Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mark 16: 9- 20
#8
Yes, 1199 year.
On the other site it is not big problem.
The bigger problem is Trinity formula at the end of Matthew.
Logically, It should be admitted either
There was very early insertion or the Apostles put aside
the command and baptized only in the name of Jesus.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Bram - 05-10-2013, 09:20 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Thirdwoe - 05-10-2013, 06:46 PM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by IPOstapyuk - 05-10-2013, 10:13 PM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Bram - 05-11-2013, 04:30 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by IPOstapyuk - 05-11-2013, 04:40 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Bram - 05-11-2013, 05:55 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Thirdwoe - 05-11-2013, 07:58 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by IPOstapyuk - 05-11-2013, 03:13 PM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Thirdwoe - 05-11-2013, 07:09 PM
Matthew 28:19 - by IPOstapyuk - 05-11-2013, 09:53 PM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Bram - 05-12-2013, 05:10 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Mike Kar - 05-13-2013, 07:27 PM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Mike Kar - 05-13-2013, 08:08 PM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Thirdwoe - 05-14-2013, 02:53 AM
Re: Mark 16: 9- 20 - by Mike Kar - 05-14-2013, 03:29 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)