Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: SeekTruth Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228577 | ||
Sorry, I forgot to address the point regarding the Holy Spirit. The Father is Spirit, just as is the Holy Spirit. There's only one Spirit (Eph 4:4) of course... However, the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of God dwelling in us, and that there lies the distinction. Each of the titles of God shown in the NT - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - is God revealing Himself to us in a different way. Each show us a particular aspect (or aspects) of God. God is our Father in that He created us, and we're to obey Him. Through His Son have we been saved, and in Him we have God who can relate to us in every way. And in the Holy Spirit are we changed to be more like God, and convicting us of all truth. The Spirit is God in action with creation, and emphasizes His holiness and omnipresence in His interaction with all of creation. God bless. |
||||||
2 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228576 | ||
Sure thing. Clearly, a distinction is present between the Father and the Son. The difference lies in how we understand that distinction. I say that the Father was manifested in the flesh. Now, God is not a man (Num 23:19), so the Father is not the Son, for the Son is indeed a man. But, the Father (divinity) was in the Son (humanity). Because the Son not only has complete divine nature, but also complete human nature, not only did He speak as being God, but He also spoke as being man. That meant He spoke of God as we all should - referring to God as "God", as well as with those male-pronouns "He", "His" and "Him". This is where we largely see differently. I say this is Jesus speaking as a man, whereas you say this is the second person speaking to the first person. But I say, for Jesus to be fully man, He had to not only "walk our walk" but also "talk our talk". For Him to "talk our talk" is not to run away with the notion that this is now a distinct person from the Father, but simply to recognize the dual natures within the Son. God bless. |
||||||
3 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228575 | ||
You're rather quick to judge... Hebrews 1:1-8 - Jesus is the "express image of His person", meaning He is the image of the invisible God, who is the Father for the Father is Spirit. "Right hand" is symbolic of power, authority, favor etc. Verse 5-8 is all a distinction between the Father and the Son. Isaiah 53:10-11 is again simply a distinction of the Father and the manifestation of the Father in the flesh - ie the Son. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't deny the distinction. There has to be a distinction, because the Father is Spirit but the Son is Spirit (divinity) and flesh (humanity). The Father (divinity) was manifested in the Son (humanity). God bless. |
||||||
4 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228574 | ||
Contrary to what you believe, I'm not fighting anything. Check out Strong's definitions for the "Word". The Word is the Logos, which means thought, idea, concept, plan. It is not another person, and to say it is is inserting trinitarian doctrine into the text, which is simply not the true meaning of this scripture. It was this thought that God had from the beginning which was made manifest, not a "person". And there's all sorts of other problems with the trinitarian viewpoint in this passage. Look at John 1:1... You can't interpret that to me without changing the definition of God each time He comes up. You'd say that the Word was with God (the Father), and was God (the Son), right? I don't need to chop and change who God is each time He is mentioned. God bless. |
||||||
5 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228573 | ||
I have done extensive research, prayer, study, you name it, and I know the concepts of "persons", "trinity" etc are not Biblical. Now, I understand the old argument of just because these are words not found in the Bible, it doesn't make them false. But I'm arguing the concepts behind the terms/words. The majority of why the doctrine came into existence is because of how Jesus distinguished Himself from The Father and the Holy Spirit. The trinity is a wrong conclusion of what this distinction means, for it is a distinction between the manifestations of the one God, who has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just because the Son spoke as a man speaks, and referred to God as "God", and by the personal pronouns of "He" etc, does not mean to run away with the idea that Him and the Father are distinct persons. The Father was in the flesh, but He was not the flesh. The Father was in the Son, but He is not the Son. There lies the distinction. So Jesus, as fully man, walked our walk, but He also talked our talk. At times, He spoke as God (eg saying He is the I AM), and we're quick to rightly say "see, He's God". But when He spoke of God like a man (eg when He said don't call me good, for there's only One that is good, and that is God), trinitarians are not so quick to say "see, He's a man," but rather "see, He's the second person speaking to the first person". There's a lot more to it, but I'll keep it at that. God bless. |
||||||
6 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228572 | ||
Most assuredly, Jesus is God. The Son is the Father manifest in the flesh. The Father is not the Son, but He is in the Son. There lies the difference. And, Jesus was certainly not praying to Himself. Jesus was fully man, and as a man He had to pray to the Father. You'll find that there's a lot of common ground between us when we explain that. The difference comes where you say it's the second person praying to the first person, whereas I say it's the humanity praying to the Father. I don't expect you to really understand that at this point, for it involves a lot more background for you to grasp what I'm trying to say, especially since you're thinking with a trinitarian view point. God bless. |
||||||
7 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228571 | ||
Is the church God? No. Does the church honestly understand Oneness? No. I'm not worried. God bless. |
||||||
8 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228563 | ||
Hi BradK, Matt 1:23 is an easy one: God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). 1 Tim 2:5 is simply stating that the manifestation of God in the flesh is the mediator between us and God. I'm not sure if I need to or if you require me to say anything more. God bless. |
||||||
9 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228561 | ||
Yes, but otherwise known to many trinitarians as a "herectic" lol. Which I am certainly not. | ||||||
10 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228559 | ||
Nope, I am not. I believe in the full deity of Christ! Amen. God bless. |
||||||
11 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228557 | ||
Scriptures never show three persons. The epistles never speak of this either. That's trinitarian doctrine spoken into the text. Why do you find it so hard to see the one God taking up different manifestations? Show me some scriptures and I'm sure I can show you otherwise, and correctly. God bless. |
||||||
12 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | SeekTruth | 228554 | ||
Hello! God is absolutely one. Persons, persona, individuals, or any other non-biblical word is unnecessary. God is not a "committee" or a "council" who intercommunicates. In all actuality, the Father was manifest to take way our sins. 1 John 3:1-5 shows this, where verse one establishes the Father as the subject of the passage and verse 5 tells us this very truth. Please show me otherwise where it says in the scriptures that the (unbiblical) "second person", the Son, became a man. God bless. |
||||||