other The eternal "Word"), and this is a common assumption among the experts whom I've read. I believe there are earlier threads to search related to the identity of the "Angel of the Lord," where additional passages are cited and better clarification is offered. |
||||||
45 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37446 | ||
Thank you, srbaegon, for MacArthur's article. I have great respect for John MacArthur and the way he handles the Scriptures, and his statement was helpful. It was conforting to see that MacArthur identifies the "Incarnational Sonship" view as not being a heretical view although he has changed to the majority "Eternal Sonship" view. Certainly my recent study of Hebrews has stimulated this thinking, although much of it comes from the interaction in heaven surrounding Christ's return after taking on the role of eternal High Priest, and not simply the Psalm 2:7 quotation. I'll probably keep this on the back burner for now, but I'm glad to know it's not considered heretical -- at least by MacArthur's standards. I'd appreciate any additional comments, as well. |
||||||
46 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 37403 | ||
This is a very hard question that can generate some strong reactions and accusations within the believing community. There are those who would question the credentials (or even the salvation) of even such solid and faithful teachers as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis based on their answers to this question. The statement, as it stands, without additional assumptions about underlying beliefs, is not hereticaly in and of itself. There is room for question as to whether it is belief in God or belief in Christ alone that saves. Active disbelief in Christ is active disbelief in God (Jn 3:18). However, we are judged based on that which we have seen and heard (see Romans 1:20), NOT that which we have not yet been exposed to. There is no disagreement among solid evangelical preachers or scholars that only because of the blood of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. However, this applies to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. They did not believe in Jesus Christ in the sense that we do today, because Christ's work and person were something that even the prophets and angels could not grasp until they observed them(1 Pe 1:10-12). The same is true of anyone who has not heard today. Anyone who is willing to follow God will believe in Christ if-when they have the opportunity (Jn 7:16-17). Thus the gospel was, at the time of Paul, for the (believing) Jew first (Ro 1:16); I would apply this, in a lesser sense, to any God fearer. However, the gospel, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can also take one who has never believed before -- even in that which s-he has seen or heard -- and transform that one into a believer as well. Thus the Gospel is the power of salvation for the heathen as well (Ro 1:16). This is greatly simplified, but the basic idea is that the God-fearer MAY have life but lacks the sure hope available through the deeper revelation of the gospel of Christ. The heathen, in contrast, had no faith and no salvation at all, until he comes to the truth and the Spirit's conviction upon him. If he (or she) then believes, he is saved even if there were no previous knowledge, faith, or interest in God. |
||||||
47 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37386 | ||
Thank you for your explanation of the eternal nature of the Word. I am in full agreement with you. However, my question was whether the relationship BETWEEN the eternal Word and the eternal MAJESTY changed experientially, NOT whether the essential nature of the eternally triune Godhead changed. Thanks for adding the necessary clarification. I apologize if the question came across muddled. There would be certain implications related to such a change in experiential relationship, as well as the resulting transformation in the way God experientially identifies with and deals with the faithful -- both those before and after Christ's incarnation. However, that's a different question. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to know how this particular idea has been considered, and I want to be careful not to hold this view if there are hidden stumbling blocks associated with it. This is why I brought the question to the forum. Once again, thank you, Segerstrale, for helping me to clarify that the question was NOT related to the eternality of Jesus Christ the eternal Word or the unchangeable nature of the essence of the triune God. The question assumes these eternal attributes as givens. |
||||||
48 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37340 | ||
Was there an experiential "change" in the relationships of the essentially unchangeable Godhead when the Son was conceived? Were "God the Father" and "God the Son" new roles taken by the eternal Majesty (Heb 1:3; 8:1) and the eternal Word (Jn 1), or did these roles exist experientially within the Godhead from eternity? God does not change in His essence. However, did the eternal Majesty in heaven "become" the Father of the eternal Word (and the eternal word "become" the Son of the Majesty) at that time but not before (experientially)? |
||||||
49 | Why Jesus live Lazarus die after raised | John | Brent Douglass | 37302 | ||
