Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
i would say that now and then are intentionally confused, so that ppl may see and not see. Regardless of what may happen in future, the Revelation of Christ is a personal, spiritual and practical matter, often portrayed in the Book as "future," to differentiate it from the obvious "past." A "thousand year reign" is surely nothing like what most people have in their minds.
Not really. We live now but thw than has already being determined we just cant see it, my nose is as far as I can see. But this I know, we are all given teh same Holy Spirit when we come to Christ, wether we use Him as a door mat or to for undersatdng that is our choosing. One does not have much chioce when it coem to Christ, its either Him or its not, everything else is not an option.
Because she was intended to form a different set of functions. In the Triadic Unity, all three members of that unity form a different set of functions as well.
I agree. The textual evidence supporting this verse is virtually nonexistent, at least in all of the mss of 1John that we have found thus far. No Greek MSS extant contains verse seven in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Gk mss. of 1Jn. Of these, the longer reading appears in only eight very late mss, one of which is mss 221 which dates prior to the 10th century A.D. Of these eight, four have it only as a marginal note as in the case of mss 221. It does not appear in the body of any Gk. text until it was added in mss. 61 in 1520. The first time this verse appears in ANY mss comes from Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop who lived from 340 - 385. He was the fist one to add this longer reading to the text of his Latin mss in about 380. Thus, it continued to appear in other Latin mss over the years. The mss evidence supporting verse seven is the weakest of any questioned text I have ever researched. It simply should not be there. This does not however suggest that what this verse says is untrue. This verse in unnecessary for confirming the truth of the triadic nature of God. Everything this verse reveals is confirmed by other texts.
You have not comprehended a single thing I have said. Perhaps I am wasting my time.
I was really not referring to my last post. I was referring to everything I have said. You really have understood nothing I have said. I was not defending the adding of the verse. I was quite clear that it should not be there. It still does that change the fact that everything this verse says is confirmed in other passages. I do not believe there is any point in continuing this.
If you are asking about part three of Phil. 2, that is on post #95. If you are wanting to think beyond Phil 2 we can look at Hebrews one and how it relates to Phil 2.
if his equality is his by right of divine essence, question how is he his son?.
Your questions do not seem to be an honest search for either knowledge nor understanding so I am not sure I am interested in wasting my time answering this.
let me determine if it's an honest one or not. it's a question, so can you answer the question? see, I understand what a "Son" is here when used metaphorically. but if you could answer the question it could yield tons of valuable information. I'll be waiting for your answer.
If someone else had asked me this question, I should be happy to respond. Your track record however has been to regard me as a liar no matter what text I offer you so no, I think you and I are done.
GOOD, so I'll answer the question myself.
