Results 81 - 100 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | 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 |
||||||
82 | 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 | ||||||
83 | How does one eat wihout a face? | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184183 | ||
Hi The elders ate in the presence of God. There is no suggestion that God ate with them. They would probably see God in the form of the appearance of fire (compare Ezekiel 1.26-27). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
84 | How does one eat wihout a face? | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184182 | ||
Hi The elders ate in the presence of God. There is no suggestion that God ate with them. They would probably see God in the form of the appearance of fire (compare Ezekiel 1.26-27). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
85 | 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 | ||||||
86 | 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 | ||||||
87 | 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 | ||||||
88 | Exodus 24 and Exodus 33 | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184169 | ||
Hi Perhaps I may be able to add a little to what has already been said. 'Seeing God' can signify a number of types of experience. Abraham talked and ate with God face to face (Genesis 18) but he was not strictly 'seeing God' like Moses did in Exodus 33. (Compare Abraham's much more awesome experience in Genesis 15). Jacob met God face to face at Peniel. But as with Abraham He saw God when He had taken the form of a man. It was not strictly 'face to face'. (Even though he was in awe at the experience that he had had). The elders saw Him at a distance and 'ate and drank BEFORE Him'. But as stjohn has already well pointed out they did not see Him fully face to face. All Israel had seen His revelation of Himself in the form of fire (Exodus 19, 24). Both Isaiah and Ezekiel had awesome (in the true sense) visions of God, and so we could go on. But in none of these was it 'face to face'. For it is doubtful if the human body could cope with seeing His glory. This is why smoke and cloud are regularly associated with His appearances. Moses came closest but only after special precautions had been taken. For the truth is that 'He dwells in unapproachable light which no man has seen or can see' (1 Timothy 6.1). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
89 | Rapid conquest??? | Joshua | jonp | 184168 | ||
Hi Sarah, What you have to consider is the difficulty of conquering and then settling a country when the inhabitants are more familiar with the terrain than you are and there are many great forests to hide in, (Canaan was covered with forests), to say nothing of mountains in which to find shelter. Joshua undoubtedly swept victoriously through the land, aided by the fact that during his first movements the Philistines had not yet arrived from the Aegean. But what he did was capture cities and kill kings, persuading them to leave Israel alone, and then move on, and we should note that killing a king and defeating an army was not the same thing as capturing the city. Furthermore he did not have sufficient force to settle all the cities and hold them against the return of the inhabitants. That is why he had to capture some cities more than once. As soon as his forces moved on the inhabitants would creep back and resettle a city. Meanhwile what his conquests did was enable the Israelites to settle in various places and establish themselves in places where they would be left alone. Their opponents did not want to attract Joshua's attention. The cities in the plains of Esdraelon, Jezreel etc (e.g. Megiddo) were very powerful, and with their chariots were more difficult to deal with. And they were well populated. Thus their conquest was more gradual. Then the Philistines arrived and carved out lands for themselves along the Coastal Plain. Thus when Joshua died Israel were settled in conclaves throughout the land alongside Canaanites and as they grew stronger were able to weed out the Canaanites. But unfortunately for them instead of driving out the Canaanites they took advantage of them for forced labour. The arrival of the powerful Philistines in waves around 1200 BC caused a new problem to which Saul had no answer. It was left to David to subdue the Philistines. But that was roughly 200-400 years or so later (dating depends on a number of questions and is hotly disputed in this period). The actual period of the conquest would have been very complicated. It is one thing to defeat an army (of which many escape) it is quite another to make the country safe (especially when there is a tendency to be disobedient). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
90 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | jonp | 184164 | ||
Hi The Scriptures make clear that Jesus did cleanse the Temple twice but in very different ways. The first was when as a young prophet having just commenced His ministry He was incensed at the noisy trading that was taking place which was affecting the possibility of reverent worship. In this case he drove out the cattle, overturned the tables of the money changers, and told those who sold pigeons and doves to take them out of the Temple. His main purpose was to stop the Temple being used as a shop. His cry was, 'Do not make my Father's house into a shop'. It was a temporary disturbance and was probably looked on as the action of a young hothead. Some years passed and the fears that He might do it again had died down. But this time His act was deliberately thought out and was a part of His proclamation of His Messiahsip. This time He surveyed the scene carefully before doing anything (Mark 11.11). This time He did not make the cattle His aim, but concentrated His actions on the traders involved in the activity. He drove out both buyers and sellers, and again overturned the tables of the money-changers, and this time he tipped over the seats of those who sold pigeons and doves as they had not heeded His previous warning. This time it was His own authority that was being extablished. And His accusation went deeper, for now He was more aware of what was going on. And He accused them of turning a house of prayer into a den of brigands. It will be noted that this time He ignored the cattle. The remarkable differences between the two accounts in spite of the venue and the cast being the same is quite remarkable. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
91 | 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 | ||||||
92 | 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 | ||||||
93 | 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 | ||||||
94 | Further to previous question. | 1 Corinthians | jonp | 184134 | ||
