Actually it does mean a lot when Jesus is comparing His humanity to the Father's divinity. Why? Because Christ's point in John 14:28 is NOT about the Father being greater than Him, it is actually about Jesus comforting His disciples before His death, telling them to rejoice because He is RETURNING to the Father. Why should they rejoice? Because the Father is greater than Him. In what way? The Father is divine in heaven, and the Son is human on earth. That's why they should rejoice.
IvanDefendingTruth esse cara agarrou o cd?só fica nisso? mas ele não se batizou em nome de jesus? e espirito santo? ou estou errado? vai bloquear covardão ou vai pelo menos pro segundo round? será que vai fazer ao menos pro café? porque u8ns duzentos tj já desistiram po falta de respostas
@vnofilho não disse que Jesus era uma anjo ou Filho de anjo? vc não conhece sua propria seita que diz que jesus é o anjo miguel que encarnou? ou é um tj pentecostal?????? kkkkkkkkkk
@IvanDefendingTruth I appreciate your opinion, and augustine was one of the greatest teachers of the church, but he is not the final authority. Scripture is. You totally avoided my question.
"...for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues..."
1 Cor 14:5
By your Logic is he who prophesys a superior form of life than he who speaks in tongues?
@October When people say 'Scripture is the final authority', that is hardly the case. What people really means is that their interpretation of Scripture is final authority, not scripture itself.
As regards to your question, no. For the congregation in the 1st century it is possible that those who prophecised were "greater" in a different sense, but not in terms of "life" or existence.
Augustine answers the typical Trinitarian argument regarding better/greater in John 14:28.
@IvanDefendingTruth I didn't interpret the verse. I just read it. So you cannot use that argument against me.So back to greater. In 1 Cor 14:5 is the Greek word for GREATER, is it the same Greek word in John 14:28?
This is exactly what I put forth to Trinitarians. Also, concerning John 20:17, is this saying that the Apostles did not know that the human Jesus did not have a God that Jesus needed to tell them that he is going to his God and their God?
It is also noteworthy to mention that the God of Jesus was not "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (of Trinitarians)" but rather "the Father (of Unitarians)." I find it disturbing that Trinitarians assume they have the same God that of Jesus, our example to follow
When Moses was called Elohim that didn't imply there were plural moseses. So how come this years ago debunked argument of elohim being plural is still used?
Ivan, talking to you is like scratching a mosquito bite...once you start, u don't want to stop. I must go for now, but i'll be checking back later on.
Ivan, because the Word became flesh and subjected himself to the Father, it makes sense that the Father is greater. In the form of a servant, Jesus is subject to the Father.
Is there a servant that is equal to his master? no, then he wouldn't be a servant. Because he humbled himself and subjected himself the the father's will, he lives because of his father. Anyone willing to take his body and drink his blood will also, like Paul, live because of the Son.
@supermanny73 The point I'm making is that Jesus didn't qualify the statement like you did. That is, he didn't say "because I'm flesh" I live because of the Father. He made an unqualified statement, something easy to grasp, not something requiring to believe only his 1 human nature lives because of the Father but the divine nature doesn't.
@Ivan the point about the unqualified statement relevant to this video as Stafford suggests is jesus said "the father is greater than I" not "I live because of the father"...that is ur verse that u brought up. I was pointing out that a person subjected to another person is naturally not greater in position regardless of the nature. (continued)
You brought up human nature, not I. My point is that Jesus is in nature God as the bible teaches, yet subjected himself to his father's will. That is why this statement makes perfect sense. U & Stafford missed that, and now are unbelieving.
@IvanDefendingTruth "If a being is "greater in position", why is that one being greater than the other being if not because of nature?"
Truely, these are the good questions. Finally, my friend, we can deal with the real mystery of God, his eternality, his nature and his perfect love. Frankly, I'll admit, I do not or will not ever understand his eternality, nature, or especially his love for me, a wretched man.
The statement "Father is greater than I" is a much deeper meaning than Stafford cares to admit. Also, keep in mind that greater does not equal better.
In a family economy, your dad is greater than you but doesn't mean he's better or different than you in nature, simply in position. As a son, you subject yourself to your father's will. By saying,"I do the will of my father and not my own" doesn't mean your wills are different, simply that you give credit to your father for your actions.
@supermanny73 Well, if you want to use the human family as an analogy, I have no problem with that. Do you agree with your own analogy's logic that the Son lives because of the Father?
@IvanDefendingTruth I was simply talking about family economy. ur analogy fails. u imply that Jesus lives because his father had sex with a woman and through childbirth he took his first breath. that is simply obsurd. if u want to talk about the son is alive because of his father, u need to be consistent in ur implication. oh yea, good luck trying to explain firstborn with that in mind.
