Originally posted by Bosse de Nageno i tried to learn Greek ages ago and gave up, although my handwriting was passable, but it comes in cycles, and who knows it may come round again. you must remember I went to school in an era that emphasised creativity over grammatical precepts, it did not matter if your spelling was a little wayward or your grammar a little iffy, it as the creative process that was important, oh, the legacy of the self indulgent hippy era, now I can hardly construct a valid sentence without having a flashback!
That's quite a different sentence than the one I responded to.
Definite article: 'the'; indefinite, 'a'.
Anyhow, you could do worse than read the article mentioned, as it discusses these grammatical issues quite explicitly, citing scholars whose views on Greek grammar are more authoritative than yours and mine, I think.
Does 1 Corinthians 15:27,28 argue that Christ is not God incarnate?
Then the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to His God and Father once He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. (v.24)
"For He must reign until God puts all His enemies under His feet.
Death, the last enemy, is being abolished. (v.26)
The last enemy of God and Christ is death. And after the millennial kingdom death and the holding cell of the dead, Hades, are destroyed (See Rev. 20:14; 21:4; cf. Hosea 13:14; 3 Tim. 1:10).
After the millennial kingdom, in the heaven and new earth "death will be no more."
"For He has subjected all things under His feet. But when He says that all things are subjected, it is evident that [all things are] except Him who has subjected all things to Him." (v.27)
The first "He" refers to God, who has subjected all things under Christ's feet. This is a reference to Psalm 8:6-7 concerning Christ as the man whom God caused to have dominion over all things. This will be fulfilled when the thngs mentioned in verses 24 through 26 have taken place. "For" at the beginning of verse 27 indicates this.
"To Him" - the resurrected, glorified, and exalted man (as elaborated in much of this same chapter 15), To this man, God has subjected all things (See Heb 2:7-9; Eph. 1:20-22)
None of these concepts argue against Christ being the Word Who was with God and was God (John 1:1) None of this argues that He is not "the First and the Last" exactly as the Almighty is the Alpha and the Omega (Comp. Rev. 1:8; 1:17; 2:8; 22:13; Isa. 44:6; 48:12)
None of these concepts make Christ "second to the Last". He remains "the First and the Last" and "the Alpha and the Omega" attributes claimed by Jehovah God and the Almighty.
Christ the Son of God, as the head of mankind in His humanity, is under the headship of God the Father (1 Cor. 11:3). This headship is for the government of God's kingdom. After God the Father has subjected all things under the feet of Christ as resurrected man in glory (Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:7-8), and after Christ as such a resurrected man has put all enemies under His feet to execute God the Father's subjection of all things to Him, He as the Son of God, along with His delivering of the kingdom back to God the Father (v. 24), will also subject Himself in His divinity to God the Father, who has subjected all things to Him, the Son in His humanity.
This indicates the Son's absolute subjection and subordination to the Father, which exalts the Father that God the Father may be all in all.
Jehovah's Witnesses try to use this passage to prove that because of the Son's subordination and subjection to God the Father He cannot be God incarnated to be a man. I don't agree in the least.
1.) We cannot say that this passage means that the millennial kingdom is somehow not of God the Father anyway.
Concerning the second coming of Christ at the commencement of the millennial kingdom Jesus taught - "Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt. 13:43a).
And the kingdom to come is "the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph. 5:5)
Any subjection of the Son to the Father, to God, cannot mean that Christ is reigning instead of God reigning. It is "the kingdom of their Father".
2.) The passage cannot mean that up to the end of the millennial kingdom Christ was NOT subject to the Father. This should be obviously true because He suffered the death of the cross through obedience as a slave, in the form of a man (Phil. 2:5-11)
3.) The passage has no such effect that the Son of Man would cease to have His eternal dominion (Dan. 7:13,14)
4.) The passage cannot mean that Jesus removes Himself from His Father's throne at any time (Rev. 3:21 comp 22:1)
5. In the new heaven and new earth AFTER the millennial kingdom the seat of universal government is "the throne [singular] of God AND OF THE LAMB" (Rev. 22:1)
6.) But for God to be all in all cannot mean that the throne of Christ ceases for Hebrews also says:
"But as to the Son, Your throne O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the sceptor of Your kingdom" (Heb. 1:8)
The passage does show the total submission of the Son to the Father.
What I think the JWs fail to grasp here is that God Almighty can express Himself not only as total and perfect authority but also total and perfect submission to authority as well. And they do not perceive that Christ is the mingling of Divinity and Humanity.
