Trinity Debate – 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

Subject:  1 Corinthians 15:24-28 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: April 10 2007
Debaterst8  & Is 1: 18


t8

To prove that the Trinity Doctrine is the invention of man and not from scripture, I give 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as a proof text.

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

This piece of text is very interesting because it reveals God’s plan and will. This plan shows us the following:

 

  • At the end of this age, Jesus hands over the Kingdom to God the Father.
  • Before the end, Christ rules until all enemies are under his feet.
  • God puts all under Christ’s feet. All except God (as you would expect).
  • In the end, the son will be subject to God the Father, so that God can dwell in all.

 

The first point I want to talk about is the truth that all is/will be under Christ except God.

So from this text at least, we have a clear explanation as to redemptive plan of God through Christ and in explaining this, it actually says that all will be under his feet except God. So to take the great authority that Christ has to mean that he is God, is obviously incorrect when we read and understand 1 Corinthians 24-28.

The first century was a very different time to now and we should be careful to view their time through todays paradigm. For example, they didn’t have a Trinity doctrine back then and never used the word Trinity in scripture. The absence of such a teaching and usage in the bible is evident because the Trinity doctrine came into existence hundreds of years later.

This is why 1 Corinthians can clearly say that Jesus isn’t God with no hesitation. It doesn’t say that Jesus isn’t God in defense of those who say that he is, it simply says it innocently within a different context because saying that he was actually part of a Trinity God wasn’t an issue in that time.

“Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”

This particular verse points out that God himself put everything under Christ and God is identified earlier in verse 24 as the Father.

Now in these times and in times past the world is and has been drunk on the wine of Babylon and given this influence, I doubt that any Trinitarian in any century could write 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 from his own theology because he would have to write about God as being the Father and not the son.

A Trinitarian who wanted to convey the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:27 and keep his theology intact would most likely say something like:
“….it is clear that this doesn’t include God the Father who put everything under God the son”. 

Even then, a Trinitarian probably wouldn’t write such a text because it would infringe on his version of co-equal.

But sadly for Trinitarians but joyfully for the truth, it says “…it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”.

God and Christ are 2 different identities in these verses, that is clear. It is also clear that God is identified as the Father and when read as such, the text makes perfect sense as you find with hundreds of other scriptures.

If Paul believed in the Trinitarian doctrine as Trinitarians must claim, then Paul must have had a lapse in memory that day, for he clearly talks of God and Christ as two. In fact Paul must have had a very bad memory problem, because he neglected to mention or teach the Trinity in any of his letters. If the Trinity Doctrine was true and a foundational truth that many claim, then we could also say that Paul was quite neglectful for not including it in his writings.

So perhaps it is possible that the Trinity Doctrine wasn’t something that Paul taught or believed at all. Perhaps that doctrine gained prominence when Athanasus and the Emperor Constantine did their works after the time of Paul.

Perhaps it is also possible that Paul knew what he was talking about when he said:

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 
&
Acts 20:29
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.




Is 1:18

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.

So again we have a proof text that has been porported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:-

In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:

Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this:

YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God.

Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let’s remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t.

So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.

In expansion of point #2 I’ll write this:

As I previously mentioned in the last proof text I responded to Yeshua is a man, born of woman and born under the law (Gal. 4:4). As a man subject to the law he MUST assume the role of subservient to the Father, His God. Had He not been subservient to His Father in accordance with the Law He would not have been the sinless Lamb of God, the sacrifice was meaningless and the sin dilemma remains in effect for mankind. So the submission demonstrated in NT scripture is a function of the incarnation (when deity put on humanity), not a comment of His intrinsic nature relative to His Father’s. Is this a valid refutation of the doctrine? No. Trinitarians, as far I can tell, affirm the humanity of Christ. The line of authority elucidated in 1 Cor 15:27-28 is a natural consequence of His incarnation, when he “became flesh” (John 1:14) it was to be forever….

Just in closing, it’s interesting to compare verse 28 with a passage that Paul penned in his letter to the Colossians (Col. 3:11)

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

cf.

a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11, cf. Eph. 1:23)

The grammar that was used of “God” in 1 Corinthians was also used of “Christ” in Colossians. I really like what C. H. Spurgeon wrote about this verse – “for Christ is not almost all, but all in all.” (source). Indeed Christ is all. Amen to that.


Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 401 through 420 (of 522 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55783
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,11:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,11:16)
    My definition of “God Alone” is the Father and Jesus the WordGod who took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.

    My definition is scriptural, yours is not.


    You forgot somebody – the third person of God, the Holy Spirit.  I tell ya, that third person really gets a bum rap.  He's left out of quite a bit; that, and he doesn't even get a throne!  Only the Father and Jesus are said to have a throne.  Curious, huh?

    Your definition of God is deduced!  Even if you want to claim John 1:1 as your definition of God, you cannot do so.  Well, you could, but the Trinitarians would kick you out of the “creed-believing club.”  For John 1:1 only speaks of the Father and the Word.  This cannot be a definition of GOD for a trinitarian, can it?

    On the other hand, the Bible is loaded with scriptures that say God is one, and that God is the Father.  That is my definition of God – the same as Paul's in 1 Cor. 8:6.  Oh, wait!  My definition IS scriptural, huh?  
    :D


    Besides all this, you use unscriptural language for your definition: WordGod. Where is that?

    #55784

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,11:51)
    WJ writes:
    Jesus never said he wasnt good!
    **********************************

    Mark 10:18
    Why do you call me good?  Jesus answered.  “NO ONE is good – except God ALONE.”

    WJ writes:
    What has changed is you say there is no other yet you claim Jesus as your saviour!
    **************************************
    Only GOD can save me.  He chose to do this through his only begotten Son.  Jesus did not save me by his work on the cross; it is by his resurrection that I have new life, and that by GOD who raised Jesus.  Again, if it wasn't for GOD raising Jesus out of the tomb, he would still be there today with zero power to save anyone including himself!

    In regards to John 2 – just as in the Synoptics, when challenged to produce a miraculous sign as proof of his relationship with God, Jesus give the people a veiled reference to his future resurrection.  The porophecy in John, however, does nt refer to Jonah as Matthew and Luke do, but to the temple of Jesus' body.  In this case, John records Jesus' actual comment about the Temple, in which he prophesied that they would destroy the “temple,” that is kill him.  In contrast, Matt. (26:61) and Mark (14:58) record the false witnesses giving their hearsay testimony at his trial, claiming that he had said that he would destroy the actual, physical Temple and rebuild it in three days.

    WJ writes:
    Your definition of “God alone” is the Father + a mere man.
    *****************************
    No.  My definition of God is God.  God also happen to have a Son who helped facilitate the master plan, but that Son is not God (too).


    not3

    You say…

    Quote

    n regards to John 2 – just as in the Synoptics, when challenged to produce a miraculous sign as proof of his relationship with God, Jesus give the people a veiled reference to his future resurrection.  The porophecy in John, however, does nt refer to Jonah as Matthew and Luke do, but to the temple of Jesus' body.  In this case, John records Jesus' actual comment about the Temple, in which he prophesied that they would destroy the “temple,” that is kill him.  In contrast, Matt. (26:61) and Mark (14:58) record the false witnesses giving their hearsay testimony at his trial, claiming that he had said that he would destroy the actual, physical Temple and rebuild it in three days.


    So what are you saying, that there is another contradiction here?

    How about this one…

    Jn 10:
    T17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    So we see that not only “God” the Father raised up Jesus but “God” the Son raised himself!

    You say…

    Quote
    No.  My definition of God is God.  God also happen to have a Son who helped facilitate the master plan, but that Son is not God (too).

    Again you say that “God alone” is your saviour yet you still add Jesus “a mere man” to you in the equation!

    #55785

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,11:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,11:16)
    My definition of “God Alone” is the Father and Jesus the WordGod who took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.

    My definition is scriptural, yours is not.


    You forgot somebody – the third person of God, the Holy Spirit.  I tell ya, that third person really gets a bum rap.  He's left out of quite a bit; that, and he doesn't even get a throne!  Only the Father and Jesus are said to have a throne.  Curious, huh?