@IvanDefendingTruth I'm sorry, Ivan but anyone reading ur comments will clearly see that you are using that verse out of context to establish that Jesus somehow exists because the father brought him into existence. Typical JW argument especially the way u use "firstborn" to support ur position.
@IvanDefendingTruth interesting you bring up John 6. Let's see what is written a few verses earlier: 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
@supermanny73 You're avoiding the issue at hand, supermanny73. We have a fairly simple statement made by Jesus of Nazareth, namely, "I live because of the Father." Is that true? Or he "kind of" lives because of the Father, but not really?
@IvanDefendingTruth Ivan, please describe what you understand this verse to mean. Do you actually imply that because Jesus said "I live because of the Father" he was at one point created? And although he is eternal, there was a time when he actually didn't exist? That is not at all what I read into this verse. I'd like to hear ur take on it, then i'll tell u mine.
@supermanny73 What else can it mean besides what he said? He lives "because of the Father." There's no notion of 'eternality' there, if there is, where is it? To the contrary, it suggests anything but eternality here. He's stating why he exists. Is it because he's eternal? No. Rather, he says his existence is due to the Father.
@IvanDefendingTruth U r starting to sound like Greg. Again, your reasoning fails in light of scripture as a whole. Jesus, the WORD, became flesh. However, the whole reason for this incarnation was to fulfill the father's will. Ergo, he lives "because of the father". Nothing suggest that there was a time when he did not exist. You put that twist into the verse and it is deceptive. This verse gives meaning to his reason for becoming a man.
@supermanny73 Talk about twisting. Nothing in John 6 says anything to the effect of "Jesus lives because of the Father because he became man." You assume he has two nature and therefore to you Jesus is using doubletalk. That is, he does "live because of the Father" in one sense, but doesn't in another sense. Jesus never spoke in any such fashion.
@supermanny73 Interesting spin, but I'm afraid the context doesn't support that, note: (John 6:57) . . ."I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me." In whichever way Christ lives because of the Father, those who feed on him will also live in that sense. Just as those lives are contingent on Christ, Christ's life is contingent on the "living Father." I don't see how that contingency doesn't necessitate life.
"Christ lives because of the Father, those who feed on him will also live in that sense"
Don't miss the obvious here. Do you live because of him? Do you partake or reject his body and his blood? I now live because of Christ:
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" Gal 2:20
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" Ph.1:21
God said: Jn6:57 "As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me even HE SHALL LIVE BY ME"
Father sent His Son who lived by Him for 32yrs Jn1:14 "made flesh" Heb2:9 "Jesus, who WAS MADE [Lk1:35] a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death"
Son of God is "the word of life...the life was manifested...THE ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father...that God is light" 1Jn1:1-10
Jesus is God "the Eternal life" "the true light" Jn1:9
@IvanDefendingTruth going back to my original point, the economy of family is that the father is greater (in position) than the son. Not better ontologically. A common argument for your position is the word the watchtower's defination of "firstborn" in Col. 1:15. If he is literally "firstborn" of creation, then creation would be his parents, and he came to existence through conception and birth.
@supermanny73 Not necessarily given that Adam was God's firstborn and didn't come into existence through conception or birth. However, the issue has nothing to do with "firstborn", it has to do with Jesus stating he "lives because of the Father."
"the word of life...the life was manifested...the eternal life"1Jn1 lived because of Father for only 32yrs!
Lk2:11"BORN THIS DAY in the city of David A SAVIOR [Hos13:4;Isa43:11-13;45:21] WHICH IS CHRIST THE LORD"
JWs teach the Savior Christ the Lord was't born that day come in the flesh:
1Jn4:1-3;2Jn1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an antichrist
Ivan, it is true Jesus relied on His Father to live for 32yrs while being made in the fashion of a man, little lower then angels. What we disagree with: JWs teach that life refers to Father giving it prior to the beginning of all creation. That simply is not true. Scripture teach Father prepared a body for His Son to inhabit (Heb10:5-7), giving life to THAT body being born a Savior Christ the Lord Lk1:35;2:11
In pre-existence Jesus already was and is "the eternal life"1Jn1
@barbsinclair Jesus relied on his life for his God and Father for more than just 33 years. He's relied on Jehovah God for his life since he was created.