In short, the more the Son is subject to the Father the higher the Father exalts the Son. And the higher the Son is exalted the higher the Father is exalted.
As for the Spirit, He is flowing into man for eternity to dispense God into man that God and man may be incorporated and blended to produce man brothers for the Firstborn Son of God Jesus.
Originally posted by jaywillI think that the verse clearly shows that even after his resurrection and ascension to heaven, Christ is subject to God.
In short, the more the Son is subject to the Father the higher the Father exalts the Son. And the higher the Son is exalted the higher the Father is exalted.
As for the Spirit, He is flowing into man for eternity to dispense God into man that God and man may be incorporated and blended to produce man brothers for the Firstborn Son of God Jesus.
Originally posted by jaywillYou sidestepped the question.
[b]==================================
How do you justify claiming that someone is not a Christian (which you did in previous threads/posts) who does not believe that Christ is God incarnate when such a doctrine is not clearly explained by Christ or Paul?
========================================
In the final analysis only God knows who ha ...[text shortened]... ce and tolerance to try to correct someone who has been misled. But it is not limitless.[/b]
No probs.
Originally posted by Rajk999I don't think I sidestepped any question from you, if I can sort out which question or point you mean for me to address.
You sidestepped the question.
No probs.
But to be quite direct about this matter of "Why were they at a loss of words?" (if that is what you are refering to now).
I don't think they were. We may be slow to comprehend. That is not a loss of words on thier part.
Originally posted by Rajk999I would say that they are distinct but they are not separate.
Then God and Christ are 2 separate entities ?
The human language is limited to express this mysterious and marvelous interpenetration of the "Persons" of the trinity.
We may borrow words from the human language but not stress them too far. For example above I used the word "Persons" as in "three Persons" of the Trinity.
Stressing that too far runs the risk of imagining three Gods. But the Bible says that there is only one God.
So I borrow the word "Persons" cautiously to communicate. But the three are distinct and not separate.
Even that concept may present some problems. It does NOT present any problems to EXPERIENCE of God and enjoyment of God.
But experience and enjoyment are not the priority of some people. It WAS the priority of the writers of the New Testament.
Now let me ask you a question Rajk999,
Paul says that fallen man is "alienated from the life of God". (Eph. 4:18)
Christ says "I am the ... life" (John 14:6) .
Is "the life of God" not God ? What can be more subjective to a person than the life of that person?
If the Son of God says "I am ... the life" , that is the Divine (ZOE) life of God, then Who is He ?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Rajk999Again the idiotic name-calling. What exactly did Daniel58 say that was in any way fanatical?
What a blooming idiot ! Youre a gullible empty headed sychophant.
You and your type are the reason why religious fanatics succeed in manipulating people to their deaths.
Originally posted by jaywillIs it not possible for Christ to be the Son of God and still be the life of God? If a man says my wife is my life or, my wife and I are one. How can you jump from that to say they are the same person. Makes no sense to me.
Now let me ask you a question Rajk999,
Paul says that fallen man is [b]"alienated from the life of God". (Eph. 4:18)
Christ says "I am the ... life" (John 14:6) .
Is "the life of God" not God ? What can be more subjective to a person than the life of that person?
If the Son of God says "I am ... the life" , that is the Divine (ZOE) life of God, then Who is He ?[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillThis is a big topic. Lets forget it for the time being.
I don't think I sidestepped any question from you, if I can sort out [b]which question or point you mean for me to address.
But to be quite direct about this matter of "Why were they at a loss of words?" (if that is what you are refering to now).
I don't think they were. We may be slow to comprehend. That is not a loss of words on thier part.[/b]
I will raise it another time.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGreek certainly has a definite article, though it differs significantly from the English. So the Greek article generally co-occurs with names and abstract words and it would be normal to say 'the Robbie says the God to be the Love' (Robbie says that God is Love). However there is an exception when the noun is the predicate complement (what follows the 'was' or before the 'en' in Greek). So it is probably not right to say 'the Word was a God'. The absense of the article, contrary to what the JWs may think, does not imply a multiplicity of gods.
no i tried to learn Greek ages ago and gave up, although my handwriting was passable, but it comes in cycles, and who knows it may come round again. you must remember I went to school in an era that emphasised creativity over grammatical precepts, it did not matter if your spelling was a little wayward or your grammar a little iffy, it as the creati ...[text shortened]... elf indulgent hippy era, now I can hardly construct a valid sentence without having a flashback!