Jesus is under subjection to God.

[sojourner]

you really need to get a dictionary and look up words .a good one to look up would be begotten

You really need to get a clue as to the nuances of theological language. In this instance, "begotten -- not created" is the theological way of saying that God didn't create Jesus out of the "stuff of the cosmos," but rather that Jesus came directly out of God. IOW, Jesus is set apart from the rest of the created order.

 

[cataway]

You really need to get a clue as to the nuances of theological language. In this instance, "begotten -- not created" is the theological way of saying that God didn't create Jesus out of the "stuff of the cosmos," but rather that Jesus came directly out of God. IOW, Jesus is set apart from the rest of the created order.

Jesus’ being called the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God’s sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God’s sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So “the Word” was Jehovah’s “only-begotten Son” in a particular sense, even as Isaac was Abraham’s “only-begotten son” in a particular sense (his father already having another son but not by his wife Sarah).—Heb 11:17; Ge 16:15.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus’ being called the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God’s sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God’s sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So “the Word” was Jehovah’s “only-begotten Son” in a particular sense, even as Isaac was Abraham’s “only-begotten son” in a particular sense (his father already having another son but not by his wife Sarah).—Heb 11:17; Ge 16:15.

I disagree. We are dust. That much is clear. We are nephesh because God blew God's breath into us. We are created. Jesus is begotten, because Jesus is God Incarnate. God fashioned us outside God's Self. Jesus, being Very God, was not fashioned thus.

 

[rusra02]

Jesus is God. Therefore, God cannot be greater than Jesus. The Father can supersede the Son, but that's an entirely different thing.

Please re read John 14:28. Jesus never said he was God.

 

[sojourner]

Please re read John 14:28. Jesus never said he was God.

Doesn't make any difference. The bible alludes to that fact, and the church confirms it. That it is not explicit in some "Jesus quotation is immaterial.

 

[Kolibri]

the church confirms it.

might as well skip the bible completely then.

"Preach the word; be at it it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome (or "healthful; beneficial.") teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. (or "to tell them what they want to hear.") They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories."
- 2 Timothy 4:2-4

There will be teachers that teach what people want to hear. They may even come with references. The question is what qualifies them? Their piece of paper? Their men-pleased peer-review? Or scripture?

 

[cataway]

I disagree. We are dust. That much is clear. We are nephesh because God blew God's breath into us. We are created. Jesus is begotten, because Jesus is God Incarnate. God fashioned us outside God's Self. Jesus, being Very God, was not fashioned thus.

yes we are dust , yes we are all souls . we have been begotten by our parents, we are procreated beings

 

[sojourner]

might as well skip the bible completely then.

That's a bit ... hyperbolic, don't you think? Unless you're one of those "If it ain't in the bible, it ain't real" folks. The bible has never been the only source of doctrine. Never. And, as I said, it is implied biblically.

 

[sojourner]

yes we are dust , yes we are all souls . we have been begotten by our parents, we are procreated beings

You managed to miss the point entirely. God created us from the dust -- outside God's self. Jesus came from within God.

 

[cataway]

you are giving us nothing but speculations, as to how, and by what means Jehovah used in the creation of his heavenly creations, ie the sons of god.
there are things the bible record does not say . that being the case its better not to speculate on how God did things .

 

[Kolibri]

That's a bit ... hyperbolic, don't you think? Unless you're one of those "If it ain't in the bible, it ain't real" folks. The bible has never been the only source of doctrine. Never. And, as I said, it is implied biblically.

The Bible is the straightedge that is worthy of measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct. It is our canon (measuring stick) for these 3 things.

"For we do not dare to class ourselves or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. But when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding. However, we will not boast outside our assigned boundaries, but within the boundary of the territory that God measured out to us, making it reach even as far as you....For it is not the one who recommends himself who is approved, but the one whom Jehovah recommends."
- 2 Corinthians 10:12,13,18

"As for all those who walk orderly by this rule of conduct, peace and mercy be upon them, yes, upon the Israel of God." - Galatians 6:16

Not all things are judged as fact or fiction by this canon. It is a miracle of condensation. But we can faith, doctrine, and conduct by this stick. And what we don't know will be further clarified when the new scrolls are opened post-Armageddon (Re 12:20)

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is the straightedge that is worthy of measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct. It is our canon (measuring stick) for these 3 things.

