One God, three Persons - J_M
Wouldn't it have been useful if Jesus had said something similar?
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
I disagree.
The author of John - not John by the way - could have stated very simply the Jesus was The God (Ho Theos) if that was what he intended.
The WT are wrong about almost everything but not regarding John 1:1.
The translation that captures the anarthrous predicate noun best is perhaps Moffatt who has it as "The Word was divine".
The gospels reveal an evolution of the divinity of Jesus. Practical adoration of Jesus by a monotheistic group eventually required a theological explanation. The trinity is a self-contradictory, post-biblical piece of gobbledygook.
I challenge anybody to state it in their own words - and illustrate it - without using specialist language without contradicting themselves or committing heresy.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
by way of a general question: can a system of belief outlive the disintegration of its core ideas?
how and why??.
urge you to reflect, and post freely.. your thoughts are appreciated without bias..
The small print reveals the real priorities of the organisation regarding child abuse.
If there is no mandatory reporting law they explain to the elders about the need for confidentiality. They don't discuss whether the accused might pose an ongoing threat to children and whether they have a moral duty to take action. The welfare of children is of no importance to them in comparison with protecting their reputation.
It's ironic that it is this very policy that is now destroying their reputation and their wealth.
hi, everyone.. i haven't posted here much in quite a while, but having just been laid low by injury, i'll likely be a frequent visitor for some time to come!.
two weeks ago, i was involved in a workplace accident that left me with my lower l.h.
leg fractured in three places (the tibia and fibular both broken clean through, plus another crack in the "neck" of the fibular for good measure!
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.