It is the most blunt and if it were true then I would think it would be in all the versions. It is a basic tenet of the religion of Christianity. Imagine if the scriptural evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection were as "clear" as the teacjing on "trinity".
It is the most blunt and if it were true then I would think it would be in all the versions. It is a basic tenet of the religion of Christianity. Imagine if the scriptural evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection were as "clear" as the teacjing on "trinity".
Those who hate God have been trying to cast doubt on the person and character of Jesus forever. That's the whole reason there is a rift and contention over translations. You should read "If the Foundations Be Destroyed" by Riplinger.
Those who hate God have been trying to cast doubt on the person and character of Jesus forever. That's the whole reason there is a rift and contention over translations. You should read "If the Foundations Be Destroyed" by Riplinger.
Do you recognize that "communion" is meant to be a repurposing of the Passover meal as a remembrance of His sacrifice rather than a totally new institution?
Do you recognize that "communion" is meant to be a repurposing of the Passover meal as a remembrance of His sacrifice rather than a totally new institution?
Yes. It's not a re-sacrifice.
Yes. It's not a re-sacrifice.
(post is archived)