The Son of God is 1Jn1:1-10 "that which was from the beginning...the Word of life...the life was manifested...that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us"
"that eternal life" Jesus is "the life" = source / origin of all that was given life. He is the "arche" Rev3:14;31:6;22:13 = the beginner, source and origin as the Creator of all things
Truth: Father relied on His Son as Creator to give all things life
@barbsinclair arche means beginning, never "source or origin" in John's writings. It would be absurd to suggest Jesus is the "source" when the Father is the "source" (1 Co 8:6). Unless Jesus =Father. especially when the Son is viewed as the passive agent in creation (John 1:3; Col 1:16)
@IvanDefendingTruth>"arche means beginning, never "source or origin" in John's writings. It would be absurd to suggest Jesus is the "source" when the Father is the "source" "
In John's writings this is Son of God (study Rv ch1):
NWT Rv21:6 "I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga, the beginning [ARCHE] and the end...22:13 "I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga, the first and the last, the beginning [ARCHE] and the end"
ARCHE: the beginner; origin that by which anything begins to be, the active cause = God
Your word "passive" means = not participating readily or actively.
You have it backwards!
The Father Himself states He was the passive agent in creation, and His Son was the active agent of all creation! Read carefully Holy Father testimony of His Son's activities:
NWT Heb1:10 "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands"
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Look up the Greek verbs used in Colossians1:16 and their tenses before saying "no" and implying someone is wrong"
Oh, you a Scholar with a masters in Koine Greek? Read all Col1:15-19 (no [other] in the Greek) and note:
Holy Father declares His Son is Lord Jehovah God who made heavens and earth Heb1:10. Heb4:4 "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works" Gen1:1;2:2 Ex20:11;31:17 "in six days Jehovah [Heb1:10] made the heavens and the earth"
@barbsinclair Even a child could look at the Greek verb used in Colossians 1:16 and see what is being said here. If Jesus is Jehovah God then, i suppose, Jesus is the Trinity in and of himself. Jesus can't be "God", he can only be a "person" of God in Trinitarianism. God is a Trinity not a person, supposedly. Therefore, God= Trinity, and if Jesus is God, then it follows Jesus=Trinity.
@IvanDefendingTruth "God is a Trinity not a person, supposedly. Therefore, God= Trinity, and if Jesus is God, then it follows Jesus=Trinity"
Spoken like a true Stafford follower. No trinitarian defines Jesus or the trinity in this way. Besides, this language is not used anywhere in the "Should you believe in the Trinity" booklet. I'm afraid you r going out of ur allowed resources and reaching for branches friend.
@supermanny73 Really? The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all coequal, coeternal persons of the Godhead. That isn't the Trinity? Is not the Trinity only 1 God?
Jesus said "greater (meizon)" in office; not better (kreitton) in nature
Father was "greater (meizon)" for 32yrs while Jesus was "made flesh"Jn1:14 "fashion as a man"Ph2:8 "made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death"Heb2:9
Jesus is Almighty "FAR ABOVE all principality and power and might and dominion and EVERY NAME that is NAMED not only in this world but also in that which is to come" Ep1:2
@barbsinclair What does being "better" have to do with anything? The reason why the Father is greater, not merely in position but in existence (which is what Jesus of Nazareth is talking about) than Jesus is because, well, he's not God!
@barbsinclair It has nothing to do with anything. That's not even part of the argument or discussion. That's just adding other terms to the argument that don't need to be brought in. Whether the Father is Greater or "better" it proves the same point, Jehovah God is greater than his Son, Jesus of Nazareth. Since the Father is "greater" than the Son, then Why is he greater? Why is his "position" greater?
@IvanDefendingTruth>"It has nothing to do with anything. That's not even part of the argument or discussion."
You asked me: "What does being "better" have to do with anything?" I answered that question which has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion and topic of your Stafford video snippet. You now say "greater" has nothing to do with your argument, and THEN in the same breath: go on making arguments using word "greater" as if it is everything!
@barbsinclair You're the one who brought up "better" as if it made a difference. It doesn't. When did I say "greater" has nothing to do with the argument? I said "better" has nothing to do with the argument. Let's not operate under misunderstandings here, barbsinclair. You didn't answer the question, though. Let me ask again: Why is the Father "greater in position" than the Son if it's not by nature?
If you read over this whole comment section, supermanny73 was the one who brought up the word better. And I replied to him. You then replied to my comment asking me a question on the word better. Put a question mark in a comment to me, I will answer. You asked I answered. And yes, the word "better" in the Greek does make a difference. You need to study that, I can tell that you haven't. Its very important to this topic.
@barbsinclair What you're trying to do is contrast better with greater as if that makes a point. It doesn't. That's like arguing why the NT doesn't use this word or that word. It's an argument from silence. The point is that Jesus used greater. Why? Why is the Father greater than "i" not just merely his humanity.