    Your definition of God is deduced!  Even if you want to claim John 1:1 as your definition of God, you cannot do so.  Well, you could, but the Trinitarians would kick you out of the “creed-believing club.”  For John 1:1 only speaks of the Father and the Word.  This cannot be a definition of GOD for a trinitarian, can it?

    On the other hand, the Bible is loaded with scriptures that say God is one, and that God is the Father.  That is my definition of God – the same as Paul's in 1 Cor. 8:6.  Oh, wait!  My definition IS scriptural, huh?  
    :D


    not3

    The Spirit who is God proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    :D

    #55786
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    Jn 10:
    T17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


    The part of the scripture that you should bold and underline is the last sentence…..

    THIS COMMANDMENT HAVE I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER.

    Jesus cannot do anything except for what his Father (who is God alone) gives him the power to do.

    #55787

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:07)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,11:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,11:16)
    My definition of “God Alone” is the Father and Jesus the WordGod who took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.

    My definition is scriptural, yours is not.


    You forgot somebody – the third person of God, the Holy Spirit.  I tell ya, that third person really gets a bum rap.  He's left out of quite a bit; that, and he doesn't even get a throne!  Only the Father and Jesus are said to have a throne.  Curious, huh?

    Your definition of God is deduced!  Even if you want to claim John 1:1 as your definition of God, you cannot do so.  Well, you could, but the Trinitarians would kick you out of the “creed-believing club.”  For John 1:1 only speaks of the Father and the Word.  This cannot be a definition of GOD for a trinitarian, can it?

    On the other hand, the Bible is loaded with scriptures that say God is one, and that God is the Father.  That is my definition of God – the same as Paul's in 1 Cor. 8:6.  Oh, wait!  My definition IS scriptural, huh?  
    :D


    Besides all this, you use unscriptural language for your definition:  WordGod.  Where is that?


    not3

    Jn 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

    :)

    #55788
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:09)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,11:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,11:16)
    My definition of “God Alone” is the Father and Jesus the WordGod who took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.

    My definition is scriptural, yours is not.


    You forgot somebody – the third person of God, the Holy Spirit.  I tell ya, that third person really gets a bum rap.  He's left out of quite a bit; that, and he doesn't even get a throne!  Only the Father and Jesus are said to have a throne.  Curious, huh?

    Your definition of God is deduced!  Even if you want to claim John 1:1 as your definition of God, you cannot do so.  Well, you could, but the Trinitarians would kick you out of the “creed-believing club.”  For John 1:1 only speaks of the Father and the Word.  This cannot be a definition of GOD for a trinitarian, can it?

    On the other hand, the Bible is loaded with scriptures that say God is one, and that God is the Father.  That is my definition of God – the same as Paul's in 1 Cor. 8:6.  Oh, wait!  My definition IS scriptural, huh?  
    :D


    not3

    The Spirit who is God proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    :D


    This may be true, but he does not appear to be “equal” in a wide variety of circumstances in the Bible. You have to wonder why that is. One of those things that make you go, “Hmmmmm.”

    #55789

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:11)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    Jn 10:
    T17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


    The part of the scripture that you should bold and underline is the last sentence…..

    THIS COMMANDMENT HAVE I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER.

    Jesus cannot do anything except for what his Father (who is God alone) gives him the power to do.


    not3

    Yes the Father has commited “All things” to the Son.

    There is no disunity in the God head.

    Do you know of any “mere man” that could raise himself from the dead?

    ???

    #55790
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    So we see that not only “God” the Father raised up Jesus but “God” the Son raised himself!


    This sentense is nonesense!

    If I didn't know you better, I would think you are convinced of two “Gods.”

    And speaking of equality, how come God the Holy Spirit didn't have a part in raising God the Son?

    #55791

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:12)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:09)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,11:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,11:16)
    My definition of “God Alone” is the Father and Jesus the WordGod who took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.

    My definition is scriptural, yours is not.


    You forgot somebody – the third person of God, the Holy Spirit.  I tell ya, that third person really gets a bum rap.  He's left out of quite a bit; that, and he doesn't even get a throne!  Only the Father and Jesus are said to have a throne.  Curious, huh?