I read the other answer that you received, and I think it was very helpful. However, there is a clarification that I want to add. In the resurrection, we will have our own (same) physical bodies, but they will be spiritual rather than fleshly, as Christ's body was spiritual (and could walk through walls, appear and disappear from sight, yet consume food) at the time of His resurrection. I believe that no one's body was physically resurrected prior to Christ, including that of Lazarus (although Elijah and Enoch are puzzling); Jesus our Lord was the first. However, when Christ was raised, other dead saints (holy ones) were raised with Him. (Matt 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.") Those of us who have died since Christ's resurrection will not be raised again bodily (only the soul) until the time of Christ's return, when our impure and perishable fleshly bodies (whether they have rotted in the earth or been burned to nothingness or not), will be raised and transformed into pure and imperishable spiritual bodies. Those who are still alive at His return will not die, but they will still need to be changed physically. (1 Cor 15:51-54 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. "But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, 'DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.'") This is the very point that Jesus was making to Lazarus' sister Martha before raising him from the dead. (John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?") |
||||||
50 | Who is the son of man which is in heaven | John 3:11 | Brent Douglass | 37296 | ||
John 3:13 reads as follows in the NASB: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." The same verse in the Amplified reads as follows: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven, but there is One Who has come down from heaven--the Son of Man [Himself], Who is (dwells, has His home) in heaven." The context makes it clear that these translations have the most obvious natural reading of the puzzling part of this passage. Heaven is the home of Jesus -- the Son of Man. No man had yet ascended bodily to the third heaven, but Jesus had descended from there, and thus had the only eyewitness account available from any human being. Only Jesus, the Son of Man, whose eternal home had been and would always be heaven, could speak of heaven as one who truly knows it. |
||||||
51 | Aaronic high priest under Rome (new thrd | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26938 | ||
Thank you, Searcher56, for the direct link to the Josephus references. This looks like an excellent site from which to get information on these people and events. I think I'll be able to find much of what I wanted about the role of Rome in selecting the high priests during their reign. | ||||||
52 | Aaronic high priest under Rome (new thrd | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26930 | ||
Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first I've heard of Rome assigning the Jewish high priest. Can you (or anyone) clarify where the information regarding payment to Rome by high priests came from? Is there any allusion to it in the New Testament? Was it in Josephus? Can anyone verify a reference? Was there some kind of suggestion of bribes indicated (and-or direct assignment by Rome), or did they simply have official responsibility for turning over taxes from the temple treasury or something like that (w- or w-o a suggestion that some abused this by stealing some of it or inflating the amount in exchange for favors, as this would still be a separate issue)? Can anyone clarify? Also, if possible, I'd prefer to keep this as a separate thread from the earlier question of how the high priest was expected to be chosen (Scripturally and-or traditionally). The potential that the priesthood had corrupted its method of choosing the high priest under Rome is also significant, but I'd like to focus on the Scriptural and traditional guidelines in order to gain light on how the selection of Aaronic high priests illustrates the selection of Christ in the Melchizedek order. With respect to the answer about descendency from Aaron, I fully agree with you. All priests (under the Aaronic order of course, not the Melchizedek order) were descendents of Aaron, and that would include the high priest. If they remained high priest until death, could there ever be more than one "high" priest at a time? Annas was still alive when Caiaphas was high priest. Can anyone recommend specific reading that would give insight into this? |
||||||
53 | Selection of high priests (revisited)? | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26915 | ||
Thanks, Nolan, your answer was very helpful in clarifying that God (and not man) oversaw the selection of high priests. However, I also wondered specifically what methods (or criteria) were used. It may have been as simple as the first-born son (at least at first). Is this a consistent pattern throughout Scripture? (I have no idea.) However, the high priest (Caiaphas) at the time of Jesus' death was apparently the son-in-law of Annas, a previous high priest (Luke 3:2) -- who was still living (John 18:13-14). Maybe Annas had no sons, but the repeated reference that Caiaphas was priest "that year" (Jn 11:49;18:13; confuses that concept for me. But wait, you made we do a word search in my new E-sword software, and I see that there was a "high-priestly descent" at the time of Christ (Acts 4:6). Can someone elaborate further as to whether it was clearly and consistently a transition from father to son (or at times son in-law in the absence of a son)? How did they know when to pass the high priesthood on, or did the eligible descendants-generations rotate each "year" amongst themselves? |