@IvanDefendingTruth Jw's are notorious for the symantics of verses, yet when I bring up distinctions between the words greater or better, then you have a problem with that.
Again, one would have to embrace polytheism to believe as Stafford, which is ironic, being that he isn't even JW, and an apostate to the view of your org. U must remember not to stray too far away from the magazines u distribute. U may be adding more to the doctrine u promote.
@supermanny73 Less meaningless rhetoric and more direct answers. Since Jesus is has only been subjected to his God and Father since his 'incarnation' why has he supposedly been the Son "eternal"? That is, why adopted an inferior title such as "Son" if he was subjected to no one?
@IvanDefendingTruth It is my understanding that Father, Son, Holy Spirit, all three being eternal, and in very nature God, there has always been a harmony of wills: The Will of God.
The closest thing that I can compare (and it does it no justice, for God is infinate) is the economy of human family. Father works (for family), Mother stays home, children go to school. Different rolls, each subject to each other, yet equal in their nature. Bad example, I know.
@IvanDefendingTruth In the incarnation, Jesus carried out his roll in the great plan of God. The eternal became mortal. The unpiercable became piercable. The untangable became tangible. A timeless being became subject to time. An all knowing God limited his knowledge. A Son became a child.
@IvanDefendingTruth Example: nwt Gal4:8 "Nevertheless,when YOU did not know God, then it was that YOU slaved for those who by nature are not gods" We slave for the Master Christ Jesus "who by nature" is true God Mt24:49 "fellow slaves" Gal1:10 "Christ's slave" Rm1:1 "slave of Jesus Christ" 1Co7:22 "freeman is a slave of Christ" Col3:24 "SLAVE for the Master Christ" Col4:12 "slave of Christ Jesus" Jude1 "slave of Jesus Christ" 2Pe1:1 "slave and apostle of Jesus Christ" Rv1:1 "his slave John"
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Why is the Father "greater in position" than the Son if its not by nature?"
Answer:
When Son said "Father is greater then I", He was on the earth in the very creation itself, and Father was in heaven outside of the very creation itself.
We read the same type of scenario happing here:
NWT Gen19:24 "Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod'om and upon Go·mor'rah"
The Jehovah in heaven is greater then the Jehovah on the earth.
Ya I know, but Polytheists believe theres many real gods as deities. Ever study how many deities JWs say are true real gods?
Christians say there's only one true real God as NWT Bible teaches: there is one God in being, whom exists consisting of three person's called "Jehovah" in that one God Mt28:19
Contrast: there is one man in being, whom exists consisting of multitude of person's called "Adam" in that one man Gen1:26-27
@barbsinclair How can there be "one God" and yet there be 3 Jehovahs. What type of warped logic is that? So the "being" is God and each individual person is "God" also? Is that right?
@IvanDefendingTruth>"So the "being" is God and each individual person is "God" also? Is that right?
close
The three persons in "the Godhead" kjv Ac17:29;Rm1:20, is called NWT "Jehovah". One true God in being and nature, declared to be three persons in OT law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms, and by NT Apostles and disciples of the Lord
"Jehovah God" repetitively uses plural noun elohiym (literally translated gods) for Himself with His name Jehovah, not the singular noun "el" - "eloahh" (god)
@IvanDefendingTruth "Since the Father is "greater" than the Son, then Why is he greater? Why is his "position" greater?"
Now u r starting to ask the right questions. Now if u can just get through ur head that jesus (the Word) humbled himself and took on the form of a servant and subjected his will to the father's even unto death, then you will start to understand the ECONOMY and relationship of father and son.
@supermanny73 That doesn't answer the question, though. Let me ask this one: Since when has the Father been "greater" than the Son? Only since his becoming a man? Or since eternity?
@IvanDefendingTruth "Since when has the Father been "greater" than the Son? Only since his becoming a man? Or since eternity?"
Great question, again, Ivan.
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?
It is my understanding that in Phil. 2, was the point of the incarnation and therefore the willingly putting forth the will of the father before his own.
@IvanDefendingTruth it is my understanding that if indeed there was a point, it was that event, however, in the economy of the relationship of father, son, and holy spirit, because each person plays a different role, does not establish inferiority in nature.
And all the questions you are asking now (just 14min ago) have already been addressed in 10 short verses by Apostle John = 1 John 1: 1-10. Study them - I have quoted in this comment section with them in every post.
