herk, this illustration is not very revelant to the "subject" issue (and looks like it was possibly modified from a chick tract about catholicism).
Is Jesus inferior because it says that He will "be subject" in 1 Cor 15:28?
by hooberus 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
hooberus
Herk said:
The Bible shows clearly that Jesus and the Father are not of the same nature:
- God is spirit (John 4:24), yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39)
- Jesus is very plainly called a man many times. (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31; 1 Timothy 2:5, etc.) But ?God is not a man.? (Numbers 23:19) He says ?I am God, and not man.? (Hosea 11:9)
- "Son of man" is often a reference to ordinary humans. (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25) Jesus is often called ?a son of man? or ?the son of man.? That designation carefully distinguishes him from God. Numbers 23:19 specifically says that God is not ?a son of man.?
- God is eternal and was not born. Christ, on the other hand, was ?begotten,? meaning that he had a beginning. If he did not have a beginning, terms like "begotten" and "son" with reference to Christ would be misleading.
- Jesus is called ?Son of God? more than 50 times in the Bible. Not once is he called ?God the Son.? Others who are not God are also said to be sons of God. (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Matthew 5:9; Luke 3:38; 20:36; Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians 3:26)
- Adam, a man, caused mankind?s problems, and Romans 5:19 says that a man will undo those problems: ?For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.? Some Trinitarians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible clearly teaches that a man has done it.
- Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: ?For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.? He is not called the "one mediator between God and men, the God Christ Jesus." Christ is clearly called a ?man,? even after his resurrection. Also, if Christ were himself God, he could not be the mediator ?between God and man.? As mediator between God and Israel, Moses also was a man and not God.
herk
Herk, your above points I hope to deal with on other threads. I have found it helpful to deal with multiple issues one thread at a time.
It is important to remember that the Trinitarians believe that Jesus is both God and man, and thus verses showing that Jesus is a man do not disprove the Trinity.
For this thread however, I hope the discussion will stick fairly close to the subject of the thread.
-
Narkissos
IMO it's a complete (yet usual) error to ask trinitarian (i.e., 4th century) questions to this text.
Vs. 27-28 echo, as an immediate commentary by the same author or perhaps a later gloss by another, v. 24:
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power.
This is best understood in relation to the contemporary Gnostic myth of God, the Father, reconquering his own (note that in this chapter on "resurrection" only the elect are resurrected) in the "world" which has been led astray by its "rulers" (also called archontes). He does so by sending the Heavenly Redeemer (which corresponds to the "Son" in Pauline terminology, cf. Romans 8:3) into the world under the appearance (docetism) of a man. As has been pointed out in a recent "trial" thread, the Redeemer fools the archontes into killing him, which results in freeing the Redeemer and all those who recognized him (because they were actually children of God) from their rule. Thus the rulers are defeated and God's own are brought back to Him. Then the Redeemer himself fades into God who is henceforth all in all -- a very common Stoic formula.
The rejection of Gnosticism as heresy in the 2nd century makes this text (and many others) very difficult to understand from an "orthodox" perspective.
-
herk
hooberus,
Herk, I am not saying that because the Son is "subject" to the Father, that therefore he must also share an equal ontological nature with the Father (just as no one argues that because the demons were "subject" to the disciples that they therefore must have the same nature as the disciples).
I find your statement disingenuous. You also stated above:
The Watchower implies that since Jesus is said to be "subject" unto "him that put all things under him" that therefore Jesus is inferior to God, and the Trinity is thus not true. This reasoning assumes that being "subject" implies an inferior nature.
Why be critical of the Watchtower when you yourself are making assumptions?
Jesus simply said "My Father is greater than I am great." You want to turn around what he said to mean that his Father is greater only in the way you choose. At least the Watchtower accepts exactly what Jesus said, whereas you've chosen to embroider and embellish what he said to give it a different meaning.
herk
-
hooberus
Euphemism, (and others), I hope to provide an answer to your points shortly.
-
hooberus
Jesus simply said "My Father is greater than I am great." You want to turn around what he said to mean that his Father is greater only in the way you choose. At least the Watchtower accepts exactly what Jesus said, whereas you've chosen to embroider and embellish what he said to give it a different meaning.
Herk, if you wish to discuss John 14:28, here is a thread specifically for that verse:
-
herk
hooberus,
Regardless of what any book, article, or other write-up has to say, the fact remains that you've chosen to read into what Jesus said something that he did not say. Why are you incapable of acknowledging that?
Jesus simply said, "My Father is greater than I." You say he did not mean that--that he meant his Father was greater only in a certain way. You have no scriptural basis for your claim, yet you stick to it. How reasonable and honest is that?
herk
-
-
LittleToe
Herk:Disingenuous?
You wrote the book on that one, buddy!
Why do you really think people are reacting to your cartoons? Because you are right and it hurts them so bad it's good?
Besides, it's bugging the crap out of me, since I only have a 56k dial-up at home, and pictures take time to download.Regarding "Almighty", I'd be interested in hearing your take on Rev.11:17, someday (but I suspect Hoob has either created a thread for it, else is going to ).
Narkissos:Thanks That was really helpful.
I'm currently wading my way through some Gnostic works and making such connections. -