Siyanda

1. Find the next number in the sequence: 32; 55; 165; 1848; .......

2. Find the next three numbers in the sequence: 61; 691; 163; 487; 4201; ....

3. There was a man of the Pharisees, a leader of the Jews called Nicodemus. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no man can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can these things be?”

Can someone explain this to me please.

God demands that we ALL seek him.

According to your own understanding:

i). Who is God?

ii). What is he like?

iii). What are the things that he likes or dislikes?

iv). How is he like, in appearance?

v). How can you tell when he is not happy? Does he frown?

vi). How do you know that he is sad?

vii). Where does he live? Where can I get him, if I'm interested in knowing him?

I get the feeling that atheists don't believe in anything spiritual. If that is the case, then we can sympathize with their ignorance. That would spare us the trouble of trying to reason with them. Their spiritual blindness is their defense to the ignorance they confess about the existence of GOD. Everyone who dismisses the existence of spirits, angels, demons, Satan, hell and Heaven; that individual is certain to deny the existence of GOD.

Theorem: All numbers are equal (We are trying to prove that all numbers are equal)

Proof: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) ........multiply both sides by (a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb ..............Remove brackets

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb ..............Put terms with b on one side, and those with a.

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4 ..............Add (t^2)/4 on both sides.

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 ....................Factorize both sides

a - t/2 = b - t/2 .............................Find sqrt on both sides

a = b ......................conclusion

So all numbers are the same

Among all the bad things that are happening in this world, what is the one thing needed in this world to make it a better place? There are such things as poverty, racism, political issues, economic instability, religious intolerance....etc. What do you think is needed in this world?

The claim that human beings are the most intelligent of all things (or species) in creation is made by humans. Where is the proof for that claim? How do they arrive at that conclusion? Did God say so as well? If God did say so, then that settles the argument. But did He say so?

But is it true that only the physical really exists? How would one test this belief? Certainly not by using one's senses to try to detect non-physical entities; that would be rather like the old joke:

Secretary: "Sir, the Invisible Man is here".

Boss: "Tell him I can't see him!"

Of course you can't see the non-physical; it's invisible. Imagine a man, blind from birth, who is skeptical of the existence of color even though he frequently hears other people talking about it. Just as it would be foolish for the blind man to conclude that color does not exist simply because he is unable to detect it with his senses, it is foolish for the atheist to dismiss God because he cannot detect God with his senses.

Mark 4:39-40 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

By now it should be easy to see that Jesus rebukes the disciples for a lack of trust and loyalty, which by this time he should have justly earned from them, having already shown his miraculous powers and wisdom.

Mark 6:5-6 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

We've seen a lot of skeptics quote this verse lately, saying that it indicates that Jesus was a charlatan who (like our modern "faith healer" Benny) needed people to have "faith" and excused away ability to heal real diseases as a lack of faith. The word "unbelief" here is apistia, meaning a lack of pistis.

In light of our better understanding of pistis, the problem is indeed not with Jesus but with the lack of loyalty and trust by those who reject Jesus. Like the ungrateful client in the client-patron relationship, the people rejected Jesus as a patron in spite of his acts of grace, thereby dishonoring him. (Note how this affects the meaning of Mark 6:4: "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.") To reject a gracious act was the height of dishonor.

Jesus could not heal these people not because of a lack of power, but because of ingratitude and a rejection of his gracious patronage. A rejected patron could and would never force his gracious gifts upon a client who didn't want them!

Finally we look at this most-often misbused use of pistis by Skeptics who prefer the Twain definition:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Blind faith? Not at all. The list that follows offers examples of people who had been given undeniable proof of God's existence and power. Pistis here is a matter of trust in a God who has demonstrated His ability to be a worthy patron, and the examples are those of clients who, knowing this ability, trust in God's record as a patronal provider.

Hebrews 11:1 therefore is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises.

Blind faith? No -- it is faith grounded in reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With these things in mind, let's now look back at our case examples and see where they go wrong.