You have to deal with God testifying through Apostle John stating that Jesus is "THAT ETERNAL LIFE"
This is who the Son of God is - He is "ETERNAL" which means ever existing from eternity past into eternity future.
@innoire For He has put all things under His feet.[a] But when He says all things are put under Him, it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
I don't understand your point in using this scripture?
Galatatians4:14NASB"and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition,you did not despise or loathe,but you received me as an angel of God,as Christ Jesus himself"
@barbsinclair first you need to prove that Jesus is not Jehovah's angel,then you need to prov that angels are not superhuman which is one definition of divine.your argument is garbled because you are not taking into account that the word 'god' has several legitimate meanings.
@IvanDefendingTruth "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. 1 Cor 14:5
Are you saying that he who speaks in tongues is inferior to he who prophesies?
@IvanDefendingTruth Greater has NOTHING to do with nature, it has to do with position. The one who prophesies is greater in position to the one speaking in tongues when it comes to chain of command. But by NATURE Jesus is equal to the father. (John 5:18)
Another comment I'll add is that you're arguing out of theological necessity and not based on what Jesus actually said. That is, you're qualifying the statement 'Father is greater than I am' that Jesus himself didn't qualify in the way you are qualifying it, namely, in terms of position and not nature.
That's cool, I use that same argument when it comes to John 14:28 in my video 'Defining Genuine Arianism' (I think) or some other videos. Trinitarians are trying to suggest that his Apostles were slow upstairs that they didn't know that the Father (God) was greater than the flesh, but at the same time this would imply that the Apostles think the flesh is equal to deity since Jesus needs to tell the Apostles that the Father is greater than the flesh. You see the problem here? LOL.
Actually it does mean a lot when Jesus is comparing His humanity to the Father's divinity. Why? Because Christ's point in John 14:28 is NOT about the Father being greater than Him, it is actually about Jesus comforting His disciples before His death, telling them to rejoice because He is RETURNING to the Father. Why should they rejoice? Because the Father is greater than Him. In what way? The Father is divine in heaven, and the Son is human on earth. That's why they should rejoice.
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
IvanDefendingTruth esse cara agarrou o cd?só fica nisso? mas ele não se batizou em nome de jesus? e espirito santo? ou estou errado? vai bloquear covardão ou vai pelo menos pro segundo round? será que vai fazer ao menos pro café? porque u8ns duzentos tj já desistiram po falta de respostas
SoJesusliberta 1 year ago
@vnofilho não disse que Jesus era uma anjo ou Filho de anjo? vc não conhece sua propria seita que diz que jesus é o anjo miguel que encarnou? ou é um tj pentecostal?????? kkkkkkkkkk
SoJesusliberta 1 year ago
SO John 14:28 shows that The Father is a superior form of life than Jesus.
"...for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues..."
1 Cor 14:5
By your Logic is he who prophesys a superior form of life than he who speaks in tongues?
October31st1517 1 year ago
@October31st1517 Augustine says: "In things in which greatness goes not by bulk, being greater means being better" (De Trinitate Vi, 9).
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth I appreciate your opinion, and augustine was one of the greatest teachers of the church, but he is not the final authority. Scripture is. You totally avoided my question.
"...for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues..."
1 Cor 14:5
By your Logic is he who prophesys a superior form of life than he who speaks in tongues?
October31st1517 1 year ago
@October When people say 'Scripture is the final authority', that is hardly the case. What people really means is that their interpretation of Scripture is final authority, not scripture itself.
As regards to your question, no. For the congregation in the 1st century it is possible that those who prophecised were "greater" in a different sense, but not in terms of "life" or existence.
Augustine answers the typical Trinitarian argument regarding better/greater in John 14:28.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth I didn't interpret the verse. I just read it. So you cannot use that argument against me.So back to greater. In 1 Cor 14:5 is the Greek word for GREATER, is it the same Greek word in John 14:28?
October31st1517 2 months ago
This is exactly what I put forth to Trinitarians. Also, concerning John 20:17, is this saying that the Apostles did not know that the human Jesus did not have a God that Jesus needed to tell them that he is going to his God and their God?
It is also noteworthy to mention that the God of Jesus was not "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (of Trinitarians)" but rather "the Father (of Unitarians)." I find it disturbing that Trinitarians assume they have the same God that of Jesus, our example to follow
CamouflagedAgent 1 year ago
When Moses was called Elohim that didn't imply there were plural moseses. So how come this years ago debunked argument of elohim being plural is still used?
DarkShadowM99 1 year ago
Deuteronomy6:4"Listen,o Israel:Jehovah our God is one Jehovah"
aservantofjehovah 1 year ago
Ivan, talking to you is like scratching a mosquito bite...once you start, u don't want to stop. I must go for now, but i'll be checking back later on.