||||||
54 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26911 | ||
(Part 2 of 2) We don't know exactly how long Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem after Jesus' birth. However, we do know that it was long enough for the star to appear (presumably appearing at His birth rather than prior to it), for the magi to recognize it and make their plans, go to Jerusalem, wait for further direction from a gathering of all the priests and scribes, and then go on to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-6). We also know that Herod used the time of the star's appearance in deciding to slaughter all children 2 years old and under (Matthew 2:7,16), and we know that they were no longer in the stable but in a house (or an inn) when the magi came to visit (Matthew 2:11). After their approximately 2 years in Bethlehem, they ran away to Egypt (Matthew 2:12-15). Someone more knowledgeable than I can probably tell you when Herod the great died and they returned to settle into a "normal" life in Nazareth again (Matthew 2:19-23). However, sufficient time and activity had passed for the people of Nazareth to assume that Joseph was the father of Jesus and that He had been conceived after Mary and Joseph were married. People simply knew that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem but that Nazareth was the hometown of Him and His family. |
||||||
55 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26910 | ||
(Part 1 of 2) Dear Richbee, I think rocwalker1's answer is a very good explanation of this. This was simply a comment as to how familiar (and "normal") Jesus was to them. The people of Nazareth knew Mary and her other children, and most Christians assume that Joseph was dead by this time since he is not mentioned again after Jesus' visit to the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41ff). I don't think there is any suggestion that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary here or elsewhere in the gospels by anyone in His life, although I'm confident that there was in the time of the early church -- once the reality of His virgin birth began to be openly taught after His resurrection. Modern myths and images surrounding Christ's birth make it hard to imagine that no one knew, but Matthew and Luke paint a different picture when read carefully. The complete lack of any such suggestion of illigitemacy by Jesus' opposition in the gospels suggests to me that no one (but Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, and perhaps a very few close and trusted friends) knew the timing of Jesus' conception and birth as compared to Joseph and Mary's wedding. If they had, they could have been expected to assume illegitimacy and use it as a further excuse to denounce Jesus and His message. Even a righteous and loving man like Joseph (see Matthew 1:19), despite obvious reason to desire otherwise, could not believe any other conclusion than fornication -- at least not without divine intervention (Matthew 1:20). Jesus' miraculous virgin conception was no doubt one of those things that "Mary treasured .., pondering them in her heart," until she witnessed them to Luke and others after Christ's resurrection. God carefully, deliberately and exactly ordained the sequence surrounding Jesus' conception and birth and the marriage of His parents in such a way as to keep His miraculous conception a secret until the proper time and in order to safeguard their reputation as righteous and faithful servants of God. This is an exciting part of the Christmas story that we tend to miss. Bear with me, and I'll offer some observations (and minor interpretations that seem obvious once some modern myths are debunked). The angel Gabriel's words encouraged Mary to visit her cousin Elizabeth in rural Judeah (Luke 1:36-40), "[a]nd Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home." (Luke 1:56) Do you have kids? Then you, like me, may think, "Conception plus 3 months equals 1st trimester." Mary spent her "morning sickness" time away from Nazareth, with someone whose immediate greeting was Luke 1:42-43 -- "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" Mary received from Elizabeth encouragement and protection, and Zechariah kept his mouth shut too. By the time Mary returned to her home in Nazareth 3 months later (coincidence that Luke mentions 3 months?), she had stopped vomiting (assuming a "typical" pregnancy) but probably wasn't showing yet (again assuming a "typical 1st pregnancy for a young girl). Joseph then publicly married her (Matthew 1:24). The people of Nazareth had no idea that Mary was pregnant yet, but they would have soon if she had stayed there much longer. Then ("In those days") came the providential census that allowed Joseph and Mary to leave for Bethlehem abruptly with no need for explanation (Luke 2:1-5). The most logical assumption is that Joseph and Mary would have been prudent enough to leave for Bethlehem BEFORE Mary was visibly pregnant, since no one in Nazareth would have believed that the Holy Spirit had impregnated her; Joseph knew that from personal experience. The image of their arrival in Bethlehem with Mary ready to pop is a modern myth with no biblical basis; to the contrary, the wording "while they were there" (Luke 2:6) indicates that they had already been there (presumably sleeping in the stable) for some time when Jesus was born. Since we know Joseph was a righteous man, his family in Bethlehem naturally assumed that they had already been married when Mary conceived and that the child was Joseph's. However, in reality Joseph and Mary were careful to wait until after Jesus' birth before they actually had sexual union -- a point which Matthew makes sure we are aware of (Matthew 1:25). |
