The Absolute Equality of Jesus and The Father

Where does this back up your claim that Gentiles were in the majority in the synagogue at Thessalonica.
Your the one who claimed this first show me where scripture says this. It was Paul's custom to preach in the synagogues, When he preached in Athens he preached directly to Gentiles because there were no synagogues.Why not see if he called then elect or even mentioned it.
MB

 

Give an example, quote me. Cite the post.

 

Your view. While that might be true, the Scripture does not tell us this custom or to preach to gentiles.

 

Post 33, was just asking for clarification

 

Paul preached in them until he made the final move towards going to the gentiles primarily!

 

@SavedByGrace
This thread "The Absolute Equality of Jesus and The Father," is on its face patentedly false.
Jesus = The Father
The Father = Jesus
It amounts to modalism as stated.
It is my understanding that you are not a modalist.
And I would think we are in agreement that in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ with His Father they are the one and the same God. Not two gods.

 

That was page 2 and was not even a post by either you or me. Actually quote and cite from a said post. Do not be so lazy. Maybe if you paid better attention you would not have felt the need to ask of me such a dumb question after these years here you have read my posts on the BB. FYI I contend God must be a Trinity of Persons, any other type of God cannot exist.
.

 

I did back up my claim. You dismiss it. I cannot make you hear what you refuse to hear or understand.
I want to understand your view. Please start a thread, "Why only people of Isreal can be God's elect," or of a title that better presents your view. And present why gentiles can never be called elect. Address the texts that those like myself hold that gentiles can be elect and why they cannot mean that. Understand?

 

Well then it may be we understand the meaing of words differently. Such as the term "absolute."
You do not understand my Biblical Theology by reason, you said of me, "your 'theology' is patentedly false!"
And "you KEEP reading things into what I write?"
The Apostle Paul wrote, Romans 2:1, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."
Now this would applies to me as well as you, would it not?
Then there is this:

Debate the subject - NOT the individual.

 

It is not true that when Paul "preached in Athens he preached directly to Gentiles because there were no synagogues."

There was at least one synagogue in Athens and Paul did reason with the Jews in that synagogue:

Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

 

Ok I stand corrected how ever Paul did not teach there but he did on mars hill He just disputed with the Jews. At there synagogue There were no discussions with the Gentiles present at the synagogue. Which I believe proves my point. When Paul taught in the synagogue there were no Gentiles there. Election does not apply To Gentiles before Salvation
Don't get a swelled head I'm man enough to admit it when I make a mistake.
MB

 

You assert that these passages in Revelation prove as completely wrong that there is any subordination with Jesus to the Father after the Incarnation.

More than any other book of the Bible, however, Revelation stresses that God the Father continues to be the God of the glorified God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth:

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

In this statement, the glorified Jesus Himself is the One who emphatically declares 4x that the Father is His God.

It hardly seems that your OP accounts for what Jesus Himself stresses in this statement. If you believe that this is not an explicit statement of some kind of subordination of the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth, to the Father after the Incarnation, how do you explain that what this statement teaches is not evidence of any such subordination?

 

Because whenever Someone is the God of someone else, the One who is the God of someone else must be worshiped by that person who has someone who is his God. The glorified Jesus' saying that the Father is His God shows that even after His ascension, He will continue to worship the Father as His God.

If you want to argue that the Scripture equally emphasizes that Jesus is the God of God the Father, please provide those explicit statements.

 

You are the one claiming unqualified "absolute" equality between "Jesus" and "God the Father."

Let us look at Hebrews 1:8-9,
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Notice: The Son being called God by God still has God as His God. But they are not two Gods.