Results 61 - 80 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184133 | ||
Hi It is not strictly true to say that the majority of scholars see Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as referring to Satan. The majority opinion among leading scholars is actually that those Scriptures refer to ancient kings who made grandiose claims for themselves, claims which the prophets derided. That Satan was a created spiritual being is necessarily so. But he appears from 'nowhere' in the Fruitful Plain of Eden where he is seen to be in opposition to God (just as the angelic court are assumed in God's words 'Let us make man in OUR image' (Genesis 1.26). We are given a recognition that such spiritual beings exist but not given the details. They came before the creation of heaven (sky) and earth. (Although some would see them as included in Genesis 1.1). His minions crop up in Genesis 6.1-4 and he suddenly appears in Job 1-2, as an angelic being, a son of the elohim, and having to submit to God's authority. In 1 Chronicles 21 he leads David astray. In Zechariah 3 he is once again seen as in opposition to God. In Daniel 10 we again see something of his minions. It is in the New Testament that his opposition to God's ways comes out more emphatically. But his origin is never explained. Jesus tells us that he 'fell from Heaven' and Revelation 12 indicates that he dragged others with him. We must beware of seeing him as almost on a par with God. Powerful though he is he is no match for God and he knows it. Why does God allow Satan to continue in action? As well ask why God allows us still to be in action. It is all within His overall plan. But when Jesus came he was in a sense bound because the Kingly Rule of God had come (Mark 3.27; Matthew 12.28-29 compare Luke 11.22). This binding of Satan is also referred to in Revelation 20.1-3. For his release for a little while compare Revelation 9.1-13. We must recognise that when speaking of details dealing with Satan they cannot be taken too literally. Satan is a spiritual being. He cannot be bound with a chain, be put in prison, or indeed be affected by a literal lake of fire. These are all pictures illustrating how God deals with him in His own way. Job makes clear that he is under God's authority. He cannot do just what he wants. But he is exceedingly powerful (Jude 9). Jesus claims a putting of him under further restraint. He has him under restraint even now. If he had not had him under restraint the church would not have survived for five minutes. And yet his influence is continually felt by the church (1 Peter 5.8). That is why we need to be clothed in the armour of God for our weapons against him are faith, the word of God, a knowledge of the truth, And prayer. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
62 | 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 | ||||||
63 | 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 | ||||||
64 | 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 | ||||||
65 | 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 | ||||||
66 | 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 | ||||||
67 | 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 |
||||||
68 | 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 |
||||||
69 | 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 | ||||||
70 | 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 | ||||||
71 | 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 |
||||||
72 | 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, | ||||||
73 | 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 | ||||||
74 | When you allot the land as an inheritanc | Ezek 45:1 | jonp | 184351 | ||
Hi This is an important Old Testament chapter with an idealistic background, the background of a heavenly Temple established on a mountain outside Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40.1 etc). There was never any suggestion that it be built. It was a heavenly Temple (compare the heavenly army in 2 Kings 6.17). The only item to be built was the earthly altar through which the heavenly Temple would be accessed (Ezekiel 43.18). This prophecy in chapter 45 is thus concerning the New Temple of God to be established in Heaven (Galatians 4.28; Hebrews 12.23; and compare Ezekiel 47.1 onwards). Note its idealistic surroundings. This will be in connection with the coming of its glorious Prince. You will notice that it is to be established outside Jerusalem in an idealistic surround, just as the heavenly Temple in 40.1 was to be established on a high mountain outside Jerusalem, and in Revelation the heavenly Temple is to be established in Heaven. It will provide spiritual provision for the new idealistic 'city' the new people of God (see also Revelation 20.9, and compare also the idealistic Temple in Revelation 11 which again is totally impractical, but is,as as an idealistic picture, very valuable). The major point is that the earthly Jerusalem was now to be seen as unfitted to house the Temple of the Lord. Ezekiel never suggests that the heavenly Temple be built. It was purely heavenly. This was the only way in which a prophet of Israel could present such an idea in those days. Thus in 47.1 it produces waters that will provide the water of life for the people of God (compare John 4.10-14) in a description which if interpreted literally is clearly totally physically impossible. It is quite clear that none of these pictures can be intended literally. They were idealistic presentations. (You will no doubt however shortly be presented with any number of views :-))). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
75 | Give someone a Second chance | Matthew | jonp | 184631 | ||
Hi Does God give people a second chance? See Matthew 18.21-22. Do you think God requires men and women to be more forgiving than He is? | ||||||
