 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > why would Jesus want me to pray this? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/4/2004 2:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | Selah, wonderful question! Here's just my thoughts on this and what I think about when I pray those lines:
I wonder if "lead us not into temptation" has more to do with OUR hearts. We are in a sense lining our will up with that of God's. We are saying "God, please help me to stand strong." To use a TNT term, we are 'taking our thoughts captive to Christ' by inviting God into the areas where we struggle and are tempted.
I wonder if "Deliver us from evil" has more to do with the spiritual warfare that is all around us and therefore is different from the other line. WE are asking God to protect us and battle for us by sending angels to guard us as much as possible.... In this line God is doing the battle and in the other line we are submitting.
What do you think of that?
trosie
I'm still hanging around here waiting for Mephi to come back and address my thread so I thought I'd bop in here to read this one. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/4/2004 3:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
TGB: But I don't see that Gibson addresses Selah's question, which is, why ask God not to do what you and God both know God can't and would never do? What does it mean to ask God not to lead us into "temptation to sin" if we also believe God "tempts no one"? What healthy child would say to a perfectly loving and affectionate Father, "Oh please, Dad, don't take me to the drug-and-porno infested part of town where prostitutes stand on every corner and drug wars rage out of control and drop me off at midnight! Please don't do that to me!" What IS it we are asking God?
Selah: !!!
Who understands ya Sis? I do! Yo!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/4/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: You say testing and temptation are two different things. They are the same Greek word.
Tom: So what? The same word can have different meanings.
Spen: There isn't some big dichotomy with two different separate meanings like roof-(dog barking) and roof-(house top). The meaning is the same concept not two different ones. I believe that you speak languages other than English and you know that the word means what the word means.
Tom: On the contrary. Words by themselves don't possess meanings. They possess possible meanings. In context, they possess one of their possible meanings. "Tests" and "temptations" are different animals. That one Greek word is used to denote each in its appropriate context doesn't mean they're the same "concept."
So yeah, it's a given for me that God "tests" us. I'm not even debating that.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/4/2004 4:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Spen: You say testing and temptation are two different things. They are the same Greek word.
Tom: So what? The same word can have different meanings.
Spen: There isn't some big dichotomy with two different separate meanings like roof-(dog barking) and roof-(house top). The meaning is the same concept not two different ones. I believe that you speak languages other than English and you know that the word means what the word means.
Tom: On the contrary. Words by themselves don't possess meanings. They possess possible meanings. In context, they possess one of their possible meanings. "Tests" and "temptations" are different animals. That one Greek word is used to denote each in its appropriate context doesn't mean they're the same "concept."
So yeah, it's a given for me that God "tests" us. I'm not even debating that.
Tom
A word CAN have multiple meanings, this one has a meaning that is testing/temptation as a single concept. They are not "different" but the same synonomous concept.
Tom: So yeah, it's a given for me that God "tests" us. I'm not even debating that.
Spen: We are not debating if God "tests-peirasmos/peirazoô" us. We are debating "how." James says that God Himself does not "test-peirasmos/peirazoô" us. We see throughout the Bible that God delegates or allows Satan to "test-peirasmos/peirazoô" us. Thus, in this concept, James and the rest of the passages are valid, with the same synonomous concept for this word.
You claim that it is a given that God "tests" us Himself. Where is the scriptural support for this. What word do you base this on? If you agree that God accomplishes His testing by allowing the devil to do it for Him, then I think that we agree. If you maintain that God does it Himself, then I would like to see the passages and understand the words behind them, because I don't see it as clearly as you do.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/4/2004 4:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: A word CAN have multiple meanings, this one has a meaning that is testing/temptation as a single concept. They are not "different" but the same synonomous concept.
Tom: You don't get that from the "word" itself. And you don't get it from our understanding of "test" and "tempt," for we DO distinguish between these two. So it must be some theological commitment of yours, not one I share.
Spen: We are not debating if God "tests-peirasmos/peirazoô" us. We are debating "how." James says that God Himself does not "test-peirasmos/peirazoô" us. We see throughout the Bible that God delegates or allows Satan to "test-peirasmos/peirazoô" us. Thus, in this concept, James and the rest of the passages are valid, with the same synonomous concept for this word.