That's not why it's called the canon, though. It's the canon because it's the minimum acceptable measure of what can be read in church.

"As for all those who walk orderly by this rule of conduct, peace and mercy be upon them, yes, upon the Israel of God." - Galatians 6:16

this verse is talking about circumcision -- not "following the bible."

Not all things are judged as fact or fiction by this canon.

Then why choose to be hyperbolic about throwing it all out?

 

[Kolibri]

this verse is talking about circumcision -- not "following the bible."

Yes, the "rule of conduct" was to not let others "compel you to get circumcised", "but let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person." (Ga 6:4,12)
It was a "rule of conduct" that was refined by scripture, partly when the governing body in Jerusalem examined the available scriptures over this issue as recorded in Acts 15. Acts 15 is an example of how the canon available up to that date was used as a measuring stick when it came to a "rule of conduct". They were to "add no further burden than [those] necessary things," and circumcision was not one of them. (Act 15:28)

The same thing applies to faith. We measure faith off of Hebrews 11:1 and then all the examples of faith in action we read about through-out the Bible.

And doctrine. "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, (or "their taking in knowledge of you.") the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) What happened when the Israelites went beyond scripture? They stopped knowing Jehovah. This became evident as they worshiped other gods, as they perverted justice, and as they became convinced that if the prophet told them something that was contrary to what they wanted to hear that it was the prophet that was guilty. So why should we go beyond scripture? We run the risk of being deceived. It has happened before.

"For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: 'Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they are dreaming. For "they are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them," declares Jehovah.'" - Jeremiah 29:8,9

 

[sojourner]

Yes, the "rule of conduct" was to not let others "compel you to get circumcised", "but let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person." (Ga 6:4,12)
It was a "rule of conduct" that was refined by scripture, partly when the governing body in Jerusalem examined the available scriptures over this issue as recorded in Acts 15. Acts 15 is an example of how the canon available up to that date was used as a measuring stick when it came to a "rule of conduct". They were to "add no further burden than [those] necessary things," and circumcision was not one of them. (Act 15:28)

The same thing applies to faith. We measure faith off of Hebrews 11:1 and then all the examples of faith in action we read about through-out the Bible.

And doctrine. "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, (or "their taking in knowledge of you.") the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) What happened when the Israelites went beyond scripture? They stopped knowing Jehovah. This became evident as they worshiped other gods, as they perverted justice, and as they became convinced that if the prophet told them something that was contrary to what they wanted to hear that it was the prophet that was guilty. So why should we go beyond scripture? We run the risk of being deceived. It has happened before.

"For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: 'Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they are dreaming. For "they are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them," declares Jehovah.'" - Jeremiah 29:8,9

Ok, and, as I said, Jesus' Divinity is implied -- if not outright explicit in scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

Please re read John 14:28. Jesus never said he was God.

Jesus said that He is in the father, and the father in Him. This clearly backs the traditional notion, which many seem unfamiliar with, that Jesus is in fact God. Jesus is a manifested human form of the father, here on earth, /in Israel, and in Spirit form, one with the father. That's why you can worship either. You're worshipping the same Godhead.

 

[nothead]

The Father and the Son are equal in substance.

The SUBSTANCE of God was a Greek philosophical endeavor, for good reason not a subject of debate for the ancient Jew, and for good reason. NO MAN knows one iota of what this is, much less being able to functionally discriminate something like a combined OUSIA or HOMOOUSIA. Take His heart, for instance. What can you say about it? For the Jew, the heart and mind are the same thing. So then what can we know or say about God's mind? Nada, nilch, zero, less than nothing. What is less than nothing? The speculations of men, because they represent the optimistic going of man into the land of monsters, false premises and tyranny. Tyranny of what? Your own mind, sir.

God's existence is echad, as God, numerically a single unit. But more importantly, "YWHW" is His identity as name. The Shema prohibits any other consideration THAN this identity as being alone, unique, by itself as a single thing. Is God a THING? Well, in the exalted sense, yes. A living entity of life, ruach, consciousness, knowing and commanding.

They have different roles, however, and such would make one believe one was superior to the other, but this is not the case. The Father is the eternal originator of the Trinity.

