Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Don't parse meaning with me. We all read translations that make semantic sense. Hence:
What does this have to do with what we were talking about?
Interpretation is best undertaken in community. Xy is, after all, a communal, and not an individual religion. It's the sense of the community that's important.
Not necessarily. That certainly doesn't hold true for what the Hebrew texts tell us.
Your community. Not mine.
Not every purpose. I don't see where "linking God's will to Jesus' love" is cogent to the verse under question.
"Yours" and "mine" is divisive. The church is one body.
"In the beginning" is not about God's will?
That is right because you use the wrong verb tense. Also, you switch the order in the third instance.
The ecclesia is a spiritual body, not of this world. The Church that promotes error is false.
No, it's a time reference.
"I" haven't done anything. That's how the text reads.
I'd say you certainly have a good start in that particular area of endeavor. Again: the church is one. There is no "other" church. That church is the ekklesia.
Aha! Wrong answer! LOL
And? Can you SEE it? I mean, is it a man's thing?
"Beginning" references time, not intent. I defy you to dream up another meaning for the term "beginning."
Yes I can. The church is people. Who are real, human beings.
Oh no! You are slinking away. The church according to you is the people who believe as you do. No? Can a person be of the church but disagree with it?
We are talking about what the writer wrote about The Word. It is written the word WAS at the beginning, WAS God. OK? Was is wrong.
Nope. The church is the church. Everybody, in all times and places. Yes, people are free to disagree with the church. What they're not free to do is declare that they're separate from the church, and usurp authenticity, keeping some (or many) out as a result of any claim of exclusive authority.
No it's not, because "beginning" is a time reference, referring to an event (beginning) that took place in the past (was). it's poetry, not ontology.
They are free to disagree, but disagreeing is being separate which is not righteous is what I hear you imply. Any disagreement separates a person in any given instance. We are going this way says the church. I disagree and I am going that way. Separate ways. Do I not know what separate means?