A "faith healer" named Benny Pophagin offers to heal Joe of his lumbago. Benny lays hands on Joe and prays, but the lumbago remains. Benny waves Joe away, saying, "This is your problem. You don't have enough faith."

As Mark 6:5 shows, Benny is full of bologna. Anyone who trusts God already has all the "faith" they need. What Benny misses is the central truth that this trust is not something giving us carte blanche to get everything we want. What we do get remains in the patron's good grace.

A Christian faces several objections to his beliefs that he cannot answer. He says, "I don't care what people say, I still have faith."

Our Christian probably does have "faith" even by the right definition -- but it needs to be grounded in something firm and not held blindly.

The famous skeptic Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Like our friend Benny, Twain was badly misinformed. "Faith" is believing what you know to be true and trustworthy. Once again, one may argue about whether the evidence is indeed trustworthy, but contextually it remains that true faith is far, far from blind.

In conclusion: If you as a Christian have held one or more of these views of faith, we offer this in humbleness as a corrective. Your faith does not have to be, and was never intended to be, a blind trust -- not in God, and not as something you hold even in opposition.

A reader summed it up well:

"If our faith was supposed to be blind and not grounded in evidence, then there is no reason for God to reveal anything. There would be no reason for Jesus to perform miracles for all to see, or no reason for Jesus to teach things about the Kingdom of Heaven, no reason for Jesus to appear to his disciples after h

This is the sort of "faith" also exhibited by other people who come to, or are brought to, Jesus for healing. The man with palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, Jairus, the blind man (Matt. 9), the Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15) -- all came knowing of Jesus' abilities to heal. Their actions were based on evidence and proof.

Of course one may argue that their trust was misplaced and that Jesus was a charlatan, but contextually that is beside the point. Our point is that faith is not "blind trust."

Matthew 17:19-20 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

This passage is one of the leading "make hay" passages for charlatans like our Benny Pophagin. Not healed? You needed more faith!

But understand instead "faith" as loyalty and "unbelief" as disobedience. So what is the implication? Matthew 17:21 ("Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.") is missing from the best mss. of Matthew. The parallel, Mark 9:29, shows textual data indicating that only "prayer" was part of the original (see here). Wherein then lies the disciples' disobedience and disloyalty? It is in lack of prayer, and a false perception that the gift of exorcism was something inherent in themselves rather than being conveyed through them by God.

Note that the exorcism is preceded by a note that the scribes were questioning the disciples [Mark 9:14-16] -- most likely challenging them to perform an exorcism. We find a parallel lesson in Luke 10:17-20: "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."

This is a firm caution against pride and focus on self, and a loss of concentration on the real power behind the ability to exorcize demons.

A similar lesson may be drawn from Matthew 21, in which Jesus states, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

This needs to be combined with our comments elsewhere: No Jew would recognize such statements as giving believers carte blanche to ask to have mountains turned over (see more here). This is simply a way of emphasizing God's commitment, as a patron, to bless and show favor to the believer -- who would be expected not to ask for silly or selfish things in the first place, no more so than any client in the Roman world would be foolish enough to ask his patron to give him a million bucks to blow on video games. A person with pistis does not knowingly ask for that which God would not or does not will, and does not ask for something to happen if it is against God's will.

In Jewish thought, God was sovereign. Nothing happened that God did not permit or cause. "Early Jewish teaching did celebrate God's kindness in answering prayer, but rarely promises such universal answers to prayer to all of God's people as the language suggests." [Keener, 245] Only a small number of sages were considered pious enough to ask for and receive whatever they wanted -- and that piety was their key indicates that they weren't going around asking for just anything they wanted (like Hanina ben Dosa, and Honi the Circle-Drawer), but only what they supposed to be in the will of God. "Such a call to believing prayer supposes a heart of piety submitted to God's will..."

Limitations upon what we may receive are clearly set by the context. The Lord's Prayer instructs us to pray for daily needs (Matt. 6:11) -- it does not say, "Give us this day a Rolls Royce." Earthly children ask for bread or fish (7:9-10) which are "basic staples in the Palestinian diet" that were provided to children on a regular basis. We can ask for "good things" (7:11), a term which sometimes referred to prosperity generally, but also "referred to agricultural produce that the righteous would share with others (Test. Iss. 3:7-8)."

Neither the Jewish nor the Roman client-patron background would understand the mountain-moving phrase as literal permission to request wh

Consider these three views:

A "faith healer" named Benny Pophagin offers to heal Joe of his lumbago. Benny lays hands on Joe and prays, but the lumbago remains. Benny waves Joe away, saying, "This is your problem. You don't have enough faith."

A Christian faces several objections to his beliefs that he cannot answer. He says, "I don't care what people say, I still have faith."

The famous skeptic Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Can anyone guess what is wrong with this picture?

The answer is that all of these examples offer an incorrect definition or understanding of what Biblical faith is all about.

The Greek word behind "faith" in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. Examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian, and in the NT in Acts 17:31:

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

If you are used to thinking of "faith" in terms of our first two examples, this will assuredly come as a surprise. The raising of Christ is spoken of here as a proof that God will judge the world. However, if we think about the missionary preaching of the book of Acts, this makes perfect sense and teaches us a certain lesson.

Here is more food for thought: Is there anyplace in the NT where we can find someone giving their "personal testimony"?

The answer is yes -- but it is in Phil. 3, where Paul gives his personal testimony about his former life, when writing to fellow Christians. He does not use it in a missionary setting to unbelievers.

Indeed, one will find nowhere in the NT an example of missionaries, or anyone, giving their personal testimony.

This is for good reason. The ancients conceived of personality as static; the way you were born is the way you stayed. Personal change was not a focus, because it was thought impossible. This is why the church remained suspicious of Paul even after his conversion, and until Barnabas (who probably knew Paul previously) testified on his behalf.

But note well: The following is not the sort of thing one will find in the NT:

Acts 2:48-52 And Peter arose and said, Men and brethren, I testify to you that whereas I formerly smoked mustard leaves, drank wine, cursed daily, and smelled moreover of fish, when the Lord Jesus Christ entered my heart I became clean. Now I no longer smoke, I no longer drink, my language is no longer filthy, and I bathe daily. Praise the Lord!

On the contrary. Here is what we do find in the missionary preaching of the NT:

Acts 2:22-36 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved...Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear... Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Peter's primary appeal here was threefold:

He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus;

he appealed to the empty tomb,

and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence -- or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs.

This does not necessarily mean abandoning personal testimony as a form of witness. Changed lives may be, and often are, appealed to as proofs of the Christian faith, and in our individualistic society which has l

Are you really as intelligent as your assertion suggests? Any individually who is certain that God does not exist, must have explored all spheres of life. That person must also have been an expert in all things. That means you must be omniscient (know all things). In the sphere that you know little or nothing about, God might exist.

In conclusion, no individual can claim to know everything. Hence, no individual can be absolutely certain that there is no God.

Can you select five individuals whose character you consider to be well - refined. These individuals must be well behaved, revered and respected across the world for their values.

Martin Luther King, Charles H. Spurgeon, Oprah Winfrey, Mother Theressa, Dalai Lama, Osama bin Laden, Benny Hinn, Barack Obama, Nelson R. Mandela, Billy Graham

Could it be that ants are arguing whether humans exist or not?

Some are pretty sure humans don't exist, but they can't prove it. Others are certain humans do exist. Others aren't sure about the existence of humans.

This argument continues. Another ant observes the argument, and notices that the arguing ants are actually crawling along the leg of a human being, who happens to be standing still.

DOES THIS RESEMBLE ANY SCENARIO?

You get so uneasy and annoyed when people speak about God as if they have seen Him. It gets worse when people speak as though they have had a conversation with God. You feel as if people are wasting precious time talking about God, who as far as you are concerned, does not exist. What makes you so certain God doesn't exist?