Tom: This doesn't work as far as I can. God doesn't "shoot" people. So he places a gun in the hand of another person and "delegates" to them (or if one preferes, "determines" them) the task of shooting me. That person shoots me. I wouldn't say in this case that God "does not shoot anyone." To delegate to another some specific act involve the one doing the delegating. But's that's just my view. So I don't see that you help things by saying God "testes" us but only indirectly through delegated authorities.
Spen: You claim that it is a given that God "tests" us Himself. Where is the scriptural support for this. What word do you base this on? If you agree that God accomplishes His testing by allowing the devil to do it for Him, then I think that we agree. If you maintain that God does it Himself, then I would like to see the passages and understand the words behind them, because I don't see it as clearly as you do.
Tom: Gen. 22.1: "Some time later God tested [peirazo LXX] Abraham...." God tested Abraham. God spoke to Abraham and told him to sacrifice Isaac. God commands it. Pure and simple. No demons, no devil. No third party. No delgated bad stuff. A God-initiated, non-delegated, God-carried out test. Just God and Abraham.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/4/2004 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: Nice find in the LXX but still not definitive. The Hebrew word "nasah" is much more centered on "testing than tempting. I find that in the 35 odd times it was used, only 3 are translated "tempt" the rest are "test." There is a passage that seems to indicate how this works with a parallel construction in Deut 8:2. “You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing-nasah you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. In the Abraham example with Isaac, we see that the action demanded was itself a sin, the sacrifice of a child as a burt offering. It is interesting that the word for God is only elohim (God in a very general sense, not the revealed Names of God). Once could say that God does not tempt us to sin but the devil could do so and God does allow such a thing to happen. This could be compared to a general "Providence" versus "revealed will" argument. I think that we both disagree so strongly on this issue that it may not be worth pursuing...
What I think that you mean to highlight is the fact that God disciplines us in love. I agree with this and the scriptures are full of examples supporting this. Testing/tempting seems different to me than "discipline." If we look to the much loved "family example" that I find on this site, it also fits. We as fathers discipline our children, not necessarily "test/tempt" them.
Tom: This doesn't work as far as I can. God doesn't "shoot" people. So he places a gun in the hand of another person and "delegates" to them (or if one preferes, "determines" them) the task of shooting me. That person shoots me. I wouldn't say in this case that God "does not shoot anyone." To delegate to another some specific act involve the one doing the delegating. But's that's just my view. So I don't see that you help things by saying God "testes" us but only indirectly through delegated authorities.
Spen: This is not a gun, just hammer and nails, but I think that it serves the same purpose.
Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.”
“He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”
Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death,
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/4/2004 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: Nice find in the LXX but still not definitive.
Tom: I doubt anything would be for you on this. 
Spen: The Hebrew word "nasah" is much more centered on "testing than tempting.”
Tom: So you’re distinguishing between them. Good.
Spen: I find that in the 35 odd times it was used, only 3 are translated "tempt" the rest are "test." There is a passage that seems to indicate how this works with a parallel construction in Deut 8:2. “You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing-nasah you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
Tom: Exactly. God tests us.
Spen: In the Abraham example with Isaac, we see that the action demanded was itself a sin, the sacrifice of a child as a burt offering.
Tom: The status of such sacrifices with respect to clear God-giving laws banning them in Abraham’s day is a moot point. But it doesn't matter. The fact is, God commanded it. If Abraham felt as you do, he could easily have dismissed the voice commanding that he sacrifice Isaac as his own thoughts or even as demonic, but not as God's command. Yet he knew it was God.
Spen: It is interesting that the word for God is only elohim (God in a very general sense, not the revealed Names of God). Once could say that God does not tempt us to sin but the devil could do so and God does allow such a thing to happen. This could be compared to a general "Providence" versus "revealed will" argument. I think that we both disagree so strongly on this issue that it may not be worth pursuing...
Tom: Yeah, I think we’re approaching it very differently. I see God testing people directly in Scripture, so I conclude that God tests us directly.
Spen: What I think that you mean to highlight is the fact that God disciplines us in love.
Tom: No, what I mean to highlight is that fact that God tests us.
Spen: I agree with this and the scriptures are full of examples supporting this. Testing/tempting seems different to me than "discipline." If we look to the much loved "family example" that I find on this site, it also fits. We as fathers discipline our children, not necessarily "test/tempt" them.
Tom: I’m not talking about discipline which is a parent’s response to bad behavior in the hopes of correcting it and forming good character in its place. That’s not what God does with Abraham and it’s not what he does throughout the OT when he tests people to know their heart.
quote:
Tom: This doesn't work as far as I can. God doesn't "shoot" people. So he places a gun in the hand of another person and "delegates" to them (or if one preferes, "determines" them) the task of shooting me. That person shoots me. I wouldn't say in this case that God "does not shoot anyone." To delegate to another some specific act involve the one doing the delegating. But's that's just my view. So I don't see that you help things by saying God "testes" us but only indirectly through delegated authorities.
Spen: This is not a gun, just hammer and nails, but I think that it serves the same purpose.
You missed my point entirely. My point was simply to say that if a person has the authority to “delegate” (your word) a task to another person, when the second person performs the task, the first person is rightly understood as involved in performing the act as well. You claim God only “delegates” to Satan the job of “testing” us because God doesn't test us directly. My point is that such "delegation" doesn’t relieve God of involvement and responsibility for the "test."
Let’s not argue about it. You don’t think God directly tests us. I do. So you can work on helping Selah from your point of view. I’ll work on helping her from mine. We’re not going to find agreement on this.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/4/2004 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm from West Palm Beach! Going anywhere near there? I'm in FL for Christmas.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/4/2004 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Ooops. That sounded bad! Gosh. Divide up the bits of information. I just was wondering if you were nearby WPB. And I was just mentioning that I'd be there for Xmas NOT because...oh gosh, forget it.
I've never been to Florida in my life. I was born and raised in Alaska.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/4/2004 10:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi! I thought this was an interesting question too, but it seems we're really concentrating on the word PEIRASMOS (1. testing, 2. tempting), but what about the verb: eisfero/eisphero (however you want to write it in phonetic English)? I saw Jefscott write:
"I just looked up the greek verb for "lead" in my Greek Analytical. It's aorist and subjunctive."
Here's something I found about that:
http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/200004/0086.html
The thing about going solely by Strong's concordance is that people are looking for a 1:1 (i.e. word for word) translation and, while Strong's is great for a quick look for a transliteral dictionary, it can't explain words in context.
If the person who wrote this blip is right, then the verse could be translated as "do not let us to be brought into temptation"...
This reminds me of Romans 1:24, though this is an extreme case: people who knew God forsook Him, so God allowed them to go their wicked ways.
God bless, VFG
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/5/2004 1:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Violin.
It's in cases like this that I am frustrated with not knowing the original languages better. I do think that, "don't let us be brought into temptation," is a good prayer. The fact that I don't fall into some sins is not because I am so strong in my faith but because Gog, in His goodness has not allowed me to be tempted in those areas of weakness. The lack of manifest sin is due to God's "not allowing" instead of "my standing."
I am grateful for the objective condition (not sinning) and for the wonderful subjective spiritual experience that I feel (not sinning). In some ways, this condition of not sinning does have to do with feeling close to God, and I enjoy it. On the other hand, God does grant permission, as He did when He granted that Peter be sifted like wheat, this is a spiritual experience that I don't find pleasant. They both come from His hand, however, and Jesus intercedes for us now even as He did for Peter, "that his faith may not fail."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/5/2004 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Orlando? No way! My wife's sister Judy and her husband pastor in Orlando and we're visiting them TOO over the Christmas break (but just AFTER Christmas, on the 26th and 27th).
How 'bout that?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 12/5/2004 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Thanks for the article by Jeffrey Gibson. I disagree with his main thesis that the Lord'd prayer is not eschatological but should rather be seen as a plea for God's protection from apostasy, at least as understood by Matthew and Luke (he contends that he is not interested in what Jesus really intended, but in the end he concludes that Matthew and Luke got Jesus' intention right). This all goes to how to take the meaning of peirasmos. I find Gibson's arguments very weak.
One of Gibson's arguments is that in Jesus' other petitionary prayers he teaches the disciples, the focus is not eschatological but on divine help against apostasy (as if there two concepts were mutally exclusive). He gives three verses from Matthew (9:38, 24:20, 26:41) and four from Luke (10:2, 21:36, 22:40, 22:46). I think that all these verses should be taken in an eschatological context, and that Gibson illegitimately distinguishes Jesus' (and the disciples') trials from the great eschatological trial (tribulation).