Be well.
8^)
supermanny73 1 year ago
Stafford would understand "GREATER", IF he read the words which proceeded from the Mouth of God in context
God said Jn14:28 "my Father is greater than I"
Did Stafford forget, the God of the whole earth Holy One of Israel our maker and King, the Lord of Glory had already said:
v1"you believe in God believe also in Me"
Who is God the King of Glory we believe in? Jehovah of armies Christ Jesus, He is the King of Glory our maker, strong and mighty in battle.
Jn12:41; Isa6:1,5;54:5; Psa 24
barbsinclair 1 year ago
Ivan, because the Word became flesh and subjected himself to the Father, it makes sense that the Father is greater. In the form of a servant, Jesus is subject to the Father.
Is there a servant that is equal to his master? no, then he wouldn't be a servant. Because he humbled himself and subjected himself the the father's will, he lives because of his father. Anyone willing to take his body and drink his blood will also, like Paul, live because of the Son.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 The point I'm making is that Jesus didn't qualify the statement like you did. That is, he didn't say "because I'm flesh" I live because of the Father. He made an unqualified statement, something easy to grasp, not something requiring to believe only his 1 human nature lives because of the Father but the divine nature doesn't.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@Ivan the point about the unqualified statement relevant to this video as Stafford suggests is jesus said "the father is greater than I" not "I live because of the father"...that is ur verse that u brought up. I was pointing out that a person subjected to another person is naturally not greater in position regardless of the nature. (continued)
supermanny73 1 year ago
You brought up human nature, not I. My point is that Jesus is in nature God as the bible teaches, yet subjected himself to his father's will. That is why this statement makes perfect sense. U & Stafford missed that, and now are unbelieving.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Since he "subjected himself to his Father's will" does that mean he wasn't subjected before? How long as he been subjected for, then?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@supermanny73 If a being is "greater in position", why is that one being greater than the other being if not because of nature?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "If a being is "greater in position", why is that one being greater than the other being if not because of nature?"
Truely, these are the good questions. Finally, my friend, we can deal with the real mystery of God, his eternality, his nature and his perfect love. Frankly, I'll admit, I do not or will not ever understand his eternality, nature, or especially his love for me, a wretched man.
1 Tim 3:16
supermanny73 1 year ago
The statement "Father is greater than I" is a much deeper meaning than Stafford cares to admit. Also, keep in mind that greater does not equal better.
In a family economy, your dad is greater than you but doesn't mean he's better or different than you in nature, simply in position. As a son, you subject yourself to your father's will. By saying,"I do the will of my father and not my own" doesn't mean your wills are different, simply that you give credit to your father for your actions.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Well, if you want to use the human family as an analogy, I have no problem with that. Do you agree with your own analogy's logic that the Son lives because of the Father?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth I was simply talking about family economy. ur analogy fails. u imply that Jesus lives because his father had sex with a woman and through childbirth he took his first breath. that is simply obsurd. if u want to talk about the son is alive because of his father, u need to be consistent in ur implication. oh yea, good luck trying to explain firstborn with that in mind.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Well, Since you accuse me of such absurdity I'm assuming you accuse the Christ of the same?
(John 6:57) . . .Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father. . .
Supermanny73 would have us believe that Jesus meant that "his father had sex with a woman and through childbirth he took his first breath."
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth I'm sorry, Ivan but anyone reading ur comments will clearly see that you are using that verse out of context to establish that Jesus somehow exists because the father brought him into existence. Typical JW argument especially the way u use "firstborn" to support ur position.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 The context doesn't change what Jesus said, namely, "I live because of the Father." In fact, the context supports my position.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth interesting you bring up John 6. Let's see what is written a few verses earlier: 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Do u eat his flesh and drink his blood?
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 You're avoiding the issue at hand, supermanny73. We have a fairly simple statement made by Jesus of Nazareth, namely, "I live because of the Father." Is that true? Or he "kind of" lives because of the Father, but not really?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Ivan, please describe what you understand this verse to mean. Do you actually imply that because Jesus said "I live because of the Father" he was at one point created? And although he is eternal, there was a time when he actually didn't exist? That is not at all what I read into this verse. I'd like to hear ur take on it, then i'll tell u mine.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 What else can it mean besides what he said? He lives "because of the Father." There's no notion of 'eternality' there, if there is, where is it? To the contrary, it suggests anything but eternality here. He's stating why he exists. Is it because he's eternal? No. Rather, he says his existence is due to the Father.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth U r starting to sound like Greg. Again, your reasoning fails in light of scripture as a whole. Jesus, the WORD, became flesh. However, the whole reason for this incarnation was to fulfill the father's will. Ergo, he lives "because of the father". Nothing suggest that there was a time when he did not exist. You put that twist into the verse and it is deceptive. This verse gives meaning to his reason for becoming a man.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Talk about twisting. Nothing in John 6 says anything to the effect of "Jesus lives because of the Father because he became man." You assume he has two nature and therefore to you Jesus is using doubletalk. That is, he does "live because of the Father" in one sense, but doesn't in another sense. Jesus never spoke in any such fashion.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "Nothing in John 6 says anything to the effect of "Jesus lives because of the Father because he became man." "
And nothing says he "lives because of the father because he was created by him".
IvanDefending: "You assume he has two nature and therefore to you Jesus is using doubletalk"
I assume that in him all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Since Jesus is 1 person, then the person of Jesus "lives because of the Father", correct?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Jesus lives to do the father's will, so, he lives because of the father.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Interesting spin, but I'm afraid the context doesn't support that, note: (John 6:57) . . ."I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me." In whichever way Christ lives because of the Father, those who feed on him will also live in that sense. Just as those lives are contingent on Christ, Christ's life is contingent on the "living Father." I don't see how that contingency doesn't necessitate life.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christ lives because of the Father, those who feed on him will also live in that sense"
Don't miss the obvious here. Do you live because of him? Do you partake or reject his body and his blood? I now live because of Christ:
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" Gal 2:20
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" Ph.1:21
supermanny73 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth
God said: Jn6:57 "As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me even HE SHALL LIVE BY ME"
Father sent His Son who lived by Him for 32yrs Jn1:14 "made flesh" Heb2:9 "Jesus, who WAS MADE [Lk1:35] a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death"
Son of God is "the word of life...the life was manifested...THE ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father...that God is light" 1Jn1:1-10
Jesus is God "the Eternal life" "the true light" Jn1:9
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth going back to my original point, the economy of family is that the father is greater (in position) than the son. Not better ontologically. A common argument for your position is the word the watchtower's defination of "firstborn" in Col. 1:15. If he is literally "firstborn" of creation, then creation would be his parents, and he came to existence through conception and birth.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Not necessarily given that Adam was God's firstborn and didn't come into existence through conception or birth. However, the issue has nothing to do with "firstborn", it has to do with Jesus stating he "lives because of the Father."
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth if Adam was God's firstborn, then you have lots of explaining to do...how many firstborns are there??
supermanny73 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"he "lives because of the Father"
"the word of life...the life was manifested...the eternal life"1Jn1 lived because of Father for only 32yrs!
Lk2:11"BORN THIS DAY in the city of David A SAVIOR [Hos13:4;Isa43:11-13;45:21] WHICH IS CHRIST THE LORD"
JWs teach the Savior Christ the Lord was't born that day come in the flesh:
1Jn4:1-3;2Jn1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an antichrist
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth
Ivan, it is true Jesus relied on His Father to live for 32yrs while being made in the fashion of a man, little lower then angels. What we disagree with: JWs teach that life refers to Father giving it prior to the beginning of all creation. That simply is not true. Scripture teach Father prepared a body for His Son to inhabit (Heb10:5-7), giving life to THAT body being born a Savior Christ the Lord Lk1:35;2:11
In pre-existence Jesus already was and is "the eternal life"1Jn1
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair Jesus relied on his life for his God and Father for more than just 33 years. He's relied on Jehovah God for his life since he was created.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"relied on Jehovah God for his life"
The Son of God is 1Jn1:1-10 "that which was from the beginning...the Word of life...the life was manifested...that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us"
"that eternal life" Jesus is "the life" = source / origin of all that was given life. He is the "arche" Rev3:14;31:6;22:13 = the beginner, source and origin as the Creator of all things
Truth: Father relied on His Son as Creator to give all things life
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair arche means beginning, never "source or origin" in John's writings. It would be absurd to suggest Jesus is the "source" when the Father is the "source" (1 Co 8:6). Unless Jesus =Father. especially when the Son is viewed as the passive agent in creation (John 1:3; Col 1:16)
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"arche means beginning, never "source or origin" in John's writings. It would be absurd to suggest Jesus is the "source" when the Father is the "source" "
In John's writings this is Son of God (study Rv ch1):
NWT Rv21:6 "I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga, the beginning [ARCHE] and the end...22:13 "I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga, the first and the last, the beginning [ARCHE] and the end"
ARCHE: the beginner; origin that by which anything begins to be, the active cause = God
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Son is viewed as the passive agent in creation (John 1:3; Col 1:16"
No.
