Search results

Datives are not instrumental, but the genitive can be. Under a prince of demons, or in the prince of the demons would be much better. They were defaming God's authority, saying Jesus couldn't do this under the power of God. I see how saying by rather than in or at is interpretative. it could be...

Some wake up to life, and some to hell.

Do you believe that God is waking the dead as we speak?

How do you get past the use of the dative which is known to receive actions unlike the genitive?

But if we check a lexicon, and it has to be Thayer's. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen of events to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage of men appearing in public to be made, finished of miracles, to be...

Perhaps you reconsider terseness. I will endeavor to rebut you as much as I can when yours needs it.

That one church has be to Syrian, Coptic, Russian, Greek, or Roman Orthodox. The Syrians and the Copts are full blown Heretics. The Russians undervalue you precious Mary idols, and the Eastern and Greek Orthodox can over Heresies of the Roman Catholics. Oh, and I think the Pope is rich like...

Johann typed: Colossians 1:16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα "For by Him all things were created" ἐν always means at or into; never 'by'. Strong's might disagree, but that one misrender changes the whole passage. RSV, YLT, and ASV render it in. The Kingdom of God had place in him and for him...

Somehow you have proof no one had the proper canon?

But "Jesus" was the second word, and it became flesh rather than was made flesh. Unscriptural, and unsupported. Valentinus believed experiences given by words gave life. This is not true in the physical sense, and was true in a temporal sense. Like a neo Passover reception of manna.

Preterism is part of proper New Testament interpretation. You might as well state the trinity doctrine is totally proven.

The second-best thing is to confuse them with details which aren't important. Like the trinity doctrine.

I wouldn't deny they are doctrines of confusion and demons.

You really need to research Valentinus and the Valentinians.

The Father and the HS can't do anything much without Metatron is the rumour.

The LOGOS angel of Philo who created the world as God's word. Justin Martyr called Jesus as a second god. It isn't as bad as saying the invisible God has an image.

Doesn't anyone think it is odd that the Valentinians, Justin Martyr and Philo had a similar idol in Jesus Christ aka Metatron, while Paul and Barnabas rejected such adoration?

There is a "different language" called Aramaic which is very close in syntax to Rabbinical Hebrew.

But Hebrew syntax was originally Aramaic. The NT doesn't use Rabbinical syntax which is found in the DSS and Masorectic text.

The later Rabbinic dialect was unknown and is post Christ. Aramaic is the earlier form which is in Targums, and the NT.