"Organization"

[Smokey Jack]

--- that verse is quite incredible as it shows Christ to be subordinate to God AFTER he has been resurrected. The Trin position is that the 2nd person was co-equal except for the incarnation. That is, for the brief 33 years Christ came to earth he was not co-equal with God. Now that he has returned to heaven his co-equal status has been restored. 1Co 15 disproves that thesis showing that Christ is still not co-equal even tho the incarnation is over.
---The verse is just another reference to Christ as man who as the 2nd Adam must occupy a position until God's plan for Adam is fulfilled. When God's plan is fulfilled Christ will give up the kingdom to God. Although Christ occupies the throne of David and is exalted those are things that refer to him as a man.
---I may be missing the question regarding 1Co 15. It seems clear to be Christ as man subordinate to God.
Lanny

Thank you Lanny,  1Co 15 is incredible on both the issues that seem to come up lately.  It shows that Jesus is not God and; if all means all; universal salvation.  It seems to me that if the church is missing the true nature of God in Christ they very likely are also missing the mark on the orthodox doctrine of damnation.  The more I look at 1 Co 15 the clearer it becomes.

Smokey

[Helen]

Thank you Lanny,  1Co 15 is incredible on both the issues that seem to come up lately.  It shows that Jesus is not God and; if all means all; universal salvation.  It seems to me that if the church is missing the true nature of God in Christ they very likely are also missing the mark on the orthodox doctrine of damnation.  The more I look at 1 Co 15 the clearer it becomes.

Smokey

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  

Here's a question for you S-Jack...after Jesus resurrected from the dead; did He have human flesh that was just as vulnerable to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?  Along this same line, is Lazarus or any of the others that Jesus raised from the dead still alive today?

[Helen]

'I’m not calling saints demonic, but if they try to cover up their demonic faith; then that could be demonic too!'

To say that one is not calling saints demonic, but their faith demonic; reminds me of free-wheeling on a 10-speed bike.  A person thinks they can back-peddle without impeding their forward progress, but that is only true if their direction is all downhill.

Knowing now that S-Jack thinks the Kingdom of God lies in the lap of Satan’s territory, I understand why he crusades against churches [John 17:16].  Unlike S-Jack, I do not believe that centuries of Christians missed out on God because they were Trinitarian.  I used to put a lot of emphasis on bashing the Trinity, until I understood I was not discerning the Lord's body and kicked the lie out the door that they were of a different Jesus.

The context of verse 28 in I Cornithians 15 is concerning the resurrection of Christ and man.  Going into these verses with the bias that if the Son is ever subject to God makes the Son any different then He always was [Phil.2:8]; is an interpretation that can only be arrived at by not taking the context into consideration.

When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.  Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? I Corinthians 15:28-29  NAS

 
 
Thinking that verse 28 is teaching that one person of God is becoming subject to another person of God reminds me of the argument that God cannot die on the cross.  The human nature of Christ was always “subject” as in submission to the divine.  This chapter in I Corinthians is teaching regarding the bodily resurrected Christ, as when we see His disciples beheld him taken up to heaven bodily and the angels said that he would come back in this same manner as they saw Him ascend [vs.5 & 6].  This is why the context of I Corinthians 15 teaches:

Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.   I Corinthians 15:50  NAS

We have a Lord who is still alive physically and will return in that same physical body as promised in Acts 1:11.  However, I Corinthians 15 is teaching about all flesh coming into subjection because the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death [vs.26].  The Son’s physical body was subject to death and when all things are subdued [vs. 28], then the bodily form of Christ will no longer be necessary and God will be all in all.  

Lanny's comment seems to imply that Trinitarians do not believe that Christ is still incarnate.  This is strange to me, because even non-trinitarians believe that Christ’s incarnation is not over until all things are subdued and his flesh is no longer necessary.  So even though I am not a Trinitarian, I don't see that this text is any threat to their understanding at all.  