My position is that what Jesus means by peirasmos in the Lord's prayer is the great test, trial, tribultation coming at the end (2 Peter 2:4-9 rescue pious from peirasmos; Rev. 3:10 I will keep you from the hour of trial [peirasmos] which is coming on the whole world to try [peirazein] those who dwell on earth; Rev. 2:9 and 10 which mention tribulation [thlipsis--see also Rev 7:14. Mk. 13:19-20, 24] and testing by the devil together; 1 Peter 4:12). If I may grind an axe, these passages mentioned in the previous parenthesis argue strongly against the "rapture" idea as commonly understood. God can protect through peirasmos.
Matthew 9:38 and Luke 10:2--about having God send more laborers because of the coming harvest--should be seen as eschatological (see Matt 13:24-30, 39!, also John the Baptist's winnowing fork image in Matt 3:12/Lk 3:17). Gibson says that this is really a prayer that the disciples are not led into apostasy due to the despair that would result if enough laberors were not provided. This is very weak.
Gibson does not really offer an argument for Matt 26:41/Lk 22:40, 46, he just caims there is "little doubt" that Jesus' concern is securing divine aid against apostasy. However, these verses should be seen as eschatological. Lk 22:40 should be interpreted against the background of the eschatological struggle bewteen Jesus and Satan. This is the opportune time mentioned in Lk 4:13 after Satan tested Jesus. We are also told that Satan entered Judas (22:31), that Satan will sift like wheat (22:31) and that the whole scene is in the grips of the power of darkness (22:53). Matt 26:41 ("watch and pray") echoes Matt 24:42 ("keep watching for you do not know on what day or hour your Lord is coming"). Also, Matt 26:41 is similar to the Lord's prayer and in Matt's version he adds "deliver us from the Evil One", which is similar to what we find in Jn 17:15; both in Jn and Matt 26 we have talk of the cup (probably itself eschatological (Rev. 14:10, 16:19)).
Luke 21:36 could be read in an eschatological light because of the mention of the Son of Man.
Matt 24:20 is also eschatological, it occurs in the Olivet Discourse!
Gibson's thesis is weak, which is not to say that the gospel writers were not interested from keeping people from apostasy. However one wants to interpret the agent of the final testing (God or Satan), I think we can eliminate the idea of "temptation" as an incitement to sin in the Lord's prayer. For the case that it is God who can test see 2 Chronicles 32:31.
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/5/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Violin for God:
Hi! I thought this was an interesting question too, but it seems we're really concentrating on the word PEIRASMOS (1. testing, 2. tempting), but what about the verb: eisfero/eisphero (however you want to write it in phonetic English)? I saw Jefscott write:
"I just looked up the greek verb for "lead" in my Greek Analytical. It's aorist and subjunctive."
Here's something I found about that:
http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/200004/0086.html
The thing about going solely by Strong's concordance is that people are looking for a 1:1 (i.e. word for word) translation and, while Strong's is great for a quick look for a transliteral dictionary, it can't explain words in context.
If the person who wrote this blip is right, then the verse could be translated as "do not let us to be brought into temptation"...
This reminds me of Romans 1:24, though this is an extreme case: people who knew God forsook Him, so God allowed them to go their wicked ways.
Thanks for getting me out of my polyanna mode. The root verb means to bear or carry. It has the eis preposition indicating "bear into" (temptation). The link you provided caused me to look further. The aorist subjunctive probably doesn't alleviate anything, for I found in Burton's book on Moods and Tenses that such a construction (i.e., used with "not") is used as a "prohibitory" subjunctive, which expresses prohibtion or negative entreaty. Other cases are Matt. 6:34 and Heb. 3:8.
quote:
KingSaint:
My position is that what Jesus means by peirasmos in the Lord's prayer is the great test, trial, tribultation coming at the end (2 Peter 2:4-9 rescue pious from peirasmos; Rev. 3:10 I will keep you from the hour of trial [peirasmos] which is coming on the whole world to try [peirazein] those who dwell on earth; Rev. 2:9 and 10 which mention tribulation [thlipsis--see also Rev 7:14. Mk. 13:19-20, 24] and testing by the devil together; 1 Peter 4:12). If I may grind an axe, these passages mentioned in the previous parenthesis argue strongly against the "rapture" idea as commonly understood. God can protect through peirasmos.
