Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | biblicalman | 228565 | ||
well seektruth (unbiblical) i'm glad you chose 1 John 3.1-5 you will note just before that it says quite clearly 'No one who denies the Son has the Father'. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Son of the Father' (John 1.14). This clearly indicates that it is the Son Who became flesh. But take warning with your attitude you will never see the truth. You are in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. I am sorry, you are not seeking truth. You are fighting it. |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228584 | ||
seektruth (but unable to find it) says: 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? Answer: No you are not right. The Word was with God (in interaction with God), does not refer to His interaction with the Father but His interaction with the Godhead. And the fact that He was God emphasises His participation in the Godhead. So there is no change of use. |
||||||