76 | What resource identifys Gospl chronolgy | Matt 1:1 | jonp | 184136 | ||
Hi The question of the chronological sequence of the Gospels is a much debated one, moreso now than it was fifty years ago when it was felt that it was almost settled. The large majority, apart mainly from Roman Catholic writers, view Mark as the first Gospel to be written. Some would argue that it was Matthew. The question that is most often asked is whether Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel or a draft of it in writing their own Gospels. A good and detailed treatment by an evangelical is Dr Donald Guthrie's New Testament Introduction. It is an expansion of his lecture notes when he used to lecture at London Bible College (now the London School of Theology) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
77 | What resource sets chronology of Jesus | Matt 1:1 | jonp | 184407 | ||
Hi I don't know if this will help but it is suggestive. (However there is disagreement about the dates which can only be accepted roughly, and about how long Jesus' ministry lasted although it was at least three years.). 4 BC Jesus Born AD 8 Jesus in temple AD 26 Jesus baptized Jesus tempted by Satan Jesus' first miracle AD 27 Jesus and Nicodemus Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman Jesus heals the nobleman's son The fishermen follow Jesus Matthew decides to follow Jesus AD 28 Jesus chooses his 12 disciples Jesus preaches the sermon on the mount Jesus travels through Galilee Jesus tells parables about the kingdom Jairus' daughter returned to life by Jesus Jesus sends his disciples to preach and heal John the Baptist is killed by Herod Spring AD 29 Jesus feeds 5000 men Jesus walks on water Fall AD 29 Jesus feeds 4000 men Jesus predicts His death Jesus is transfigured Jesus pays his temple tax October AD 29 Jesus attends the Feast of the Tabernacles Winter AD 29 Jesus returns Lazarus to life Sunday, AD 30 The triumphal entry Monday, AD 30 Jesus cleanses the temple Tuesday, AD 30 Authority of Jesus questioned Wednesday, AD 30 Plot against Jesus Thursday, AD 30 The Last Supper Gethsemane Friday, AD 30 Jesus' trial Jesus' crucifixion and death The burial of Jesus Sunday, AD 30 Jesus rises from dead Jesus appears to the 10 disciples The next week, AD 30 Jesus appears to all 11 disciples AD 30 Jesus appears to 500 40 days after the resurrection, AD 30 Jesus ascends into heaven Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
78 | sermon on the mound | Matt 5:1 | jonp | 183907 | ||
Hi The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus' detailed instructions on what is required of those who have been blessed by God and are thus His saved ones. For a full and detailed treatment of the Sermon go to http://www.angelfire.com/planet/matthew1/index.html Best wishes jonp |
||||||
79 | What is a demon? | Matt 12:24 | jonp | 184468 | ||
Hi A demon is the same as an 'unclean spirit' and Jesus makes clear that they are under Satan's control and part of his kingdom, that is 'the dominion of darkness' (Matt 12.24-29; Colossians 1.13). Sin is not a demon, nor specifically caused by demons, nor do they ordinarily cause disease, although there are some who do. The Bible also distinguishes those who are demon possessed from 'lunatics' (Matt 4.24). Demons do in fact 'possess' people, but probably only when they open their lives to them in some way by dabbling in the occult. They do not necessarily try to prevent you from getting what you want unless what you want is spiritual truth. It need hardly be said that they are enemies of man and of Jesus. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
80 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183636 | ||
Hi, We must be careful that we do not just fit Scripture into a neat pattern. It is dealing with matters of huge complexity. For example there is no doubt that Jesus came to His disciples at Pentecost. His promise was 'lo I am with you always even to the end of the age (Matthew 28.20). It is not enough to say that He came in the Holy Spirit. He was talking about Himself personally. At Pentecost they were to see 'the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule (Matthew 16.28) which had to happen in the disciples' lifetime and it continued on through Acts. Indeed we must distinguish His coming in power (to happen 'from now on' - Matthew 26.64 which has in mind Daniel 7.13-14 where the coming is to the throne of God but as Jesus says to be revealed in power on earth - 'you will see') from His coming in glory (Matthew 16.27; 24.30-31). But this is not to see two 'second comings'. If you like His coming in power was a continuation of His first coming. Actually the Bible does not speak of a 'second coming' (although it does speak of His coming personally at the consummation of all things). Jesus' activity is not to be limited to two events, although His bodily ptresence is. We must not be tied down to a primitive way of simplifying the complexity of God's ways. We do love to systematise everything. And then if we are not careful we become arrogant and think that only we are right. With regard to interpreting the Old Testament we should recognise that the New Testament sees much of it as fulfilled in the heavenly Kingdom and the true Jerusalem as being the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4.24-28; Hebrews 12.22; and regularly in Revelation. The New Testament does not take the 'literalist' stand. It recognises thet the Old Testament prophets had to describe things in the terms that could be understood in their own day (there was then no conception of a possible hevenly kingdom), but much of what they said could not be taken literally (although of course much could). We must use discernment. For fuller treatments of these subjects see http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |