charismaticlady
Active Member
Do you believe we are made sinless once we are born again? The type of sin (of the two) that I am speaking of is lawlessness - sins unto death? What is the other type of sin? That's a quiz. LOL
The Trinity made easy
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
101G
Active Member
speaking on Lawlessness, Romans 4:7 "Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." Romans 4:8 "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."
Sin that leads to death is deliberate refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. (and note, the RESEN Lord, the Holy Spirit). 1 John 5:17 "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."
Hebrews 8:12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." did you understand those two verses?
101G.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Yes, I do understand them. The first is regarding the Old Covenant and David's repentance and forgiveness. The second is regarding our New Covenant for those who have been born again and most importantly filled with the Spirit of Christ.
It is good that you know the second type of sins are sins not unto death. But what exactly are they in general?
101G
Active Member
But what exactly are they in general? deliberate, and unaware. scripture, Romans 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
also, Romans 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
101G
charismaticlady
Active Member
My post #801. You said you copied it. Did you read it? Anyway, 2 Peter 1:5-7 is how to overcome those sins not unto death.
101G
Active Member
Well if you're banking on 2 Peter 1:5-7, then you will be .... banking. which is Good. but as LONG as we're in these fleshly bodies, 1 John, 1:8 & 9 is the Bank for 101G, until the Lord returns. for 1 John confirms this for me. and two, your perfection is it not already set? are you not in a binding covenant as we speak?
101G.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Seeing as 1 John 1:6, 8 and 10 are those who know about God, but haven't met Jesus. They are for those still in darkness not light. It is verse 7 that is a Christian. If you believe they say that a born again Christian is about Christians then why would John say, "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin." And why does John write in chapter 3 that those who sin have never known Christ? John also writes in chapter two what verses 8 and 10 actually mean. "4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. "
101G
Active Member
the keyword is "have sinned" past tense, and the Lord Jesus paid for those sins, scriptures, Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"
so, those who "have sin", before coming to Christ is now justified in Christ Jesus. and as new born babes, we are not yet perfected. so, while we're growing in Christ Jesus, we may stumble, but never fall from GRACE, for we're in a BINDING COVENANT. and in this covenant, we have an advocate on our behalf.
so, 101G have never seen a NEWBORN babe start to walking right after birth. so it is with the NEW BORN AGAIN Christian. we must GROW, and in this growth, we have his GRACE in forgiveness of sin, (per 1 John 1:8 & 9). until we mature in Christ. for he is the Author and finisher of our FAITH. until he finishes, we as human still in this flesh will sin. else you're PERFECT already.
101G.,
charismaticlady
Active Member
The Romans 3:24 is the same as 2 Peter 1:9, "For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his." That cleansing of sins against the Ten Commandments makes us righteous from day one.
True, but IN Christ we can become perfect which is holy as we grow. Some church denominations believe we will never be perfect in this lifetime until we "leave these bodies." Is that what you believe 101G? I do not believe that. I believe the life-long process we grow in will perfect us and cause us to finally come to a place where we "never stumble." 2 Peter 1, "for if you do these things you will never stumble"
101G
Active Member
yes, but dose it keep us clean after day one? see 2 Peter 1:5-7 first.
here is my answer, Hebrews 7:11 "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?"
so, if this current flesh and blood is perfected, WHY NEED THE CHANGE? understand.....
101G.
charismaticlady
Active Member
No, I don't understand this:" if this current flesh and blood is perfected, WHY NEED THE CHANGE?" What are you believing with this statement? That we don't need to be made perfect?
101G
Active Member
no, no, no, listen .... "UNTIL" we're perfected. now my faith might not be where your faith is at. this is why we do have an advocate. mediator, and comforter, until we're perfected....... IN THIS WORLD?
101G.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Oh, okay. So what is the main ingredient on our part to being perfected? Hint: it is the same thing for staying righteous.
Last edited:
DavidTree
Active Member
jw's do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ
their false teaching relegates Lord Jesus Christ as the 'servant of God' only
their false teaching is that LJC(allow me to abbreviate) is NOT The Savior but is 'a savior'
their false teaching regulates LJC as 'a king' and NOT the "KING of kings"
their false teachings regulates LJC as 'a lord' but NOT the "LORD of lords"
they are clever in their deception and do not believe the Holy Scriptures but CHANGE them to conform to their false religion
Unless you know THE LORD and Savior, you can be tricked by them believing that they truly worship the only God and Savior of the Bible
Last edited:
DavidTree
Active Member
No, he is not a apostle.