Good point. But could you be more clear as to how it addresses the original question? Are you saying that the prayer is effectual? If so, wouldn't that imply that God WOULD lead them into the eschatological test if the prayer was not prayed? And if so, how does that square with the James verse?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/5/2004 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Kingsaint: However one wants to interpret the agent of the final testing (God or Satan), I think we can eliminate the idea of "temptation" as an incitement to sin in the Lord's prayer. For the case that it is God who can test see 2 Chronicles 32:31.
Spen: Thank you for the wonderful verse. I think that this verse does not have God directly "testing" Hezekiah Himself, confirming the comments in James. We find in 2 Kings that Hezekiah's actions were NOT pleasing to God and were sinful. In Isaiah 39:2 we find that Hezekiah rejoiced over the attention that he received from the king of Babylon. As a result, God responded by telling Hezekiah that all his possessions and sons would be carried to Babylon. Hezekiah wasn't bothered because the pronouncement only afflicted his sons and not himself. Hezekiah fell into temptation and sin, rejoicing over the attention of Bayblon and not caring about judgment coming on his sons.
What was facinating to me was HOW God tested Hezekiah. The verse in 2 Chron 32 that you mention shows God actively "forsaking" or "abandoning" Hezekiah in order to test him. God did not Himself directly test Hezekiah. God used the attentions of the king of Babylon (God's enemies) to test him. God withdraws from keeping Hezekiah and he sins. "Lead us not into temptation" from this perspective would be a plea to God not to forsake/abandon us but to deliver us from the tempter.
2 Chron 32:31
Even in the matter of the envoys of the rulers of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that had happened in the land, God left him alone-azab only to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
azab (736d); a prim. root; to leave, forsake, abandon
2 Kings 20:13
There was nothing in his house nor in all his dominion that Hezekiah did not show them. Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah and said to him, “What did these men say, and from where have they come to you?” And Hezekiah said, “They have come from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” So Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing among my treasuries that I have not shown them.”
Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the LORD. ‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and all that your fathers have laid up in store to this day will be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,’ says the LORD. ‘Some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you will beget, will be taken away; and they will become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.’”
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/5/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Thanks for getting me out of my polyanna mode. The root verb means to bear or carry. It has the eis preposition indicating "bear into" (temptation). The link you provided caused me to look further. The aorist subjunctive probably doesn't alleviate anything, for I found in Burton's book on Moods and Tenses that such a construction (i.e., used with "not") is used as a "prohibitory" subjunctive, which expresses prohibtion or negative entreaty. Other cases are Matt. 6:34 and Heb. 3:8.
You just got me thinking about one more thing... about the placement of "not". I wish I actually knew Greek, but I've been learning a lot about translation and word order does in fact affect the meaning as well. For example, there's a slight but important difference between "Do not let us be brought into temptation" and "Do let us be brought NOT into temptation". The first is just a simple statement, allowing that statement to stand alone. In the second statement, the NOT placement hints a continuation... the "let NOT x, *BUT instead* let y". I'm not sure if my explanation is clear, but here's another try.
If I were to say "Let me go NOT to the store, BUT (instead) to the park." If I were to just let the first part of the statement hang alone, "Let me go not to the park," then you'd wonder, "ok, where's the rest of your request?" So if this holds water in relation to Greek grammar, this would also go along with Tom's point that the two halves of this verse CANNOT be separated.
So another possible meaning of this verse might be:
Let us be brought NOT into temptations, BUT (instead) [bring us/save us/deliver us] from [evil/that which would cause us to stumble].
Or: Keep door #1 unavailable, out of the realm of possibilities that would cause us to stumble, and let door #2, the one that keeps us from the evil one's grasp, be available.
If this verse does contain the "prohibitory" subjunctive, this meaning would agree as well. Subjunctive (correct me if I'm wrong) means that one part of the statement is dependent upon the existence of another part of the statement (or the other part could also simply be implied, depending on the context). Here, the first part of the statement prohibits (temptations), the second part allows (deliverance).
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
| 60 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:47 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|