-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Tell me what would have happened if Jesus had said worship me? He was worshipped according to the bible but there would have been no point to him saying worhsip me... there were already people saying things like that such as ceasar for one. When Jesus said I AM it wasn't a I have been decreed as you would say using the qu'ran the I AM is the name of God it was the equivalent of saying I'm God.
Amen, praise God. that is revelation giving to you of the Holy Spirit.
only those who seek the truth will understand it, so don't feel bad if you don't get comments. because the truth is not what everyone wants; some rather have dispute/arguements. Thank you for bringing it to light as the Lord has giving it to you. don't see much of any more, Therefore; I praise God everytime I hear or see it being spoken.
We know God is Glorified in the Son, and His holy Spirit giving to us who believe on the Son of God, that we too can be one with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Thank God for the virgin birth, this way noone can call him all man, for man had nothing to do with the conception of THE CHRIST.
Again thank you for seeking the truth and giving it as it is. Christ is full deity, for he has the Spirit of God in him and could not give it while he was here on earth, for it was his Spirit, as we all have our spirits outside of God, his Spirit was God. He is the Word of God; which the bible say that God made everything by Him, and without him was nothing made. God gave his Word a Body, that all will know and see. and he chose to use the body of his own Son.
I am of my mother and father, but I am not them. because I have my own mind, own soul, own spirit.
Jesus Christ only had his own body, but his soul was the soul of God and so was his Spirit.... As he said I do what I see my Father do, and Speak what I hear my Father speak, but the flesh, he was on his own. ( in my own words) this is where he was tempted and so on........
I agree with you; and you gave the same scriptures I wanted to. and some....
God bless...
only those who seek the truth will understand it, so don't feel bad if you don't get comments. because the truth is not what everyone wants; some rather have dispute/arguements. Thank you for bringing it to light as the Lord has giving it to you. don't see much of any more, Therefore; I praise God everytime I hear or see it being spoken.
We know God is Glorified in the Son, and His holy Spirit giving to us who believe on the Son of God, that we too can be one with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Thank God for the virgin birth, this way noone can call him all man, for man had nothing to do with the conception of THE CHRIST.
Again thank you for seeking the truth and giving it as it is. Christ is full deity, for he has the Spirit of God in him and could not give it while he was here on earth, for it was his Spirit, as we all have our spirits outside of God, his Spirit was God. He is the Word of God; which the bible say that God made everything by Him, and without him was nothing made. God gave his Word a Body, that all will know and see. and he chose to use the body of his own Son.
I am of my mother and father, but I am not them. because I have my own mind, own soul, own spirit.
Jesus Christ only had his own body, but his soul was the soul of God and so was his Spirit.... As he said I do what I see my Father do, and Speak what I hear my Father speak, but the flesh, he was on his own. ( in my own words) this is where he was tempted and so on........
I agree with you; and you gave the same scriptures I wanted to. and some....
God bless...
Can I ask a general question here? Yes, Christ appeared to Moses at the burning bush, but that does not make him God the Father does it. Moses turned away from seeing God's face. The Father is unseen, so it was Jesus.
Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see how this can be an argumant for Jesus being God full stop. There is a difference between the Fasther and the Son
Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see how this can be an argumant for Jesus being God full stop. There is a difference between the Fasther and the Son
C
Christians have historically made a distinction between the ontological trinity and the economical trinity.
If you aren't familiar with these terms, ontology basically has to do with being or the nature of a thing. So, for example, I am a human. My humanness is part of my ontology. All humans might be said to be equal in that they all have the same ontology, being made in the image of God. Economy, in this sense, basically has to do with function or "work". For example, John was a fisherman and Paul, for a time, was a tent maker. That, in a sense, is how they functioned or worked.
So speaking of the ontological trinity we say that all the members (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are equal. They are all of the same essence. But speaking of their economy (how they function) they are not equal. The Son, for example, is sent by the Father and is submissive to him.
There are obviously passages which say that the Father is greater than the Son (John 5:30-36) and passages which say that they are equal (John 5:18, same chapter interestingly enough). So the question is how we parse these out. I don't think it would make much sense to say that the Father and Son are equal economically (after all, John 5:30ff seems to specifically have the economic aspect in mind), so in a sense all that is left is ontological equality. I believe this is born out by John 1:1 and other passages.
If you aren't familiar with these terms, ontology basically has to do with being or the nature of a thing. So, for example, I am a human. My humanness is part of my ontology. All humans might be said to be equal in that they all have the same ontology, being made in the image of God. Economy, in this sense, basically has to do with function or "work". For example, John was a fisherman and Paul, for a time, was a tent maker. That, in a sense, is how they functioned or worked.
So speaking of the ontological trinity we say that all the members (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are equal. They are all of the same essence. But speaking of their economy (how they function) they are not equal. The Son, for example, is sent by the Father and is submissive to him.
There are obviously passages which say that the Father is greater than the Son (John 5:30-36) and passages which say that they are equal (John 5:18, same chapter interestingly enough). So the question is how we parse these out. I don't think it would make much sense to say that the Father and Son are equal economically (after all, John 5:30ff seems to specifically have the economic aspect in mind), so in a sense all that is left is ontological equality. I believe this is born out by John 1:1 and other passages.
Thanks for this reply. I have heard this on another Christian website.
The problem I have with this is that I am told that concerning Christ being subject to the Father, now that is the economic Trinity. Along with the Father being greater than Christ.
But Paul speaks of a time in the future when Christ will be subject to the Father 1Cor15:28 This is when all power, authority and dominion has been defeated.
When he has done this then the Son Himself will be subject to him who put everything under Him so that God may be all in all.
So if Christ is subject now in the economic Trinity, and at some time in the future he will be subect to the Father surely that must be concerning his other role in the Trinity(ontological) Therefore if this view is correct surely a time will come when Christ is subject to the Father in both roles.
The problem I have with this is that I am told that concerning Christ being subject to the Father, now that is the economic Trinity. Along with the Father being greater than Christ.
But Paul speaks of a time in the future when Christ will be subject to the Father 1Cor15:28 This is when all power, authority and dominion has been defeated.
When he has done this then the Son Himself will be subject to him who put everything under Him so that God may be all in all.
So if Christ is subject now in the economic Trinity, and at some time in the future he will be subect to the Father surely that must be concerning his other role in the Trinity(ontological) Therefore if this view is correct surely a time will come when Christ is subject to the Father in both roles.
C
Well it doesn't make sense to say "in both roles" and have one of those roles be ontological, because ontology isn't a role.
But, as I understand you, you're having a hard time grasping how Christ could be subjected to the Father indefinitely into the future. Is this correct?
Personally, I don't see why this is a problem. Let's say Christ became subject to the Father through the incarnation (cf. Phil 2:5-11 where his being a servant is explained by his "being born in the likeness of men” (vs7)).
Christ now, eternally into the future (but not into the past), exists in this incarnational state. And, if Christ's subordination to the Father is explained in terms of the incarnation (again, cf. Phil 2:5-11), then it makes sense to say that his subordination to the Father will extend into the future indefinitely.
In light of this, 1 Corinthians 15:28 doesn't present any problem for Christ's being ontologically equal to the Father.
Let's look a little closer at your line of reasoning though:
Let me see if I can cast your argument in a different form:
1. Christ is now subject to the Father in the economic sense.
2. In the future, we are told that Christ will be subject to the Father.
3. Since Christ is already economically subject to the Father, this second subjection must be ontological.
Is this a correct representation of your argument?
I think it's obviously false.
(I) For one thing, ontological relations are necessary relations. If I have equality with you in virtue of the fact that we are both human, then for that relationship to change, an ontological change must occur: I or you must cease to be human (or we could both cease to be human and become two other ontologically unequal entities).
So if you are going to argue for a future ontological subordination of the Son, you would have to argue that his essential nature will change. But you cannot change his nature while maintaining his identity (a person's identity is bound up with their ontology: part of my identity is that I'm human). Thus, in effect, you would have us believe that Jesus ceases to be Jesus (or maybe the Father ceases to be the Father).
