Changes

==1.10==

==1.10==

I note that here, [http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=y1tXnrbQrjcC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Thessalonians+1.10&source=bl&ots=DFtofmQHi1&sig=QwTQnBQ8fGYzyWSZ4Tud1vh3Vuw&hl=en&ei=rigoS4PKKIiSsgOGj8y9DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Thessalonians%201.10&f=false there] seems to be support for one of two possible definitions of saints:  The first is that of the Angels, whereas the second is that of simply very faithful believers (presumably referring to humans).  I should like some guidance as to which is more appropriate.  The author shows a contextual preference for "faithful" though I am not necessarily convinced by it.  In any case we should not leave it as "saints"

I note that here, [http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=y1tXnrbQrjcC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Thessalonians+1.10&source=bl&ots=DFtofmQHi1&sig=QwTQnBQ8fGYzyWSZ4Tud1vh3Vuw&hl=en&ei=rigoS4PKKIiSsgOGj8y9DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Thessalonians%201.10&f=false there] seems to be support for one of two possible definitions of saints:  The first is that of the Angels, whereas the second is that of simply very faithful believers (presumably referring to humans).  I should like some guidance as to which is more appropriate.  The author shows a contextual preference for "faithful" though I am not necessarily convinced by it.  In any case we should not leave it as "saints"--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)