[lanny]

---I have always understood incarnate to refer to "in flesh" from the Latin carne, flesh. Since Christ is now glorified and no longer "in flesh" it seems to me that the incarnation is over, speaking as a trinitarian.
---My own position is that of Jn 1 where the word became flesh. Not that Christ came in the flesh or even Christ became flesh. Christ WAS flesh. Rather I see it as the expression of God became flesh in the person of Christ. God has been creating and expressing Himself since the beginning (Jn 1:1) and continues to do so and in the fulness of time that expression became flesh (1:18).
Lanny

[Helen]

---I have always understood incarnate to refer to "in flesh" from the Latin carne, flesh. Since Christ is now glorified and no longer "in flesh" it seems to me that the incarnation is over, speaking as a trinitarian.
---My own position is that of Jn 1 where the word became flesh. Not that Christ came in the flesh or even Christ became flesh. Christ WAS flesh. Rather I see it as the expression of God became flesh in the person of Christ. God has been creating and expressing Himself since the beginning (Jn 1:1) and continues to do so and in the fulness of time that expression became flesh (1:18).

Yes, Jesus was glorified, but the scripture says that He was glorified [revealed] before He was crucified [John 13:31].  His death is part of that glorification (revealing).  After His resurrection, He told Thomas that a ghost does not have flesh and bones as He has.  I do not see in the scripture where Jesus' flesh ceased to exist, as you said; "no longer 'in flesh'".  In all my UROG teaching, I have never thought that the physical body of Christ didn't ascend out of the midst of His disciples.  'Became flesh', 'came in the flesh', 'was flesh'; are no differences in distinction to me regarding His bodily resurrection and ascension.  I'm in complete agreement with the Logos and that His body did not see corruption.    

[Steve Born]

Quick note - Helen's right.  The incarnation isn't over.  Glorified humanity is still humanity. Trinitarian doctrine holds Jesus is still both God and man in heaven, which I believe is the only possible way to take the many Biblical statements about his role as the Lamb of God who suffered, died, rose again, and now reigns.  When he ascended into heaven, he didn't stop being what he is as our Savior.

[lanny]

---I agree with SB regarding the Trin position...which leades to the conclusion that the 2nd person will NEVER be coequal again.
Lanny

[Steve Born]

So you believe Jesus is now only temporarily God, while God the Father waits in the wings to get handed the Kingdom, after which Jesus will exist only as a glorified man?

[Helen]

Steve, again I find I agree with you.  As Gabriel spoke to Mary regarding Jesus Christ...

and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." Luke 1:33 NAS

[Steve Born]

Thanks, Helen.

Another Biblical point to consider, especially for those who have been drawn into this old lie that Jesus is not God, is that in order to be our Savior, the Redeemer from the sin by which we are all bound, Jesus had to be God.  No one but God can save man from sin and its penalty of eternal separation from God; to say instead that a man can be Savior is to exalt man above God because in doing so we reject his Word concerning mankind's state, pridefully taking upon ourselves what God has told us we are incapable of doing.  Jesus is not an example in the sense that we can do all the same things He did.  Most particularly, no one else is capable of being the unblemished Lamb of God who dies for the sins of all mankind.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:11) Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. (Isaiah 45:15) And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. (Isaiah 49:26)

I still do not understand how people in the "Jesus is not God" movement have become convinced that because Jesus is a man He can't also be God.  God can do anything, even become a man, if he wants to.  

[lanny]

SB says, "... No one but God can save man from sin and its penalty of eternal separation from God..."
---Christ the man paid the price as the lamb, God accepted the sacrifice and saved mankind from the penalty of sin. We don't need God to die. We only need a sacrifice that God will accept. He accepted animals in the OT. He accepted the man Christ in the NT. No need for God to die. God didn't sin, Adam sinned..."By one man sin entered into the world and by one man..."
Lanny

[Steve Born]

Lanny,

I still don't understand.  The animals sacrificed in the Old Testament didn't themselves save - they stood in place of the one who was to come, the true lamb of God. It wasn't as if God simply made an arbitrary decision to accept animals as the sacrifice for Old Testament believers and then made another arbitrary decision to accept Christ as the sacrifice for New Testament believers.  More than God's decision was needed.  What was needed to fulfill the promise represented by the OT sacrifice of animals was the one true unblemished Lamb, unstained by sin, who actually did perfectly satisfy God's Law, the righteousness needed to be approved by Him; no other sacrifice could pay the penalty decreed by God for sin.  But God says no human is capable of that righteousness - that saving righteousness is found only in Himself.  That's why we need a Savior who is not only human but who is also God and therefore has the righteousness which alone can save us and enable us to stand before Him and live.