"He is The Apostle and High Priest of our profession,"
No one is above HIM or has more Authority than HIM save HIS FATHER
101G
Active Member
staying righteous? ........ are we not righteous in Christ Jesus? Listen, Romans 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:21 "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;" LISTEN, Romans 3:22 "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:" Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" Romans 3:26 "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
we're righteous in Christ Jesus, and the term "justified" simply means DECLARED RIGHTIOUS. see, it's not us who live, but he in us that live. by FAITH we live in HIM. understand now.? and because of HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS....... and not our righteousness, we're declared righteous or justified before God and are sealed with the Holy Spirit. are we not in a binding covenant that cannot be broken? yes. so the only thing we need to do is believe in this justification that God has done for us..... BY FAITH. remember, Romans 3:22 "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"
hope this help
101G.
101G
Active Member
"No one is above HIM or has more Authority than HIM save HIS FATHER".
not for an argument, ok, but for edification. question, is not the Lord Jesus the Father in Glorified flesh and bone, but without blood. supportive scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" here, "EQUAL "WITH" God is not above, nor below. but the same ONE PERSON. can you agree? because 101G have scripture, not commentary, or 101G own thought, but God Holy Scriptures to back up this claim.
so, do you agree or not? if not please post your scriptures that say the Lord Jesus is not EQUAL "WITH" God as the same one person.
notice what 101G is claiming, not a separate and distinct person, but the same EXACT PERSON, where EXACT meaning not approximated in any way; precise.
101G.
Peterlag
Active Member
You love this verse so muck @101G that I thought I would post data on it...
“though being.” Although many translations translate this present participle huparchō (#5225 ὑπάρχω) as “though he was,” it is preferable to keep the present, continuous aspect of the participle. The simple past tense, “though he was in the form of God” could be taken to mean that he ceased to be in the form of God at some later point which the present participle does not communicate.
“appearance of God.” This entry really concerns the entire passage of Phil. 2:6-8. One of the great purposes of Philippians is to encourage the Church to unity and humility, and in fact, unity can only be achieved through humility. (We see Paul’s plea for unity in Phil. 1:27 and 2:2, and see his plea for humility in Phil. 2:3). After telling people to be humble and to look out for other people’s interests, he gives the example of Jesus, saying, “Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). Jesus was in the form of God, that is, as God’s Son he had divine position and authority, but he humbled himself and became a servant to others. Similarly, no matter what your position is in the Church, whether you are an apostle or have a leadership ministry, you are called to humble yourself and serve, not be served.
These verses have been used to support the Trinity, but they do not. Actually, they have caused division among Trinitarians. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point.
First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form” which is the Greek word morphē, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Phil. 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphē to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them.
Vine’s Lexicon has under “form” “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual… it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Phil. 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.
A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.” Gerard Kittel, TDNT, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”
The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphē in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphē should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphē does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.
From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.
Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.
More evidence for the word morphē referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).
The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphē several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphē) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice” (Job 4:15-16). There is no question here that morphē refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphē in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphē referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphē) of his countenance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.
For still more documentation that the Jews used morphē to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the “Apocrypha” books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. “Apocrypha” literally means “obscure” or “hidden away” and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time, and contain the word morphē. In the Apocrypha, morphē is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in “The Wisdom of Solomon” is the following: “Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms” (18:1). A study of morphē in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.
There is still more evidence. Morphē is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphē refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change.
Another reason that morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in this context is that if the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.
So what can we conclude about morphē? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.
Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphē, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphē) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet. We say, “Wow, you’ve lost weight,” or “You have changed your hairstyle,” and point out even minor changes in appearance.
Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphē) of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphē) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians 2:6-8, schema can be synonymous with morphē, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.
Another point we should make is that it has been suggested that since the phrase morphē theou (μορφῇ θεοῦ), traditionally “form of God” is parallel with the phrase in Phil. 2:7, morphēdoulou (μορφὴν δούλου), “form of a slave” that the translation “form of a god” is better than “form of God.” However, it seems more likely that “form of God” is correct since that phrase is governed by the preposition en (“in”) which means the noun Theos does not need to have a definite article before it to be “God” and that is especially true in light of the fact that the second Theos in Phil. 2:6 clearly refers to God and not “a god.” We would say “a servant” because the noun is singular, but “God” is singular by nature whereas saying “a God” or “a god” actually confuses the translation. Also, saying “the form of a god” would miss the point of the verse, because it is not saying that Jesus was “a god” so he did not grasp at equality with God, rather it is saying that he was in outward form God (his actions, his authority, as explained above), yet he did not grasp at equality with God, his Father.
“considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, the phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.
Because harpagmos does not have a clear meaning from the Greek sources, people define it according to their theology. So, for example, Hawthorne and Martin give some examples of how theologians have thought about harpagmos. Some theologians believe it means something that is “not yet possessed but desirable, a thing to be snatched at, grasped after, as Adam or Satan, each in his own way, grasped after being equal with God.” We agree with that position, but it presupposes that Jesus was not God. Trinitarian theologians are more apt to think harpagmos means something that is already attained and to be held on to. Thus, if Jesus was God, he would naturally want to hold on to that position, but instead, he gave it up and mysteriously became a God-man. Other Trinitarian theologians think it refers to a “windfall” “piece of good fortune” or “lucky find.” In that case, Jesus did not think that being equal with God was something to be exploited or taken advantage of. Other theologians take the meaning from the verb which is found in 1 Thess. 4:17 and means “suddenly caught up” referring to the “Rapture” of the Church. That makes for a very obscure point in Philippians 2:6, the essence of which is that Jesus was in the form of God but did not think being with God was a “rapture” something that could be done for him because it was his nature to begin with. No spirit could bring him to that state.
The point of showing the above interpretations is to show that the meaning of the noun harpagmos is not clear. Instead, theologians bring their theology to the text and explain harpagmos in terms of what makes sense to them in view of what they believe fits with the scope of Scripture.
However, the most frequent way to translate this phrase by Trinitarians is something close to, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (ESV, NASB, NAB, NET). Although this is not a bad translation, the term “grasped” is ambiguous enough that one of the clear aspects of the word in question, harpagmos (#725 ἁρπαγμός), might be missed. Although a precise meaning of harpagmos is not evident because it is a hapax legomenon, that is, it only occurs here in the New Testament, and it is fairly rare in Greek secular literature, there is an aspect of the word that is clear in every use. It denotes something that one does not currently have. When observing its uses in extra-biblical Greek, a pattern emerges. It refers to “a seizure of property” in Plutarch, and a “prize to be grasped” referring to how Peter viewed his impending death on the cross (quoted in Eusebius) and it is extremely close semantically to the meaning of harpagma which is used 18 times in the Septuagint and means “booty” or “spoil.” Additionally, the verb with essentially the same root harpagē (# 724 ἁρπαγή) means “robbery” or “plunder.” In all of these uses harpagmos and its close semantic neighbors refer to something that one does not already own or possess, rather, it refers to something that is taken, stolen, or acquired. Thus, when Trinitarian translators just simply use the phrase, “something to be grasped” one could understand this to mean that Jesus already possessed it, but simply let go of his equality with God when he “emptied himself.” However, this misses the meaning of the word. It refers to something one does not currently possess, thus, it is best to translate the idea as “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at” which clarifies that Jesus did not possess equality with God.
There is another aspect of this verse that solidifies the Biblical Unitarian understanding even more. Recently, Skip Moen, a Trinitarian, has pointed out that the “not” in Philippians 2:6 does not go with the verb hēgeomai (#2233 ἡγέομαι; “think, consider, deem, reckon”) even though almost all English versions have it that way, but rather it goes with the noun harpagmos. That means the verse does not read, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at” (NIV84), but rather should read, “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, it clarifies that it is not as if Jesus simply did not consider equality with God, but that he considered it and thought that it was not something to be grasped at. In that light, as Moen writes “the implication is that Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable.” Moen goes on: “It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with God voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.” In that light, we can clearly see the contrast between Satan and Christ (or Adam and Christ) because while Satan and Adam were blinded by pride and desire and wanted to be like God, Christ remained humble and retained the clear knowledge that being equal with God was completely unattainable, and was content to fulfill the purpose that God had for him, and joyfully did the will of God.
101G
Active Member
Glad you commented on this. how one take it makes no mind to 101G, let's here what God say about the Lord Jesus being EQUAL "WITH". scripture, Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."
this is the LORD speaking, he the "LORD" said, "the MAN who is my FELLOW". this is in reference to Christ, (one can cross reference this verse to Matthew 26:31). the Hebrew term "FELLOW" is,
H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.
God is speaking about Christ, the Lord. and here we see that this man is A. concrete, but God is Spirit. and the KJV can translate this "fellow" as "another". as in the NT G243 Allos, another Comforter. and G243 definition is, "Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort" 101G is using the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words for G243 allos. and while online one can look up the term SORT at dictionary.com and it means, "a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature" and it is Synonyms with: nature, character, rank, order, family, class. BINGO, the same NATURE, there is our answer by God. he the Lord Jesus has the SAME NATURE..... get this, "numerical difference" in the EQUAL SHARE, just as Philippians 2:6 clearly states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
see Pete, 101G don't have to make up an excuse, or a counter proposal. BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD. as the scriptures states, "STUDY TO SHOW YOURSELF APPROVE UNTO GOD.".
so you're reproved.
101G.
Peterlag
Active Member
The Lord in Zechariah is God. Not Jesus. There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.”
Similar threads
- Poll