Hi ceebee7 It is doubtful whether a practising homosexual who continues permanently in such a relationship can be a born again Christian. If he/her had truly been born again and had become a new creation in Christ his/her conscience would not allow him/her to continue in a relationship so clearly condemned as shameful by God in Romans 1.26-27. I must stress here that we must differentiate between those with such tendencies, who are to be loved in Christ, and those who put it into practise in sinful relationships, who if they claim to be Christians are to be loved but should be disciplined by the church as in 1 Corinthians 5, (even if they are bishops). As you may be aware this issue is so serious that it may well cause the Anglican/Episcopalian church to divide up in the not too distant future. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
95 | 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 | ||||||
96 | Place in Church | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184117 | ||
Hi Does a woman have the right to be an elder or a bishop? Forgive my seeming to criticise the question but the strict answer is of course no, nor does any man. Before God we have privileges not rights when it comes to serving Him. And it is important that we remember this. It was because the church forgot this that it went into a dark history. 'GOD IS IN HEAVEN AND WE ARE ON THE EARTH, THEREFORE OUR WORDS SHOULD BE FEW. (Ecclesiastes 5.2)' and this is true for both men and women. A woman certainly has the right to be made president of the US of A but not to become an elder or bishop. So let us rephrase the question, 'does a woman have the inestimable privilege of being open to consideration for God to call her to be an elder or a bishop.' I suspect you may have stirred a hornets' nest :-))) But first we do have to ask how we define an elder or bishop. For the functions that are seen as adhering to the title have in my view an important bearing on the answer. Certainly exceptional women did in the past have positions of high importance. Deborah was a judge of Israel and a prophetess. Huldah was a prophetess consulted by the highest in the land. Priscilla (Prisca) was prominent with her husband in helping Aquila and in ministering. But Paul puts the position quite clearly when he says, 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men, she is to keep silent.' And this would appear to have in mind authoritative teaching, as he relates it to the woman having been deceived in Eden (1 Timothy 2.12-15). And that is the point. At the risk of offending half the world it should be pointed out that women think differently from men. Men are more logical in their thinking, women more intuitive. Thus they can give different perspectives. Of course this does not deny that many women can train themselves to be very logical, (and many men are very illogical) but whatever their training the basic difference is there, and can come out at any time to affect the position, both for good and for bad. It is significant that Jesus had both male and female disciples who followed Him about (Luke 8.2-3) but He only appointed male Apostles. (He did not even officially appoint leaders over the women's section). Thus it would seem that the Scriptures are saying that overall the authority must lie with men, both in teaching and in church government. For the divine order from the point of view of authority is the Godhead, Christ, the man, the woman (1 Corinthians 11.1-16). Yet that some women have an important part to play comes out above, and on the mission field where there has been many a Deborah and Huldah. Many a tribe would not have been evangelised had it not been for women. But in most cases those very women arranged for the appointment under God of men to have authority in the church. They acknowleged the important principle that God had laid down through Paul. It is therefore I suggest on the basis of these principles that we must come to our answer. Certainly Paul did not visualise women bishops/elders as authoritative leaders of the local church for he said that they were to be the husband of one wife. But in all this it must be emphasised that this was not so that men could lord it over women. It was a matter of each having their proper function in the purposes of God. As Timothy pointed out in the same context women had a vital function which men have little part in. It is in child-bearing and rearing that she will be able to ‘work out her salvation’, the salvation that God has worked within her (1 Timothy 2.15; Philippians 2.12-13). In other words that is her major function in the purposes of God. She is given the prime responsibility to lay the foundations of all future church leaders. It was Moses’ godly mother who laid the foundation for his future ministry. The vital importance of this comes out in the fact that Muslims are reproducing rapidly while in certain countries Christians are only doing so in very limited fashion. It has been estimated that if the present birth rate goes on in the UK it will become a Muslim nation within fifty years. And the US will be next in line. That is how important it is. Best wishes. Jonp | ||||||
97 | 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 | ||||||
98 | bible verses for a suicidal teen! | Prov 3:5 | jonp | 184092 | ||
Hi In such circumstance we all have to bow our heads and be silent. But if he is a Christian or ready to become a Christian there is One Who can speak. He too was laid on His back in critical condition, His body wrecked by the activities of man, and in His critical condition, having seemingly gone through the depths of despair (My God, My God why have you forsaken Me?) He cried Father into Your hands I commend My Spirit. He can reach out to help your friend. Perhaps without being glib you can also give him as from the Lord Himself the words of Proverbs 3.5. 'Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths'. For that is what your friend needs right now, to know that the One Who has been through what he is going through, and worse, will direct His paths and lead him slowly along it. It will need much grace on your part to help him, for he will feel that you do not understand. And of course he is right. But Jesus Christ will be with you and He understands exactly. So take courage from Him. You might also consider the word, 'I will never fail you nor forsake you' (Hebrews 13.5). But they will have to be spoken after much prayer and with gentle understanding. I know it sounds so inadequate but our eyes are on Him not ourselves. For with Him behind them the words are not inadequate. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
99 | 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. | ||||||
100 | 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 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |