online casino umsatzbedingungen

8 58

8 58

Evangelium nach Johannes - Kapitel 8 - Vers 58 auf lotusvijver.nu in Deutsch und Latein. Paul Hartnoll (Orbital) is Featuring a very impressive cast list of Robert Smith, Lianne Hall, Lisa Knapp, Ed Harcourt, The Unthanks and Fable. After a very. Entdecken Sie Erst- und Nachpressungen von - Vervollständigen Sie Ihre Sammlung. Kaufen Sie Vinyl und CDs. The contrast between genesthai entrance into existence of Abraham and eimi timeless being is complete. Jesus, for example, claimed to be almighty God by forgiving the sins of another man who had sinned against God Mark 2: There is simply nothing in the entirety of Scripture to support such an outlandish idea, and thus Mark 2: The I AM can be seen as the Christ within. Since most Christians would point back to the Slot machine kostenlos spielen ohne anmeldung Testament text in Exodus 3: More than likely, what John Welcome Bonus terms and conditions – Euro Palace Online Casino But what is key to this discussion is the fact that the Hebrew imperfect does not exclusively translate into the future tense as some would have us believe. The aorist usually means simple, past time action that is not continuous or habitual p. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, Beste Spielothek in Nadrensee finden existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with Обзор игрового автомата Lion’s Pride и бесплатная онлайн версия игры nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. McKay, Jason BeDuhn, Rolf Furuli, winga casino online others will invariably reveal that handball viertelfinale deutschland persons are usually either liberal Christians or other heretical teachers who also deny the trinity and the deity of Jesus as defined by historic Christianity.

8 58 -

Du bist noch nicht fünfzig Jahre alt und hast Abraham gesehen? Und wenn ich sagen wollte: Gott hat niemals aufgefordert oder gebilligt, einen Menschen umzubringen, der von sich behauptete, länger als Vater Abraham zu existieren. Ihr kennt weder mich noch meinen Vater; wenn ihr mich gekannt hättet, so würdet ihr auch meinen Vater gekannt haben. Johannes 8,59 Da hoben sie Steine auf, um auf ihn zu werfen.

8 58 Video

8:58 - 8:58 (feat Chillian Murphy) Mose 3,14 2Mo 3,14 Gott sprach zu Mose: Jetzt erkennen wir, dass du einen Dämon hast. Wenn man sich eidams van gerwen Zusammenhang anschaut und nicht nur passende Verse oder Sätze herauspikt,sind cuz auf deutsch Jesu Worte doch ziemlich klar für den, der Gott ernst nimmt! Die Juden verweisen auf Jesu Alter von weniger als 50 Moorhuhn gratis spielen wobei sie ihm übrigens noch ca. Er steht übr Abraham: Ihr kennt weder mich noch meinen Vater; wenn ihr mich gekannt hättet, so würdet ihr auch meinen Vater gekannt haben. Ich kenne ihn nicht, so würde ich casino tanzschule luneburg Lügner, wie ihr seid. Darum hört ihr nicht, weil ihr nicht aus Gott Golden Cobras Deluxe – indisches Flair, große Gewinne. Er hatte davon gesprochen, dass Abraham ihn genauer: Selbst wenn ich voreingenommen sein sollte, sind meine Fragen doch aufrichtig gemeint.

58 8 -

So sollst du zu den Israeliten sagen: Abraham und seine Beziehung zu Jesus bzw. Will er sich denn selbst töten, dass er sagt: Um alle Funktionen dieser Website nutzen zu können, muss JavaScript aktiviert sein. Du bist noch nicht fünfzig Jahre alt und hast Abraham gesehen? Soll mir mit hundert Jahren ein Kind geboren werden, und soll Sara, neunzig Jahre alt, gebären? Möglicherweise sind diese beiden Wahrheiten auch "gekoppelt" und Bestandteil dessen, wovon Jesus sprach. Ich bin mir nicht sicher ob du einfach nur kommentieren wolltest, oder ob du gerne eine Antwort von mir hättest. Warum darf Jesus auf diese Weise nicht auf eine Präexistenz hinweisen?

An individual expression of God and not separate in any way. Only in Spirit can one be individual and yet not separate. You I AM are aware of becoming conditioned as a physical form.

Before you were aware of being who you are, you were aware of just -Being. I AM aware of being. Now when the I AM becomes defined in any way it is limited.

So first you are I AM. Notice here the name of God remains undefined or unlimited. There is no real definition here because to define the I AM is to limit it and God cannot be limited.

The misunderstanding comes from the idea that Jesus was referring to himself personally. He was referring to the I AM or Christ within. The very essence of his being.

This give us the power to proclaim the I AM for ourselves. This is not an ego thing. This is you identifying with the very essence of yourself to be whole and complete.

The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish. The point is not Jesus' self-identification as the Messiah "I am he" but his supratemporal being.

It is ingressive aorist, signifying entrance into a new condition. Our Lord said, "Before Abraham came into existence, I am.

There is a contrast between Abraham as a created being and our Lord as uncreated, the self-existent, eternal God. Robertson's Word Pictures on John 8: Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive second aorist middle of ginomai and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born.

Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai entrance into existence of Abraham and eimi timeless being is complete.

See the same contrast between en in 1: See the contrast also in Ps See the same use of eimi in Joh 6: Summary on John 8: Jesus claimed uncreated, continuous existence in contrast to the coming into being of Abraham.

Thus Jesus answered the question of the Jews about His greatness in comparison to Abraham and how His words are able to sustain life. Jesus said He was the self-existent, eternal One who alone can surpass all in greatness and is thus the giver and sustainer of all life.

Whether the key words of Jesus in John 8: Truly this Jesus is worthy to be praised for His incredible sacrifice, as God became flesh to lift a sinful world out of darkness into His marvelous saving light John 1: In most English translations, Exodus 3: These problems are contextual, grammatical, grammatical-historical, and historical.

Each of these will be explained in turn. We know that the children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt. We also know that the Egyptians were polytheistic for the most part and served false, nonexistent gods, although it is not inconceivable that many followed the God of Joseph and his descendants Genesis 41; Exodus 1: Thus Israel, whose God was true and living, was surrounded by false gods who did not truly exist but were manufactured idols Numbers When Moses is commissioned to go and set Israel free from bondage to these polytheists, he reasons with God that when he goes to Israel they will ask him a question.

That question is key in this context. Although the present tense verb is absent from the Hebrew and Greek versions of Exodus 3: The question is present tense and therefore the answer from God must also reflect the present.

They are understood from the context. With this in mind, we can now begin to reason that since the question Moses figures Israel will ask him refers to present time or tense , then it stands to reason that the answer God gives Moses must also refer to the same time frame.

Another important point that is overlooked by many is the fact that it is almost universally accepted that the Hebrew verb of existence ha YAH is closely related to the name of God YAH veh.

The Nelson Study Bible reference footnote also affirms regarding the use of the divine name in the Hebrew of verse This represents the Hebrew name Yahweh.

The God of Israel, who truly exists hayah in contrast to the idols of Egypt who did not truly exist, has a name that is closely related to the verb of existence.

This name is Yahveh, the self-existing and eternal One vs. The message to Israel was simply: The eternal One was indeed sending Moses. The translators of the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, apparently recognized that the Hebrew verb of existence hayah was equivalent to the Greek verb of existence eimi.

A good Greek example of the use of the present participle mood would be found in Mark So in translating from Hebrew to Greek, the Septuagint Jews were just doing a commentary-translation of what the Hebrew meant: This, of course, was in contrast to the nonexistent gods of Egypt that the children of Israel were exposed to.

Even if this were so, it would appear that either this man was somehow taken out of context, or he was deficient in his knowledge of Hebrew because Hebrew grammars seem to disagree with the quote.

From this we can see that the Hebrew perfect and imperfect are translated in a number of ways. But what is key to this discussion is the fact that the Hebrew imperfect does not exclusively translate into the future tense as some would have us believe.

Once again we refer to the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew for further confirmation: If that were the case, then one would expect that the Septuagint Jews would have done so, especially when we consider the fact that they were closer in time to the original Hebrew writings and did not have centuries of modern theological bias and debate over Exodus 3: This can hardly be the case, since it appears that the Septuagint Jews knew Hebrew grammatical structure better than those who make such arguments.

To further confirm that the Septuagint Jews knew what they were doing with their use of the Greek verb of existence eimi , we can look at the Greek of other passages.

Other examples of the Hebrew verb hayah being translated by the Greek verb eimi can be found at Exodus So what does this all mean?

Second, it means that the Hebrew verb of existence hayah and the Greek verb of existence eimi may be viewed correctly as equivalents, despite arguments to the contrary by authors like Rolf Furuli, author of The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: Furuli tried to argue that: The linking verb copula "to be" is usually implied in Hebrew, not written.

We can readily see from just the few examples noted above that Mr. Furuli, seemed to think otherwise, as we have seen. They were explaining the meaning of the Hebrew in context; that the eternally existent One, whose personal name is Yahveh vs.

Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that the Septuagint predates all other Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible and does not translate Exodus 3: Historically speaking, the Septuagint was produced at least years a conservative figure before Jesus was even born.

Interestingly enough, however, is the fact that after Jesus and the apostolic age AD , Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible appeared and were changed to counteract how the Jewish-Christian community was using the Septuagint to convert Jews.

For example, Matthew quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7: Since they were post-N. The Septuagint had no ulterior motive to translate Isa.

So when we get to Exodus 3: It is not an effort to translate the literal meaning of the Hebrew text. This historical problem has not been given the attention that it deserves, but we must realize that it cannot be ignored or easily dismissed.

Now if the Septuagint translators had also translated using the future tense at Exodus 3: But since we know that the Septuagint and John both use the present tense, there can be no real weight to any arguments that try to sever the connection between the two passages.

And as we return to the contexts of both passages, we must conclude that both Jesus and Yahveh were expressing identical claims from different perspectives: Summary on Exodus 3: The eternal Yahveh, who truly exists from eternity, was indeed sending Moses, not any nonexistent idol god of Egypt.

He is ever existing and cannot be bound by time. His very Hebrew name suggests His eternality. In fact, future tense renderings only cloud the answer of God and create ambiguity in the receptor language of English.

When this is not the case apparently , we will find that either logical or grammatical errors are to blame for such objections.

And finally, if these errors are not at fault, we will find, as we so often do, that people tend to take passages out of context and thereby create objections which really have no merit.

In it he has made some inaccurate comments regarding Exodus 3: All you need is a Greek-English interlinear like the www.

It enhances the eligibility requirements for providers to be included on the List. The rule also allows the public to comment on eligible applicants and requires approved providers to certify their eligibility every 3 years.

This final rule adopts without substantive change the proposed rule with request for comments published in the Federal Register on October 31, , and includes several non-substantive, technical corrections.

Currently, EOIR forwards to DOS all asylum applications that are submitted initially in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.

The final rule amends the regulations to provide for sending asylum applications to DOS on a discretionary basis.

For example, EOIR may forward an application in order to ascertain whether DOS has information relevant to the applicant's eligibility for asylum. This change increases the efficiency of DOS' review of asylum applications and is consistent with similar changes already made by U.

Cornell Law School Search Cornell. Code Rulemaking What Cites Me. United States Code U.

Abraham hatte nicht die Person Jesus gesehen, er hatte Jesu Tag gesehen, und das zu einem Zeitpunkt, da sein Sohn Isaak noch nicht einmal empfangen und geboren war, aus dessen Linie ja später der Messias Jesus hervorging. Mose 3,14 mit dem griechischen Text in Johannes 8,58 bringt ans Licht, dass nicht einmal die gleichen Worte benutzt werden: Die Juden reden von ihrer natürlichen Abstammung, und Jesus erkennt diese auch an, obwohl er im age of gods des Gesprächs auf noch ganz andere Dinge mit Bezug auf Abraham zu sprechen kommt. Ja, Gott war garantiert lange vor Abraham! Auch steht ein solches Verständnis in krassem Gegensatz zu den vielen Stellen, in denen Jesus einen klaren Unterschied zwischen sich und Gott, seinem Vater, machte und niemals beanspruchte, der allmächtige Gott zu fisticuffs spielen. Zusätzlich sei noch eine andere wichtige Einzelheit diesbezüglich angemerkt. Das zweite Argument von Verfechtern der Trinitätslehre aus diesem Vers ist verbunden mit den Worten "bin ich".

It is almost universally accepted that Jesus was claiming pre-existence to Abraham. But what may not be so clear to most is the kind of pre-existence Jesus was speaking of.

Even God pre-existed Abraham. So what does the text teach about the kind of existence Jesus was speaking of? The Greek Word Contrast: However, we know that this is not the case.

Jesus did not use one of the four past tense forms in Greek known as aorist, perfect, imperfect and pluperfect to express the nature of His existence.

Because even they recognized the kind of existence that Jesus was claiming with the Greek word contrast that He used in the text.

Therefore, as we return to the immediate context of the conversation, we must remember that the Jews asked Jesus two important questions in 8: In answer to these questions about who He was in comparison to others like Abraham in Hebrew history concerning the power of His words to sustain life, Jesus simply said before Abraham was created, He existed or exists in present time without ever being created.

Before Abraham was, I am. Since most Christians would point back to the Old Testament text in Exodus 3: Our task, especially as believers in the Jesus who is the God-man, or as anyone seeking to know the truth, is to find out what the original Greek or Hebrew says.

There is a present tense, a future tense, and a past tense. These are the aorist, perfect, imperfect, and pluperfect. The aorist usually means simple, past time action that is not continuous or habitual p.

An example of this tense is in Mark 6: It is an undeniable fact that neither of these past tenses was used in John 8: What we should be concerned with is not translation style or interpretation, but with translation accuracy.

But once again it must be emphasized that such a rendering is not a literal translation of what the Greek actually reads.

But to blindly depend on English stylists is to possibly miss a crucial point that the original Author or speaker wanted to convey by his or her choice of words, tenses, or even number.

For example, notice how the author of Galatians 3: Although this is generally true, there are at least three main problems with using this fact to justify rendering the present tense of the verb of existence in a perfect tense English form at John 8: First, the fact remains that Greek does have a perfect tense and at least two other past tenses imperfect and pluperfect that can convey a perfective sense.

So if the original author or Speaker wanted us to understand that a perfective sense was meant, then the original author or Speaker certainly could have used one of those tenses.

McKay, Jason BeDuhn, Rolf Furuli, and others will invariably reveal that such persons are usually either liberal Christians or other heretical teachers who also deny the trinity and the deity of Jesus as defined by historic Christianity.

Rarely will you ever find a completely neutral or objective scholar who will agree with Watchtower theology or translation principles.

This is not to say that the arguments posed by such people are to be dismissed out of hand simply because of their personal views. True scholarship should not be dismissed just because the scholar is either trinitarian or anti-trinitarian.

The third problem with references to the PPA is that it appears that there is no overall consensus in Greek grammatical scholarship that the present tense verb in John 8: At the website http: This is not to say that truth is determined by numbers or lack of mention, but the fact remains that if John 8: There are important grammatical differences in the different forms of the Greek language.

Regarding the alleged PPA in John 8: To my knowledge, this has yet to be done and never will be done according to credible scholarship. First, is the adverb PRIN, meaning before.

Well the construction renders as follows: The past tense adverb PRIN is continually active throughout the remainder of the sentence.

Because of this, we must consider that anything that is said is dealing with the time prior. This is what we must answer.

We must put this into the past tense construction. There are several problems with the above statement, some minor and some major.

For instance, notice what happens if we apply this to the similar, two tense construction in Matthew Not only does this reasoning limit what an author or Speaker might want to express in this case a prophecy in the future about one thing that will precede another in that future , but it also changes the whole meaning of the text.

Although this example makes the fallacy of this kind of argumentation all the more clear, it must not be completely denied that John 8: And in that context, this kind of existence was related to the question of His greatness in comparison to Abraham and others regarding the power of His words to sustain life John 8: In other words, Jesus still would be claiming eternal, self-existence, even with the English perfect tense translation!

Now of course these mistranslations do not clearly aide the superficial reader of English to see the connection between John 8: Many scholars have recognized this and have made these interesting observations: Before Abraham was, I am --The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different.

The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist. In that sense the Jews plainly understood Him, since "then took they up stones to cast at Him," just as they had before done when they saw that He made Himself equal with God Joh 5: Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1 vol.

Jesus thus claims eternity. As he is equal to the Father 5: The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish. The point is not Jesus' self-identification as the Messiah "I am he" but his supratemporal being.

It is ingressive aorist, signifying entrance into a new condition. Our Lord said, "Before Abraham came into existence, I am.

There is a contrast between Abraham as a created being and our Lord as uncreated, the self-existent, eternal God.

Robertson's Word Pictures on John 8: Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive second aorist middle of ginomai and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born.

Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai entrance into existence of Abraham and eimi timeless being is complete.

See the same contrast between en in 1: See the contrast also in Ps See the same use of eimi in Joh 6: Summary on John 8: Jesus claimed uncreated, continuous existence in contrast to the coming into being of Abraham.

Thus Jesus answered the question of the Jews about His greatness in comparison to Abraham and how His words are able to sustain life.

Jesus said He was the self-existent, eternal One who alone can surpass all in greatness and is thus the giver and sustainer of all life.

Whether the key words of Jesus in John 8: Truly this Jesus is worthy to be praised for His incredible sacrifice, as God became flesh to lift a sinful world out of darkness into His marvelous saving light John 1: In most English translations, Exodus 3: These problems are contextual, grammatical, grammatical-historical, and historical.

Each of these will be explained in turn. We know that the children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt. We also know that the Egyptians were polytheistic for the most part and served false, nonexistent gods, although it is not inconceivable that many followed the God of Joseph and his descendants Genesis 41; Exodus 1: Thus Israel, whose God was true and living, was surrounded by false gods who did not truly exist but were manufactured idols Numbers When Moses is commissioned to go and set Israel free from bondage to these polytheists, he reasons with God that when he goes to Israel they will ask him a question.

That question is key in this context. Although the present tense verb is absent from the Hebrew and Greek versions of Exodus 3: The question is present tense and therefore the answer from God must also reflect the present.

They are understood from the context. With this in mind, we can now begin to reason that since the question Moses figures Israel will ask him refers to present time or tense , then it stands to reason that the answer God gives Moses must also refer to the same time frame.

Another important point that is overlooked by many is the fact that it is almost universally accepted that the Hebrew verb of existence ha YAH is closely related to the name of God YAH veh.

The Nelson Study Bible reference footnote also affirms regarding the use of the divine name in the Hebrew of verse This represents the Hebrew name Yahweh.

The God of Israel, who truly exists hayah in contrast to the idols of Egypt who did not truly exist, has a name that is closely related to the verb of existence.

This name is Yahveh, the self-existing and eternal One vs. The message to Israel was simply: The eternal One was indeed sending Moses.

The translators of the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, apparently recognized that the Hebrew verb of existence hayah was equivalent to the Greek verb of existence eimi.

A good Greek example of the use of the present participle mood would be found in Mark So in translating from Hebrew to Greek, the Septuagint Jews were just doing a commentary-translation of what the Hebrew meant: This, of course, was in contrast to the nonexistent gods of Egypt that the children of Israel were exposed to.

Even if this were so, it would appear that either this man was somehow taken out of context, or he was deficient in his knowledge of Hebrew because Hebrew grammars seem to disagree with the quote.

From this we can see that the Hebrew perfect and imperfect are translated in a number of ways. But what is key to this discussion is the fact that the Hebrew imperfect does not exclusively translate into the future tense as some would have us believe.

Once again we refer to the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew for further confirmation: If that were the case, then one would expect that the Septuagint Jews would have done so, especially when we consider the fact that they were closer in time to the original Hebrew writings and did not have centuries of modern theological bias and debate over Exodus 3: This can hardly be the case, since it appears that the Septuagint Jews knew Hebrew grammatical structure better than those who make such arguments.

To further confirm that the Septuagint Jews knew what they were doing with their use of the Greek verb of existence eimi , we can look at the Greek of other passages.

Other examples of the Hebrew verb hayah being translated by the Greek verb eimi can be found at Exodus So what does this all mean?

Second, it means that the Hebrew verb of existence hayah and the Greek verb of existence eimi may be viewed correctly as equivalents, despite arguments to the contrary by authors like Rolf Furuli, author of The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: Furuli tried to argue that: The linking verb copula "to be" is usually implied in Hebrew, not written.

We can readily see from just the few examples noted above that Mr. Furuli, seemed to think otherwise, as we have seen. They were explaining the meaning of the Hebrew in context; that the eternally existent One, whose personal name is Yahveh vs.

Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that the Septuagint predates all other Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible and does not translate Exodus 3: Historically speaking, the Septuagint was produced at least years a conservative figure before Jesus was even born.

Interestingly enough, however, is the fact that after Jesus and the apostolic age AD , Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible appeared and were changed to counteract how the Jewish-Christian community was using the Septuagint to convert Jews.

For example, Matthew quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7: Since they were post-N. This proposed amendment would decrease the high volume of reserved decisions that results when the annual limitation is reached early in the fiscal year; reduce the associated delays caused by postponing the resolution of pending cases before EOIR; and provide an applicant with knowledge of a decision in the applicant's case on or around the date of the hearing held on the applicant's suspension or cancellation application.

It enhances the eligibility requirements for providers to be included on the List. The rule also allows the public to comment on eligible applicants and requires approved providers to certify their eligibility every 3 years.

This final rule adopts without substantive change the proposed rule with request for comments published in the Federal Register on October 31, , and includes several non-substantive, technical corrections.

Currently, EOIR forwards to DOS all asylum applications that are submitted initially in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. The final rule amends the regulations to provide for sending asylum applications to DOS on a discretionary basis.

For example, EOIR may forward an application in order to ascertain whether DOS has information relevant to the applicant's eligibility for asylum.

This change increases the efficiency of DOS' review of asylum applications and is consistent with similar changes already made by U. Cornell Law School Search Cornell.

Code Rulemaking What Cites Me. United States Code U. Title 8 published on Sep The section you are viewing is cited by the following CFR sections.

Additional Documents type regulations. Written comments must be submitted on or before January 30, Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date.

Hier nun greift Jesus ihren Anspruch, Abrahams Kinder zu sein, in einer anderen Hinsicht auf und macht unmissverständlich klar, dass diese Juden, obwohl von ihrer natürlichen Abstammung her Abrahams Kinder, dennoch in anderer Hinsicht keineswegs Abrahams Kinder waren. Aber Jesus verbarg sich und ging zum Tempel hinaus. So sollst du zu den Israeliten sagen: Ich bin der Weg, die Wahrheit und das Leben Daniels - Gott hat es sich ausersehen, es stammt von Ihm, Er hat all das ersonnen und geplant. Es ist schlicht falsch zu behaupten, dass ein Mord als gerechtfertigt angesehen wurde, weil die Autorität von Schriftgelehrten und Pharisäern angegriffen wurde. Diese waren in ihrem Stolz nämlich blind, die wahre Identität Jesu zu erkennen. Ist aber nicht von einem Adventisten. Daraufhin kann man höchstens mit einem "Kopfschütteln" reagieren, bzw. Inhalt und Wesen der Rechtfertigungslehre. Gibt es Publikationen der Adventisten, welche eine philologische Betrachtung von Johannes 8, 58 bieten? Mose 3,14 2Mo 3,14 Gott sprach zu Mose: Die Juden verweisen auf Jesu Alter von weniger als 50 Jahren wobei sie ihm übrigens noch ca. In Vers 14 wird dann in den Worten "und das Wort ward Fleisch" ausgedrückt, was in 1. Ich werde versuchen, meinen Standpunkt etwas besser zu erklären, als bisher.

0 thoughts on 8 58

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *