Jehovah witnesses

[Kurieuo]

There is a plethora of scriptures I can quote that demonstrates Jesus is not God. You have one that is very likely translated incorrectly.

There is plenty of Scripture that show Jesus is a distinct person from the Father, but they do not show that He isn't homoousios with the Father (shares in the same divine "essence").

Many of your quotes passages (found below) are being wrongly understood, based upon a misunderstanding as to the nature of differences. John 14:28 for example, where Jesus says that, "the Father being greater than I am." Surely, it doesn't surprise you to know many who believe in Christ's Divinity, fully accept Christ's statement here. We do distinguish different roles and functions, different processions, that appear unique to each person who are homoousios (same "essence") that is Divine -- God Himself, the Great I AM.

So we who embrace a Christology that says Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, understand it's not that Christ's essence differs, but rather His role and function especially as God incarnated Himself in human form to do what we, nor any other creature, could rightly do for us. God's covenant with Israel was between Him and Abraham and taken up by Israel who God selected to be the people through whom He would reveal Himself, offering forgiveness and redemption to all humanity.

As the Apostle Paul explains (paraphrasing), "Christ, who being God in His very nature, considered it not robbery to be equal to God." (Phil 2:5-6) Strange passage isn't it? Why would anyone on earth think Jesus was robbed of being equal to God, unless Jesus was indeed of the same "essence" (homoousios) to God. Further, consider it a given for a second that Jesus was actually in His very nature God. Can God no longer be God? No. Therefore Jesus in taking upon Himself human form, still must have remained in His very nature God.

Then we come to Phil 2:7-8 which gets to the heart of many misunderstandings in the passages you cite, and others like JWs, Muslims and anyone who thinks Jesus was a created being, a creature of God, even if the first of all creation:

• "But [Jesus] made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

See here, it's not that Jesus stopped being divine, but rather gave up His rights to divinity while in human form here on Earth with us. He humbled Himself, taking upon the form a servant, being found in the likeness of man, humbling Himself to the Father, being obedient unto death on the cross -- so that sin and death could be conquered through Him.

I'd also recommend this video here, which responds to John 14:28 and essentially covers what I've been here saying. With a correct understanding of what is meant in this passage, how Christ is unique from the Father, yet shared in the same divine essence (again homoousios was the official term which won agreement), then through this lens all your Scripture below becomes understood in correct light and poses no issue to those who believe Christ is God.

1. Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.
Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.

2. Matthew 26:39
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will.
Jesus’ will is likewise autonomous from God’s Will. Jesus is seeking acquiescence to God’s will.

3. John 5:26
For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Jesus received his life from God. God received his life from no one. He is eternally self-existent.

4. John 5:30
By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.
Jesus says, “by myself, I can do nothing.” This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to “please myself” but rather is seeking to “please the one who sent me.”

5. John 5:19
The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also.
Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God.

6. Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.

7. John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.
This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God.

8. Matthew 6:9
Our Father, which art in Heaven.
He didn’t pray, Our Father, which art standing right here!”

9. Matthew 27:46
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Inconceivable if he is God the Creator.

10. John 17:21-23
. . .that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . ..that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.
In this prayer Jesus defines the term “to be one.” It is clearly accomplished through the relationship of two autonomous beings. Christian believers are to model their relationship (to become one) after the relationship of God and Christ (as God and Christ are one). Notice that “to be one” does not mean to be “one and the same.”

11. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
For he "has put everything under his feet." 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. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Paul declares that God put everything under Christ, except God himself. Instead God rules all things through Christ. (remember: “through him all things were made.”)

12. Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.
Jesus is the exact representation of his being. I send my representative to Congress. He is not me, myself. He is my representative.

13. Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13)
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin. Jesus has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he never sinned. See

14. Hebrews 5:7-9
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Jesus had to walk a course of faith and obedience in order to achieve perfection. By achieving perfection, Jesus “became” the source of eternal salvation

Note: No one denies Jesus doesn't differ from the Father (which is what many of your passages support), but rather it is the how in which Jesus differs from the Father that we disagree. You must prove that Christ differs in His divine essence, rather than merely role, function, or even divine entitlements (which the Father restored when placing Jesus' name above EVERY OTHER NAME to be worshiped as the Lord by ALL in heaven and on earth (Phil 2:9-10) -- that would include Jehovah, only if Jesus were not one and the same.

As for a handful of other passages not covered by a correct understanding of the Son's differences to the Father (e.g., Hebrews 1:3 , John 17:21-23), indeed such support Christ's divinity. I'm puzzled why you quote them, since these should really highlight that it isn't Christ's divine nature that differs (Christ is an exact representation of, and being one with, God), but rather it was as Paul explains in Philippians 2, Christ who being in His very nature God not considering it robbery to make Himself lesser than the Father while being found in human form.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzBesvLK5bE

[abelcainsbrother]

Despite what trinity deniars claim the scriptures they quote to try to claim Jesus Christ is not God have no scriptures that claim that. There is no scripture that they can quote that says Jesus is not God despite them claiming it to be true.It is their own opinion.Yet we who accept the trinity actually have scripture that clearly says Jesus is God. Both John 20:28 and Acts 20:28 clearly say Jesus is God and in order for trinity deniars to deny this they must not believe what the bible says and must ignore what the bible says or think it contradicts itself in order to deny what the bible clearly tells us.This proves the trinity is true by scripture and cannot be a man-made doctrine. It is trinity deniars that believe a man-made doctrine.They accuse us of what they are doing - going by a man-made doctrine.

This is very important too,this is much,much more important than say different creation interpretations because if you don't know who Jesus is and you deny who he is?Then you don't believe in the true Jesus and he feels insulted and hurt by it.Why knowingly deny what God's word clearly tells us and instead believe what man-made doctrine says and deny who Jesus truly is God in human flesh?It does not matter if it makes sense to you,that is not a reason to not believe what the bible tells us about Jesus.

JW is a false religion and so you should not believe what they teach about Jesus.They do not believe in the true Jesus who was God in human flesh and so they are denying who Jesus is. They might be good moral people but they have a flawed bible and false doctrine when it comes to Jesus.

[Mazzy]

Note: No one denies Jesus doesn't differ from the Father (which is what many of your passages support), but rather it is the how in which Jesus differs from the Father that we disagree. You must prove that Christ differs in His divine essence, rather than merely role, function, or even divine entitlements (which the Father restored when placing Jesus' name above EVERY OTHER NAME to be worshiped as the Lord by ALL in heaven and on earth (Phil 2:9-10) -- that would include Jehovah, only if Jesus were not one and the same.

Sorry this makes no sense at all. For Jesus name to be elevated above every other name can not include Jehovah. Every other name means, not Jehovah's name. This saying is confirmed as meaning a place of highest honor. Philippians 2:8-11. Jesus does have a place of highest honor as Christ. For Jehovah to bestow such an honor it can't have been to the same person. Also, don't forget, after the Millennial rule Jesus will hand back the Kingdom to his Father, God. They cannot be the same person.

Also, I don't have to prove anything as you cannot prove the Trinity. Jesus never used the term and it is not in the bible. You would have already heard that.

As for a handful of other passages not covered by a correct understanding of the Son's differences to the Father (e.g., Hebrews 1:3 , John 17:21-23), indeed such support Christ's divinity. I'm puzzled why you quote them, since these should really highlight that it isn't Christ's divine nature that differs (Christ is an exact representation of, and being one with, God), but rather it was as Paul explains in Philippians 2, Christ who being in His very nature God not considering it robbery to make Himself lesser than the Father while being found in human form.

The above is seriously convoluted and circular reasoning. Jesus is Divine, but not God. Divine means, of or like God or A god, which I don't disagree with. How can Jesus speaking to His Father as another person support Jesus is God. How does being divine mean Jesus is God? That's why I quote those scriptures.

I learned a new word today.. Thanks....

"Homoousios, in Christianity, the key term of the Christological doctrine formulated at the first ecumenical council, at Nicaea in 325, to affirm that God the Son and God the Father are of the same substance."

The above sounds like the reasoning of man. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Respectfully I'd say to the Nicene council, "what a load of hubris". This council obviously thought they could wave their hand over a piece of paper and turn the obvious into a mystery.

For me when Jesus says his father is greater than he, and Jesus speaks to the father as being another person, and that we are to pray to his Father, I simply believe it.

[Kurieuo]

It is reasoning of man, like your reasoning is one of a woman. That said, Trinitarian doctrine is something other than Christ's divinity, so you shouldn't keep saying this is a discussion of Trinity, because such is much more

What we're discussing is Christology, specifically the nature of Christ. We have Scripture which clearly attributes divinity to Christ, Scripture you mentioned even, and others I've mentioned. That video in my last post too, the man makes a quite powerful case examining some passages you present as problematic in context. I think I was quite clear, and detailed, I'll let nonpartisan readers be the judge. Nonetheless, that video presents much of what I say in a different manner which I found clear and sensible.

As for your hand wave dismissal of such being reason of man, let's follow what exactly happened. Jesus was no longer here, and we had writings, and the teachings the Apostles passed on that were believed throughout Christian churches, both Eastern and Western churches. Disputes arose as to how one should logically reason and coherently make sense of such teachings. Councils were called and had, where very intelligent and passionate men, respected leaders in many different churches, hundreds, got together, discussed, and put together a logically coherent declaration based upon Scripture itself and what had been passed on. It would be foolishness to dismiss such thought without much consideration as just reason of man, substituting in your own had millennias later.

So then, I think I was quite clear and sensible, and believe others would have understood most of what I said. Further more, I can account for all Scripture rather than simply ignoring parts I don't like, and reading other passages in isolation devoid of any context to try generate some support for a view that has no agreed support by the early Christian church. it was clear to me you weren't and aren't going to agree, but for other readers your passages have now been responded to. Mine still remain, along with some of your own, which reveal Christ's divinity. Let the reader decide.

[RickD]

Mazzy,

The doctrine of the Trinity is man made. The doctrine represents the reality that God is A Trinity.

And Kurieuo is right. If you don't believe that Christ is God, you believe in a false Christ who cannot save.

You really need to think about this.

I believe Jesus is God's son who came to provide ransom for mankind. I think it doesn't matter if you believe in the Trinity or not. One's view on the Trinity is not what brings you salvation. I think sects, faiths, and individuals like to make their own doctrine and suggest they themselves are the way, the truth and the light.

The JWs say if you believe in the Trinity you are a pagan. You are opposed, suggesting if one doesn't accept the Trinity then one believes in a false Christ.
I think Jesus was clever with his words. Divisions will come to show the one approved by God. I think maybe you should really think about this.

I'm not saying that if you don't believe in the Trinity, that you necessarily believe in a false Christ. I said that if you don't believe Christ is God, then you believe in a false Christ. You are correct that a belief in the Trinity is not what saves. A belief, a trusting in Christ, is what saves. But one has to trust in the correct Christ.

To speak of the 'correct' Christ, implies there is more than one Christ. I realize that is not what you are suggesting. However, generally I don't class myself as a believer in the Trinity, but I do believe Jesus is Christ, our Savior and divine. Therefore I suggest, I meet the criteria for having faith in Christ, regardless of not accepting Jesus is somehow one part of three.

Yes mazzy, there is one true Christ, and many false christs.
No, you don't meet the biblical criteria for faith in Christ. You believe in a false Christ. Any Christ who is not God, cannot save. The Trinity does not say that Jesus is one part in three. The doctrine of the Trinity does not say that Jesus is 1/3 of God.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Everyone here who has argued against the Trinity, doesn't understand the doctrine enough to argue against it, and argues against a straw man.

I really hope you take a different route than most others who came here and argued against the Trinity. I hope you actually want to do some studying of what the doctrine actually says, so you can first understand it, before you continue arguing against something that you don't understand.

If you really are a truth-seeker, I'm sure Kurieuo would be happy to provide you with the links to his great threads about the Trinity.

You should know the doctrine well enough to defend it, before you argue against it.

[abelcainsbrother]

Note: No one denies Jesus doesn't differ from the Father (which is what many of your passages support), but rather it is the how in which Jesus differs from the Father that we disagree. You must prove that Christ differs in His divine essence, rather than merely role, function, or even divine entitlements (which the Father restored when placing Jesus' name above EVERY OTHER NAME to be worshiped as the Lord by ALL in heaven and on earth (Phil 2:9-10) -- that would include Jehovah, only if Jesus were not one and the same.

Sorry this makes no sense at all. For Jesus name to be elevated above every other name can not include Jehovah. Every other name means, not Jehovah's name. This saying is confirmed as meaning a place of highest honor. Philippians 2:8-11. Jesus does have a place of highest honor as Christ. For Jehovah to bestow such an honor it can't have been to the same person. Also, don't forget, after the Millennial rule Jesus will hand back the Kingdom to his Father, God. They cannot be the same person.

Also, I don't have to prove anything as you cannot prove the Trinity. Jesus never used the term and it is not in the bible. You would have already heard that.

As for a handful of other passages not covered by a correct understanding of the Son's differences to the Father (e.g., Hebrews 1:3 , John 17:21-23), indeed such support Christ's divinity. I'm puzzled why you quote them, since these should really highlight that it isn't Christ's divine nature that differs (Christ is an exact representation of, and being one with, God), but rather it was as Paul explains in Philippians 2, Christ who being in His very nature God not considering it robbery to make Himself lesser than the Father while being found in human form.

The above is seriously convoluted and circular reasoning. Jesus is Divine, but not God. Divine means, of or like God or A god, which I don't disagree with. How can Jesus speaking to His Father as another person support Jesus is God. How does being divine mean Jesus is God? That's why I quote those scriptures.

I learned a new word today.. Thanks....

"Homoousios, in Christianity, the key term of the Christological doctrine formulated at the first ecumenical council, at Nicaea in 325, to affirm that God the Son and God the Father are of the same substance."

The above sounds like the reasoning of man. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Respectfully I'd say to the Nicene council, "what a load of hubris". This council obviously thought they could wave their hand over a piece of paper and turn the obvious into a mystery.

For me when Jesus says his father is greater than he, and Jesus speaks to the father as being another person, and that we are to pray to his Father, I simply believe it.

How can you claim Jesus denies the trinity? I mean everybody knows the word trinity is npt in the bible but the trinity is true biblically as I explained above.Where are you getting these lies from? John 8:57-59. Not only is Jesus claiming he is God here but we also have both John and Luke telling us Jesus is God.John 20:28 and Acts 20:28 both tell us Jesus is God and so you picked up lies from people somewhere.I hope that you will believe what the bible says instead of what man says.It not making sense to you how Jesus could be God when he is praying to God is not an excuse.Jesus could not fulfill all of the law for us and live a perfect life for us if he did not humble himself and pray to God.Just imagine God almighty in human flesh.Just believe what God's word says,it is easy.

This is what gets me angry,not at you personally because I know somebody has taught you lies and you just believe them but as you may know I can handle different interpretations because they are not salvation issues like different creation interpretations but this is a salvation issue,unlike different creation interpretations.

I totally reject evolution but I do not judge somebody and their salvation if they accept evolution I just think they are wrong,samething with young earth creationism but this right here is where I draw the line that cannot be crossed by anyone who claims to believe in Jesus,this is a salvation issue and this is what gets me riled up and angry when we have people teaching about a false Jesus and denying who Jesus is.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

ABC's right, it doesn't make sense for a Christian to say Jesus isn't God for if He wasn't, how could Jesus pay for the world? Only God could do this since an infinite being can take eternal punishment one time while created beings get punished for eternity since God is eternal.
There's verses in the OT which point to Jesus' divinity, such as Zechariah 12:10 and others.

[Mazzy]

Despite what trinity deniars claim the scriptures they quote to try to claim Jesus Christ is not God have no scriptures that claim that. There is no scripture that they can quote that says Jesus is not God despite them claiming it to be true.It is their own opinion.Yet we who accept the trinity actually have scripture that clearly says Jesus is God. Both John 20:28 and Acts 20:28 clearly say Jesus is God

No, you do not have scripture to prove the Trinity.

A for John 20:28, Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

Remember that it was common at that time to call God’s representatives “God,” and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with “God,” it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4—For more on that, see the note on Genesis 16:7-13).
There are many Trinitarian authorities who admit that there was no knowledge of Trinitarian doctrine at the time Thomas spoke. For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested.

I have already posted information about Greek translation.

Acts 20:20, is Gods active force. Look " God Himself didn't come down as flames of fire and inhabit those people while the rest of Him was in heaven. Acts 2:2 "Suddenly a sound like a mighty rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw tongues like flames of a fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.…"

The Holy Spirit enabled 'them'. God did not jump into their bodies himself. The Holy Spirit is not GOD. You are saying if I wave my hand and cause a wind that also cause a leaf to move, that wind is also me. What you are trying to argue is just seriously silly in my view.

[Mazzy]

ABC's right, it doesn't make sense for a Christian to say Jesus isn't God for if He wasn't, how could Jesus pay for the world? Only God could do this since an infinite being can take eternal punishment one time while created beings get punished for eternity since God is eternal.
There's verses in the OT which point to Jesus' divinity, such as Zechariah 12:10 and others.

I am not saying Jesus is not Divine. I have already said he is. I feel I am going a round and around in circles.

"In religious terms, divinity or godhead is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, supreme being, creator deity, or spirits, and are therefore regarded as sacred and holy. .." Wiki. Being Divine does not mean one is the Father God.

I never said Jesus wasn't eternal either. I said Jesus is not God, yet he was a perfect sacrifice and was with God before the creation.

Romans 8:3."3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,"

Romans doesn't say ".... by sending a part of Himself in the likeness of sinful flesh"

! Corinthians 15:24 "23 But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…"

So what do you reckon the above scripture means? Does it mean Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to another part of Himself after the end has come? or Does it mean Jesus will reign until the end as an individual and then hand the Kingdom over to His Father, God, an individual?

[B. W.]

Despite what trinity deniars claim the scriptures they quote to try to claim Jesus Christ is not God have no scriptures that claim that. There is no scripture that they can quote that says Jesus is not God despite them claiming it to be true.It is their own opinion.Yet we who accept the trinity actually have scripture that clearly says Jesus is God. Both John 20:28 and Acts 20:28 clearly say Jesus is God

No, you do not have scripture to prove the Trinity...

Kindly suggest you begin to read this thread:


http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33317

It is all there...
-
-
-

[thatkidakayoungguy]

! Corinthians 15:24 "23 But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…"

So what do you reckon the above scripture means? Does it mean Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to another part of Himself after the end has come? or Does it mean Jesus will reign until the end as an individual and then hand the Kingdom over to His Father, God, an individual?

I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God. I don't see how it's a problem for God to make Himself as multiple persons who are still God.

[abelcainsbrother]

Despite what trinity deniars claim the scriptures they quote to try to claim Jesus Christ is not God have no scriptures that claim that. There is no scripture that they can quote that says Jesus is not God despite them claiming it to be true.It is their own opinion.Yet we who accept the trinity actually have scripture that clearly says Jesus is God. Both John 20:28 and Acts 20:28 clearly say Jesus is God

No, you do not have scripture to prove the Trinity.

A for John 20:28, Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

Remember that it was common at that time to call God’s representatives “God,” and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with “God,” it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4—For more on that, see the note on Genesis 16:7-13).
There are many Trinitarian authorities who admit that there was no knowledge of Trinitarian doctrine at the time Thomas spoke. For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested.

I have already posted information about Greek translation.

Acts 20:20, is Gods active force. Look " God Himself didn't come down as flames of fire and inhabit those people while the rest of Him was in heaven. Acts 2:2 "Suddenly a sound like a mighty rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw tongues like flames of a fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.…"

The Holy Spirit enabled 'them'. God did not jump into their bodies himself. The Holy Spirit is not GOD. You are saying if I wave my hand and cause a wind that also cause a leaf to move, that wind is also me. What you are trying to argue is just seriously silly in my view.

In order to back up your trinity denial you are having to ignore what the bible says and change the meaning of words.2nd Timothy 4:3.God's word was translated into english for us and we should go by what it says in english and not ignore it.I'm done arguing with you about this. If you ignore what the bible says then you won't believe me either,so there is nothing I can do. But I wish you would just read what it says in english and believe it,I can't make you though.

[Mazzy]

! Corinthians 15:24 "23 But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…"

So what do you reckon the above scripture means? Does it mean Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to another part of Himself after the end has come? or Does it mean Jesus will reign until the end as an individual and then hand the Kingdom over to His Father, God, an individual?

I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God. I don't see how it's a problem for God to make Himself as multiple persons who are still God.

I wish you could hear what you are actually saying. "I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God."

If God & Jesus were the one 'person' there would be no need for Jesus to hand over the Kingdom to the Father, as the Father would already have it.

[RickD]

! Corinthians 15:24 "23 But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…"

So what do you reckon the above scripture means? Does it mean Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to another part of Himself after the end has come? or Does it mean Jesus will reign until the end as an individual and then hand the Kingdom over to His Father, God, an individual?

I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God. I don't see how it's a problem for God to make Himself as multiple persons who are still God.

I wish you could hear what you are actually saying. "I don't see how it's a problem for such a powerful God to hand over something to another person of God."

If God & Jesus were the one 'person' there would be no need for Jesus to hand over the Kingdom to the Father, as the Father would already have it.

Again, you're arguing against a straw man. The Father and Jesus are not one person. Along with the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons.

I beg of you to stop arguing against something you don't understand. Please open yourself up to learn what the doctrine of the Trinity actually says.

[Kurieuo]

There's this myth that a "many persons" like concept like Trinitarian doctrine came post-Christ, is pagan inspired which I saw Mazzy allude to many posts back. Yet, it's origins lie within Jewish thought and the Tanakh.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-aVQ8MELeg