    Your definition of God is deduced!  Even if you want to claim John 1:1 as your definition of God, you cannot do so.  Well, you could, but the Trinitarians would kick you out of the “creed-believing club.”  For John 1:1 only speaks of the Father and the Word.  This cannot be a definition of GOD for a trinitarian, can it?

    On the other hand, the Bible is loaded with scriptures that say God is one, and that God is the Father.  That is my definition of God – the same as Paul's in 1 Cor. 8:6.  Oh, wait!  My definition IS scriptural, huh?  
    :D


    not3

    The Spirit who is God proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    :D


    This may be true, but he does not appear to be “equal” in a wide variety of circumstances in the Bible.  You have to wonder why that is.  One of those things that make you go, “Hmmmmm.”


    not3

    Well thats a start.

    How can the Spirit of God “proceed from the Son”?

    How can Jesus baptise with his own Spirit which the scriptures say is the Spirit of God?

    ???

    #55792
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:15)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:11)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    Jn 10:
    T17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


    The part of the scripture that you should bold and underline is the last sentence…..

    THIS COMMANDMENT HAVE I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER.

    Jesus cannot do anything except for what his Father (who is God alone) gives him the power to do.


    not3

    Yes the Father has commited “All things” to the Son.

    There is no disunity in the God head.

    Do you know of any “mere man” that could raise himself from the dead?

    ???


    Your not listening, WJ.

    Jesus DID NOT RAISE HIMSELF. Read the scripture again. He received the power to take his life up again from the Father, who is God. He did not possess this power himself!

    #55793
    Not3in1
    Participant

    I have to run take my son to select baseball……..glad to chat with you.
    :)

    #55794

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:18)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    So we see that not only “God” the Father raised up Jesus but “God” the Son raised himself!


    This sentense is nonesense!

    If I didn't know you better, I would think you are convinced of two “Gods.”

    And speaking of equality, how come God the Holy Spirit didn't have a part in raising God the Son?


    not3

    How is this nonsence?

    The scriptures claim God raised Jesus and yet Jesus claimed he would raise himself!

    Do you believe the scriptures? All of them?

    ???

    #55795

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:22)
    I have to run take my son to select baseball……..glad to chat with you.
    :)


    later!

    #55796

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:21)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:15)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:11)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    Jn 10:
    T17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


    The part of the scripture that you should bold and underline is the last sentence…..

    THIS COMMANDMENT HAVE I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER.

    Jesus cannot do anything except for what his Father (who is God alone) gives him the power to do.


    not3

    Yes the Father has commited “All things” to the Son.

    There is no disunity in the God head.

    Do you know of any “mere man” that could raise himself from the dead?

    ???


    Your not listening, WJ.

    Jesus DID NOT RAISE HIMSELF.  Read the scripture again.  He received the power to take his life up again from the Father, who is God.  He did not possess this power himself!


    not3

    You say…

    Quote

    Jesus DID NOT RAISE HIMSELF

    Jn 10:
    17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Of course the Father gave him the power. Phil 2.

    God gave back all things Jesus had with the Father before the foundation of the world which Jesus himself created!

    :)

    #55797
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You say
    “God gave back all things Jesus had with the Father before the foundation of the world which Jesus himself created!”
    Great to see you know the Father is God.
    When was this that the powers he had were returned?
    Jesus was praying for the restoration of his glory just before he returned to God.
    He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power so was this additional to the return of his powers?

    #55804
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:22)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:18)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    So we see that not only “God” the Father raised up Jesus but “God” the Son raised himself!


    This sentense is nonesense!

    If I didn't know you better, I would think you are convinced of two “Gods.”

    And speaking of equality, how come God the Holy Spirit didn't have a part in raising God the Son?


    not3

    How is this nonsence?

    The scriptures claim God raised Jesus and yet Jesus claimed he would raise himself!

    Do you believe the scriptures? All of them?

    ???


    Of course I believe all scripture.

    And all of scripture explains how Jesus is able to do the things that he did (miracles and raising the dead – including as you say – raising himself) —– he did it by the same power that Peter raised the dead. GOD'S POWER. Not power that they possessed themselves. Both Peter and Jesus knew there was only One God.

    When scripture says that God will raise Jesus and then it also says that Jesus raised himself – you have to go in search of why it says that. And we did search – we found out that the Father has committed this to the Son. The Son is *able* to do these things because the Father has *given* him the right to. Do you see the difference?