(II) A further problem with your line of reasoning is that it seems to assume, at (1), that Christ is now not ontologically subject to the Father (hence, he is now equal to the Father). Otherwise, why would there be a future ontological subjection? But if Jesus now shares the same ontological status as the Father, then it follows that he has all the necessary properties to Godness. But what are those properties? At least one of them would seem to be eternality, or an unchanging nature (we agree that God's nature is essential and unchanging, right?). But if Jesus has this necessary property to deity, then he cannot at some future time lose that property because it creates a contradiction in terms.
So if Jesus is not now ontologically subordinate to the Father, then he cannot become ontologically subordinate at some future time (lest we entangle ourselves in an incoherent mess of contradictions). But if Jesus is now ontologically subordinate to the Father, then your entire argument (assuming I've understood it correctly) is superfluous and doesn't prove anything.
(III) There seems to be at least one more problem with your reasoning here. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks specifically of Christ's messianic kingship being handed over. This is obviously an economic function, not an ontological one. He isn't handing over who he is, he is handing over a function: messianic kingship. So 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 obviously won't work in an argument to prove that Christ becomes (or is) ontologically subordinate.
Let me put it in simplar terms. If Christ is now subject to the Father, (economically) how can he become subject at a later date? In what way?
Of course to human reasoning Christ is the same substance as His Father, therrefore to the logical mind total equality exists, however Christ stated.
The Father is greater than I
The Father is greater than all
That they may know you the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
Paul said
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:5&6
Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. 1Cor15:27
Of course to human reasoning Christ is the same substance as His Father, therrefore to the logical mind total equality exists, however Christ stated.
The Father is greater than I
The Father is greater than all
That they may know you the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
Paul said
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:5&6
Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. 1Cor15:27
The church in AD400 was very different from the first disciples. The were known as 'the way' and followed after simple, childlike faith and a complete reliance on the Holy Spirit. 400 yearws later it was very different. I have been told I believe as a Christian did in 200AD in Rome and that I should move on from there. I am glad I don't. The truth then would be far more reliable than what is proclaimed today. I am sure they were far closer to the original teaching of the Apostles. It seems to me that since the early church man tends to rely on scholars and theologians and great human intellect fore the truths of God's word, it was very different then. Paul said all of that needed to be put to one side for the Christian.
Last edited:
C
All you've done is restate your earlier assertion without addressing my rejoinder to that assertion. And there was no point to put it "in simpler terms" since you basically just reworked what I had already reworked.
And prooftexting at this juncture is pointless. For one thing, you refer to John 10 and 1 Corinthians 15, which I already tried to demonstrate are economical. You haven't given me any reason to think they are ontological... so why would you just quote them assuming they will prove to me (or anyone else) that they are ontological?
As for your other verses, I could easily produce a whole list of verses that seem to refer to Jesus as God. For example, 1 John 5:20 "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Grammatically, the antecedent of "He" is most likely Jesus Christ.
But if you read Harris's book "Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus" you will be able to read his argument that "theos" is most often a reserved title for the Father, but is also applied to Son in respect to his being. So the fact that you can produce some passages that refer to the Father as God isn't going to settle the dispute.
Addendum: By the way, I think the clearest example of Christ's deity are those passages in the NT which apply to him OT Scriptures that clearly spoke of YHWH. If you want, I can provide a list of those.
Last edited:
So what does this mean?
Your throne O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions and annointed you with the oil of Joy.
Of course if you can biblically show me the ontological and economic reasoning of the Trinity I will accept it.
All of the clear cut statements in the NT state that the Father is greater than the Son, as does Christ Himself. But then there is the human intellect and wisdom that always seems to wish to go further than the plain statements of the Bible
Your throne O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions and annointed you with the oil of Joy.
Of course if you can biblically show me the ontological and economic reasoning of the Trinity I will accept it.
All of the clear cut statements in the NT state that the Father is greater than the Son, as does Christ Himself. But then there is the human intellect and wisdom that always seems to wish to go further than the plain statements of the Bible