[lanny]

SB says, " But God says no human is capable of that righteousness..."   Where???
---Christ was the exception to the general rule, "For all have sinned..." God chose to accept the perfect man as the sacrifice. It was not arbitrary. It was God's original plan. And by the way, animals DID atone for sin in the OT. How? Because God said they did. God accepted them as symbolizing and substituting for Christ. And it was the faith and obedience of the OT believers that God accepted. God could have accepted Tulip bulbs if He wanted to. The important thing is to provide the sacrifice that God asks for rather than the "strange fire" of Aaron's disobedient sons.
---God accepted Christ. The entire atonement is all about man. God doesn't need a 2nd person of God to suffer & die because a 2nd person of God could not die anyway. Nor could he suffer. Nor could he be righteously tested as was Christ. Nor did a 2nd person of God sin in the beginning. Man sinned and a sinless man atoned. The first Adam and the 2nd Adam mirror each other. One brought the curse the other removed the curse and so can many other parallels be drawn.
---God's plan is mankind not some 2nd person of God. Christ the perfect MAN was God's design all along. That is why he must be perfect and illustrate that perfection, "being tempted in all points..." God who is all and all cannot be tempted in any way shape or form. How can you tempt a billionaire to steal a candy bar?
---The 2nd person has no righteousness. Divinity cannot be righteous. Divinity defines righteousness. Divinity cannot be tested. God is more than righteous. That is part of His nature and He can never be anything less. Thus, the 2nd person cannot save us because he could never be like us. Only the man Christ could pass the test and become the acceptable sacrifice.
Lanny

[Steve Born]

Quote (Lanny): SB says, " But God says no human is capable of that righteousness..."   Where???

In Romans chapters three and four. This is Justification by Faith 101, Lanny.  I can see it's worth reproducing in full here:

...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,       There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving, The poison of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.  For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."  Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:       Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven And whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. Is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say, "Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness." How then was it reckoned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, "A father of many nations have I made you") in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, "So shall your descendants be." And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Now not for his sake only was it written, that it was reckoned to him, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

"God could have accepted Tulip bulbs if He wanted to. The important thing is to provide the sacrifice that God asks for rather than the "strange fire" of Aaron's disobedient sons."

Wow.  Unless you mean "the sacrifice God asks for" as referring only to our faith in Christ and his sacrifice for us, given us by God's grace, this statement is a tragically twisted, legalistic misunderstanding of the Old Testament promises, that is to say, of the Gospel itself and our salvation in Christ.  We do not need to "provide" any sacrifice other than that because Christ's sacrifice fully satisifies all requirements for the righteousness needed to enter eternal life.

"Divinity cannot be righteous."

This gets more and more unbelievable. Can you really be serious, or are you just contradicting whatever I say for the fun of it?  Divinity most certainly can be righteous.  The Bible explicitly says so in several places:

Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful. (Psalm 116:5) The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. (Psalm 145:17) The LORD is righteous; for I have rebelled against his commandment... (Lamentation 1:18) Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice. (Daniel 9:14) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. (Revelation 16:5)

[lanny]

---I feel like, you cannot understand what I say because you have a different paradigm. No God cannot be righteous in the sense that He did not sin. And yes, if God asked for a Tulip bulb as an atonement it would have atoned for those that provided it through faith and obedience.
---God asked for a perfect man just like he asked for a perfect lamb. He accepted a perfect lamb and He accepted a perfect man. And No, Divinity did not "grow in stature and no, Divinity did not learn obedience.
---Romans 3 & 4 are why we need the perfect Christ. Christ was the perfect man that God set out from the beginning to create. Adam fell, Christ did not although he could have. Christ is the exception to Romans 3 & 4.
Lanny