Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | BradK | 228562 | ||
Hello Seek truth, For starters, Matt 1:23 tells us, "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." (NASB) A clear fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14! How else should we understand this? Additionally, Pauls speaks of Him (Jesus), in 1 Tim 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," What is unbiblical about this? I would offer that the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate otherwise! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | BradK | 228564 | ||
Hello SeekTruth, Perhaps I should ask, what leads you to reject the Trinitarian concept of God? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||