||||||
56 | How were high priests selected? | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26900 | ||
Heb 5:1,4 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God,... And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. This passage brought up several questions as to how the Levitical selection of the high priest may have (or not) illustrated God's plan in sending the Son to be the great High Priest. 1) How were the high priests selected from among the other priests (other than Aaron and Christ of course)? (This is my central question). I'm not aware of any guideline laid out in the Scriptures, yet they had to be specially recognized and designated in some way. Is there an oral tradition regarding how the high priest was chosen, how long the same high priest remained in office, etc.? Were they simply chosen by lot? Is there something clear in the Bible that I am missing in this regard, or was the method left open by God? Is the Roman Catholic leadership's selection of the Pope (and-or the early selection of other bishops throughout the church) purported to be patterned in some way after the Levitical priests' selection of the high priest at the time of Christ? Any clear insights on this would be much appreciated. |
||||||
57 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 16902 | ||
To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned about the need to use capital letters in pronouns referring to God or in indirect references to the Spirit that are not using the name "Holy Spirit" within them, since this is largely a matter of current language usage rather than any reference whatsoever to either the original Greek and Hebrew texts or standard English requirements. However, if someone uses them at all, he or she should be consistent in their usage whenever possible. That said, I typically use such capitalization myself. I think either version (capitalized or not) is a potentially valid reading of 1 Jn 3:24 (for versions that use capitalization), depending on whether the usage of Spirit/spirit is referring to consideration 1) or 2) below. I lean toward the NAS's view of capitalizing it as a reference to the Holy Spirit. I also agree with your use of the small "s" in your question, since you were asking a question that left room for at least 2 answers, depending on the considerations below. 1) We can be either of the Holy Spirit of God or another spirit set against God. This was the chosen reference of my response. The question would be framed with a small "s" as you did, since there is uncertainty whether the spirit is from God or not until AFTER the examination. However, my response was written with the idea that I believe we are both "in Christ" and therefore "of the Spirit of God;" thus I reflected back your question with the word "Spirit" capitalized simply for encouragement and humor. 2)This could refer to spirits not directly related to God or demonic forces, but simply the kind of attitude in which we act in conversing on the forum (a spirit of pleasant brotherhood, a spirit of contention, etc.). Again, your use of the lowercase "s" would be the only appropriate usage in this case as well. Hope this answers your question as to my opinion of your usage. |
||||||
58 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14279 | ||
I'm not sure what happened with my last response, Ray. I sent it as a response to your last posting, but my response cam back as a response to my own original question. The interface seems to be doing odd things. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I had responded (in case you were looking for an automatic notification of a reply). | ||||||
59 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14272 | ||
Thanks for the added commentary, Ray. My question was actually much more narrow. I was referring specifically to the situation in John 4. Jesus was in Samaria, speaking to a specific group of people whom He soon sent out among the Jews and Samaritans. I don't know that the statement in this passage had any reference whatsoever to his later command sending them to the nations. At this point, I think I'm agreed with the view that John 4 is referring to the patriarchs and prophets, leading up through John and including Himself. Your reference to this passage as a parable (in your earlier response) confuses me somewhat. This is historical interaction without stories or parables being told. There may be some double reference to the disciples being sent to get bread that someone else had prepared and the upcoming evangelism among the Jews and Samaritans, but this is not a parable. You kind of lost me when you referred to this exchange as a parable, and I'm not sure we're on the same page right now. Can we backtrack to the current passage again, or were you introducing a new topic? |
||||||
60 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14062 | ||
Steve, Thank you for your input on this. Please see my response to Nicodemus, as I'd like your further input based on my question to him and my reference to your previous input in that posting. I wanted to send a response to you directly, as well, so that you would be aware of my follow-up posting. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |