World war 2 the the worst tribulation ever...we got over it.
Only to those individuals that felt it.
will the great tribulation hurt individuals more than what job, jesus, roman punishment, naz&i germany, hiroshima, jail, capital punishment, disease, pain, terror, horror, soldier in the battlefield or some terrible pain people experience this very moment?
how worse can pain and suffering get.
it is very common.
World war 2 the the worst tribulation ever...we got over it.
Only to those individuals that felt it.
probably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
Smid, you sound very reasonable and objective, that’s my approach at trier of facts.
probably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
PON
prove that Jesus actually existed
Today’s date
You also need to consider that proof doesn’t convince.
One outside source is Josephus. A Jewish reference to Jesus is the book Toledo Yeshu.
will the great tribulation hurt individuals more than what job, jesus, roman punishment, naz&i germany, hiroshima, jail, capital punishment, disease, pain, terror, horror, soldier in the battlefield or some terrible pain people experience this very moment?
how worse can pain and suffering get.
it is very common.
The G.T. isn't going to erupt in mass deaths & destruction
” no flesh will be saved” that’s massive, so potentially it can.
But to those living it is empirical evidence of God and Christ.
acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
how anyone in this life or any other life could think of GOD having blood ?
Because it’s utter nonsense. How can God depend on his own creation for survival?
acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
God in human form
Jesus said in human form that God is a spirit—and of course what the rest of the Bible says about God and about Jesus.
acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
"the blood of his own", a subtle difference.
Thank you Earnest. I just put it in my own words in English. But literally, you are correct.
probably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
Hi Smid!
I think feelings color your logic so that you conclude “no” with your feelings although the evidence may be clearly convincing to you.
acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
Acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”. NWT interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”. NWT is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of Jesus and not the blood of God.
probably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
When Paul wrote those words in verse 16, he was not referring to his own letters, or the recent writings of any others of his time that today make up the Greek scriptures, some of which hadn't even been written yet.
Drivel. Paul and other CGS writers were writers but God was the author. All scriptures are inspired including the Christian Greek Scriptures.