"My Father is greater than all." What does this portray? His ONTOLOGY? No. His AUTHORITY? Yes. His EXISTENCE in authority? Yes. The implication is to substance, or kind of, categorization of, species of. But directly said, not exactly. As a whole existence, the Father is above the Son in all ways.

1 Cor 15

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

So then is it Jesus' HUMANITY only subject to God? No, the above verse 28 refutes this.

And the Father did not exist before the Son. The Father eternally begets the Son.

A quasi-moto rationale DESIGNED to make trinity cohesive, SINCE it was forced upon the original meanings. "Eternal begotteness," is hokey, blokey and smokey.
Makes no sense. Jesus was pre-existent in the intent or determination of God only, the abstract sense of Sovereign Will, otherwise no prophet could foretell of Messiah.

John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

A reference to God's Determined Messiah. Jesus' glory was predetermined before the world was. He had no original input into his own creation as a babe who loved God from his mother's breast, Psalm 22.

John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

"I am Theology" is as hokey as anything in the ethers. Neither from the Hebrew does it make sense, Exodus 3 parallel: eyeh ashr eyeh, in the INDEFINITE tense or I WILL BE what/whom I WILL BE, or "I am being what I am being"...or from the Koine: "I am [he]," said at least four other times in John without a compliment, does this mean "I am." Also, "tell them the I AM sent you," second clause in Exodus 3, is HO OWN, "the Being." NOT "I am." This is Septuagint translation of Exodus 3.

I AM indicates the Name of God.

JEHOVAH is more accurate, and has no to be verb meant or statement of existence at all, except in the form ieue, compared to the to be verb, aeie "I will be" (unto the Hebrews) The Hebrew is not translatable except as a unique name of God.

Jesus existed before the world, with the Father. The Father is the originator of the Trinity. However, the Son has always eternally been begotten by the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father. So the Father did not exist before the Son or the Spirit.

Worlds existed before our world, else the angels would have no world of existence. You smudge Judaic pre-existence with eternal pre-existence.

Jesus does not have physical limits. Despite living on the earth in a fleshly body, His divine nature was still omnipresent, omnipotent and bearing all of those qualities of God. Nevertheless, Jesus now has a glorified body, and it is not limited by space and time.

The Holy Spirit is this in Jesus only, in the sense he was MADE a life-giving spirit only. And the Holy Spirit was ever emanated or SENT of the Father.

Matthew 19:17 is actually used to support the notion that Jesus was God, because Jesus says elsewhere, in John 10:11, that He is the 'good shepherd'.

No proof at all that Jesus is God.

Hebrews 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 merely demonstrate that the Father and Son have different roles.

Your "merely" is Jesus' absolutely. "My Father is greater than all."

 

[nothead]

You really need to get a clue as to the nuances of theological language. In this instance, "begotten -- not created" is the theological way of saying that God didn't create Jesus out of the "stuff of the cosmos," but rather that Jesus came directly out of God. IOW, Jesus is set apart from the rest of the created order.

Theological from who's theology? The NT authors? Hardly.

 

[nothead]

Ok, and, as I said, Jesus' Divinity is implied -- if not outright explicit in scripture.

Jesus is as close to God as you can get, not being God Almighty. He is ELOHIM, but not YHWH Elohim.

 

[nothead]

Jesus said that He is in the father, and the father in Him. This clearly backs the traditional notion, which many seem unfamiliar with, that Jesus is in fact God. Jesus is a manifested human form of the father, here on earth, /in Israel, and in Spirit form, one with the father. That's why you can worship either. You're worshipping the same Godhead.

No it is a pentecostal concept, the Spirit is in him and his nephesh is joined to God's Spirit. He is IN God, not God. IN the Father's bosom, via Spirit.

 

[nothead]

Jesus said that He is in the father, and the father in Him. This clearly backs the traditional notion, which many seem unfamiliar with, that Jesus is in fact God. Jesus is a manifested human form of the father, here on earth, /in Israel, and in Spirit form, one with the father. That's why you can worship either. You're worshipping the same Godhead.

...furthermore GODHEAD is an entirely FOREIGN concept from scripture itself, MADE UP in the later ECF'S minds.