    #55805
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:27)
    Jn 10:
    17 herefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Of course the Father gave him the power. Phil 2.

    God gave back all things Jesus had with the Father before the foundation of the world which Jesus himself created!


    Yes, the Father (who is God alone) gave Jesus the power to do a great many things. In fact, God is still giving Jesus the power to reign and rule, until such time when Jesus will turn *everything* over to God so that God can be all in all.

    It's interesting how you never hear of Jesus giving anything to the Father (if indeed they are “all” equal, you might expect to see a give-and-take among the persons of God, I don't know?)

    God did not “give back” to Jesus anything!! There are no scriptures to back this theory up.

    The world was created “through” Jesus. Jesus did not lay the foundations – God did – ALONE! For this is what Isaiah teaches that God laid the foundations and set the stars in place with his OWN HAND.

    #55848
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You ask
    “How can the Spirit of God “proceed from the Son”?'

    The Spirit of God was given to the fullness of deity to the Son
    and the Son was made for us by God the source of that Spirit.
    Jn15
    26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

    Christ is the one who baptises in the Spirit.

    Matthew 3:11
    I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
    Mark 1:8
    I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
    Luke 3:16
    John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
    John 1:33
    And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

    #55913

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,14:29)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:22)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,12:18)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2007,12:07)
    So we see that not only “God” the Father raised up Jesus but “God” the Son raised himself!


    This sentense is nonesense!

    If I didn't know you better, I would think you are convinced of two “Gods.”

    And speaking of equality, how come God the Holy Spirit didn't have a part in raising God the Son?


    not3

    How is this nonsence?

    The scriptures claim God raised Jesus and yet Jesus claimed he would raise himself!

    Do you believe the scriptures? All of them?

    ???


    Of course I believe all scripture.  

    And all of scripture explains how Jesus is able to do the things that he did (miracles and raising the dead – including as you say – raising himself) —– he did it by the same power that Peter raised the dead.  GOD'S POWER.  Not power that they possessed themselves.  Both Peter and Jesus knew there was only One God.

    When scripture says that God will raise Jesus and then it also says that Jesus raised himself – you have to go in search of why it says that.  And we did search – we found out that the Father has committed this to the Son.  The Son is *able* to do these things because the Father has *given* him the right to.  Do you see the difference?


    not3

    No. The difference is, you cant find me one example where a desciple or child of God anywhere claimed he had the power or that he did it.

    Jesus on the other hand took credit or claimed that he had  the power for works that he did.

    What man could say this not3….

    Jn 5:
    17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, *and* I work.

    18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

    They wanted to stone him because he said whatever “God” does he does.

    Listen…

    Jn 5:19
    Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he (God) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

    Jesus is not saying here he dosnt have any power of his own.

    He is saying that he will do nothing unless he sees his Father doing it, in other words confirming Phil 2 and Heb 10 that he came to do the Fathers will.

    Do you know any being that can do “whatever” he sees God do?

    Jn 5:
    20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel

    21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

    Do you see how that whatever God does, Jesus does?

    What man can claim that God has given him “All Things”?

    Would God give all things to another being less than himself?

    How is that possible? If God gives “all things” than the one he gives all things to is equal to God.

    Can you see that?

    So Jesus said that men should “Honour” him as they honour God.

    Do you know a man that would dare say such?

    How about an anointed prophet or King or Apostle?

    Who would dare say this…

    Jn 5:23
    That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

    Even the Father gives the Son this honour!

    Heb 1:8
    But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    You should give him the same honour also, just like Thomas did…

    Listen again…

    Jn 20:
    28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God.

    This passage seems to be so distressing to the Unitarians and Henotheist and Arians.

    If I was one I would be stressed to.

    How do you explain these contradictions?

    ???

    #55915
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You say
    “Jesus on the other hand took credit or claimed that he had the power for works that he did.”
    Not so.
    He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power.
    He also always gave all the credit for work done through his vessel to God.
    Go empowered the prophets and Christ and empowered the body of Christ on earth and continues to empower those in him.

Viewing 20 posts - 401 through 420 (of 522 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account