The Absolute Equality of Jesus and The Father

[MB]

Based on what?

Thessalonica was a gentile church.

Romans 11:13, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: . . ."

2 Timothy 1:11, "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

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

 

[37818]

How you tend to phrase descriptions of God at times!

Give an example, quote me. Cite the post.

 

[37818]

It was Paul's custom to preach in the synagogues, . . .

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Give an example, quote me. Cite the post.

Post 33, was just asking for clarification

 

[Yeshua1]

No such thing. A church not any synagogue. You seem to have an irrational imagenation.
Your view. While that might be true, the Scripture does not tell us this.

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

 

[37818]

@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.

 

[37818]

Post 33, was just asking for clarification

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.
.

 

[37818]

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

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?

 

[SavedByGrace]

This thread "The Absolute Equality of Jesus and The Father," is on its face patentedly false.

your "theology" is patentedly false! you KEEP reading things into what I write? is it because you do not understand what the Holy Trinity is? I can explain in very easy language

 

[37818]

your "theology" is patentedly false! you KEEP reading things into what I write? is it because you do not understand what the Holy Trinity is? I can explain in very easy language

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:

Folks, we can disagree on the issues - but lets watch how we refer to our Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. Remember, many unsaved see our posts - and it gives us a bad impression on those who are visiting this site.

So please don't attack the poster - just the subject. Remember, I have the button to delete - and I am not afraid to use it! (same thing with the horn in my car) - as well as others on the admin team. And someone loves to give points! ---- A word to the wise is sufficient.

Debate the subject - NOT the individual.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

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

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.

 

[MB]

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

 

[SavedByGrace]

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

I don't see what this has got to do with the OP???

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

“και παν κτισμα ο εστιν εν τω ουρανω και εν τη γη και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης α εστιν και τα εν αυτοις παντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων” (Revelation 5:13-14)

"And ALL of the Creation, which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them, heard I saying, to Him Who sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be ALL the blessing, and ALL the honour, and ALL the glory, and ALL the might, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped." (so emphasized in the Greek)

Note the words, “τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω”, “to Him Who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb”, where the Greek conjunction, “και”, is used for “sameness”, with absolute equality. Thus, we read in chapter 22, verse 1: “And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb”. The Greek here is very important, “του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου”, where “του θρονου” (the throne), is in the singular number. God and the Lamb, as “distinct” Persons, are united in Their Rule. This absolute unity, can also be seen in chapter 11:15, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall Reign for ever and ever”. Note the end, “He shall Reign”, which in the Greek is, “βασιλευσει”, which is in the singular number. It can refer to “His Christ”, or, to “our Lord and of His Christ”, the latter no doubt being the correct meaning, as seen from the main passage from chapter 5, and 22. Let no one suppose that there is some “subordination” with Jesus Christ to the Father, post-Incarnation, as this is proven as completely wrong from these passages in Revelation.

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?

 

[SavedByGrace]

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?

like many, you simply don't understand what the Bible actually teaches on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the relationship between the First and Second Persons in the Holy Trinity. Nothing in what you say, in any way disproves what I haved said in the OP. Tell me exactly how does Jesus, by saysing "His God", in reference to the Father, prove that He is "subordinate" to Him? Can you not read, that in chapters 11 and 22, it is very clear that the Reign of Jesus Christ, is EQUAL with that of the Father? How can they BOTH be EQUAL CO-RULERS, if, as you suggest, Jesus is in some way "subordinate" to the Father? In Hebrews 1:8, God the Father is addressing Jesus Christ, where He says, " προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου". Here, not only does the Father refer to Jesus as "THE GOD" (ο θεος), but, also says that Jesus' Reign would be "without end"! Hardly language about someone Who is supposed to be a "subordinate"? Read John 17:5, which very clearly shows that Jesus had "equality" with the Father, from eternity past, which He "laid aside" during His Incarnate years, and when He entered into again at His Ascension. The words, " τῇ δοξῇ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί" shows that Jesus always HAD the SAME Glory JOINTLY WITH the Father, which He at the present time enjoys! Jesus Christ ALWAYS IS YAHWEH, which can NEVER have any "lower" sense!

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

like many, you simply don't understand what the Bible actually teaches on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the relationship between the First and Second Persons in the Holy Trinity. Nothing in what you say, in any way disproves what I haved said in the OP. Tell me exactly how does Jesus, by saysing "His God", in reference to the Father, prove that He is "subordinate" to Him? Can you not read, that in chapters 11 and 22, it is very clear that the Reign of Jesus Christ, is EQUAL with that of the Father? How can they BOTH be EQUAL CO-RULERS, if, as you suggest, Jesus is in some way "subordinate" to the Father? In Hebrews 1:8, God the Father is addressing Jesus Christ, where He says, " προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου". Here, not only does the Father refer to Jesus as "THE GOD" (ο θεος), but, also says that Jesus' Reign would be "without end"! Hardly language about someone Who is supposed to be a "subordinate"? Read John 17:5, which very clearly shows that Jesus had "equality" with the Father, from eternity past, which He "laid aside" during His Incarnate years, and when He entered into again at His Ascension. The words, " τῇ δοξῇ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί" shows that Jesus always HAD the SAME Glory JOINTLY WITH the Father, which He at the present time enjoys! Jesus Christ ALWAYS IS YAHWEH, which can NEVER have any "lower" sense!

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.

 

[SavedByGrace]

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 speaking complete nonsense! You call yourself "Scripture More Accurately", and don't really understand what you say! So, by your own logic (illogic), when God the Father very clearly calls Jesus Christ "GOD", as He does in Hebrews 1:8, then God the Father must "worship" the Lord Jesus Christ? Your reasoning is MOOT! I have no further time for this, as clearly you are out of your depth here! Start your own thread on your conjectures!

 

[37818]

you are speaking complete nonsense! You call yourself "Scripture More Accurately", and don't really understand what you say! So, by your own logic (illogic), when God the Father very clearly calls Jesus Christ "GOD", as He does in Hebrews 1:8, then God the Father must "worship" the Lord Jesus Christ? Your reasoning is MOOT! I have no further time for this, as clearly you are out of your depth here! Start your own thread on your conjectures!

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.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Son being called God by God still has God as His God. But they are not two Gods.

There is only ONE Being God, Who is Three Persons. Jesus calls the Father "God", because He IS "Yahweh". the Father calls Jesus "God", because He IS "Yahweh". No one is saying that there are two Gods, or God/god! The ABSOLUTE EQULATLY of The Three Persons does not mean "Three Gods", nor does it mean ANY "subordination" in the Godhead with the Three Persons. They are ETERANALLY COEQUAL. The Bible fact that The Three Persons are YHWH, is conclusive in itself that there can NEVER be any "subordination", except for the duration of Jesus' Incarnate years on earth. Even then, as Almighty God, He was COEQUAL with the Father!

 

[SavedByGrace]

37818, what is "funny" about my reply?