Search results

Your doctrine is getting ahead of the Word of God. How does the verse about being judged by ones work = judging one by their heart?

Great point!In the NSRV, in the Book Ezekiel, the commonly translated ‘son of man’ is translated ‘o mortal.’ It makes one wonder what Jesus has to do to be considered one of us, fully and only man who is mortal than him calling himself that repeatedly?

It’s no mistake at all. The passage clearly says we will be judged by our acts, which is the common means we judge. Language usage. None of this changed who we are, nor does the passage suggest it. Appeal to STRAWMAN.

Shows that even after being GIVEN (by God) all authority on Earth and Heaven, Jesus is STILL not God. And it is proper English to say the Revelation from God, given to Jesus. If you want to add, ‘who then gave it to John who gave it to us,’ that’d clarify further.

True but it does not pertain to the verse in question, does it?

LOL. I reference the clear text of God @ Rev 1:1 regarding who it was who gave the resurrected Jesus in heaven a revelation. Where is your open heart and research of it on the internet?

Thank you. Please expand on points 2 and 3. Good stuff.

Hmmm. The book begins by telling us the resurrected Jesus in heaven was given a revelation by God, in his unitarian nature. Therefore, 22:22-21 has to be read in that context.

I am no longer affiliated by the church by that name. I am a unitarian Christian. Who gave his only begotten son? God, in his unitarian nature. The sin of Joe Biden is not Joe, even though Hunter is his begotten son. The Good News is bit that Gif incarnated and only appeared to die. Hope...

Yes, 100%. Did you not read the Scripture cited, Acts 17:31? To be conceived of the Holy Spirit is not the Holy Spirit. The Good News is NOT that God incarnated and only appeared to die but that Gods plan for our salvation was proven when the man Jesus fully died - as all men do - and raised...

The good news is that God made a path for our salvation and redemption. He did this through his selecting the man Jesus. Acts 17:31

There are many translations I’ve never read and have no opinion on. This is one. it is revealing that you focus on putting some down rather than lifting others up.

Exactly right! Pro-Life is the term of the proponents. Anti-Choice is the term of the opponents. Same with the term you use.

What makes you say I say this? What post of mine leads you to conclude this is my opinion of this translation?

Wow! Stunning arrogance. Who are you to say others are unfaithful?

Again, wow! In our age of self-identity, it is considered in bad form and not too humble to use language to identify people in terms other than the ones who so self-identify. It is name calling what you are doing, plain and simple. Calling name calling ‘legitimate’ is doubling down.

We disagree on what is the authority of ‘original intent’ as it pertains TO the language we speak today.

Wow! Frankly, you seem blind to what is involved in translation, focusing exclusively on the FROM aspect. What it translates TO is more what I rely on translations for. Otherwise, I would not rely on any translation but read in the original languages myself.

This is not a term I’ve heard before but it seems this is not the term thought translations use. Certainly, you use it as a pejorative.

I can tell. It does say it all. literal translations are clumsy in terms of the language we speak today. Rather than translate the thought behind each word, thought translations transliterate the thought behind whole sentences or even paragraphs. Here’s the difference. I merely prefer...