Your word "passive" means = not participating readily or actively.
You have it backwards!
The Father Himself states He was the passive agent in creation, and His Son was the active agent of all creation! Read carefully Holy Father testimony of His Son's activities:
NWT Heb1:10 "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands"
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair Look up the Greek verbs used in Colossians 1:16 and their tenses before saying "no" and implying someone is wrong.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Look up the Greek verbs used in Colossians1:16 and their tenses before saying "no" and implying someone is wrong"
Oh, you a Scholar with a masters in Koine Greek? Read all Col1:15-19 (no [other] in the Greek) and note:
Holy Father declares His Son is Lord Jehovah God who made heavens and earth Heb1:10. Heb4:4 "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works" Gen1:1;2:2 Ex20:11;31:17 "in six days Jehovah [Heb1:10] made the heavens and the earth"
Jesus is Jehovah God
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair Even a child could look at the Greek verb used in Colossians 1:16 and see what is being said here. If Jesus is Jehovah God then, i suppose, Jesus is the Trinity in and of himself. Jesus can't be "God", he can only be a "person" of God in Trinitarianism. God is a Trinity not a person, supposedly. Therefore, God= Trinity, and if Jesus is God, then it follows Jesus=Trinity.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "God is a Trinity not a person, supposedly. Therefore, God= Trinity, and if Jesus is God, then it follows Jesus=Trinity"
Spoken like a true Stafford follower. No trinitarian defines Jesus or the trinity in this way. Besides, this language is not used anywhere in the "Should you believe in the Trinity" booklet. I'm afraid you r going out of ur allowed resources and reaching for branches friend.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Really? The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all coequal, coeternal persons of the Godhead. That isn't the Trinity? Is not the Trinity only 1 God?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@supermanny73>"greater does not equal better"
Amen
Jesus said "greater (meizon)" in office; not better (kreitton) in nature
Father was "greater (meizon)" for 32yrs while Jesus was "made flesh"Jn1:14 "fashion as a man"Ph2:8 "made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death"Heb2:9
Jesus is Almighty "FAR ABOVE all principality and power and might and dominion and EVERY NAME that is NAMED not only in this world but also in that which is to come" Ep1:2
=Far above the name Jehovah
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair What does being "better" have to do with anything? The reason why the Father is greater, not merely in position but in existence (which is what Jesus of Nazareth is talking about) than Jesus is because, well, he's not God!
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"What does being "better" have to do with anything?"
Everything,Greek "kreittion (better)" in context refers to nature. You'll never find scripture teaching Father is better (kreittion) then Son
You said: "Father is greater...in existence"
Its impossible Father is greater in existence then the Son because: both Father and Son are "eternal"
Study 1Jn1:1-10. Jesus is "that eternal life which was with the Father...that God is light"
true God IS Jesus "that eternal life"
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair It has nothing to do with anything. That's not even part of the argument or discussion. That's just adding other terms to the argument that don't need to be brought in. Whether the Father is Greater or "better" it proves the same point, Jehovah God is greater than his Son, Jesus of Nazareth. Since the Father is "greater" than the Son, then Why is he greater? Why is his "position" greater?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"It has nothing to do with anything. That's not even part of the argument or discussion."
You asked me: "What does being "better" have to do with anything?" I answered that question which has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion and topic of your Stafford video snippet. You now say "greater" has nothing to do with your argument, and THEN in the same breath: go on making arguments using word "greater" as if it is everything!
Ivan how old are you? Am I speaking with a child?
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair You're the one who brought up "better" as if it made a difference. It doesn't. When did I say "greater" has nothing to do with the argument? I said "better" has nothing to do with the argument. Let's not operate under misunderstandings here, barbsinclair. You didn't answer the question, though. Let me ask again: Why is the Father "greater in position" than the Son if it's not by nature?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"You're the one who brought up "better""
If you read over this whole comment section, supermanny73 was the one who brought up the word better. And I replied to him. You then replied to my comment asking me a question on the word better. Put a question mark in a comment to me, I will answer. You asked I answered. And yes, the word "better" in the Greek does make a difference. You need to study that, I can tell that you haven't. Its very important to this topic.
con't...
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair What you're trying to do is contrast better with greater as if that makes a point. It doesn't. That's like arguing why the NT doesn't use this word or that word. It's an argument from silence. The point is that Jesus used greater. Why? Why is the Father greater than "i" not just merely his humanity.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Jw's are notorious for the symantics of verses, yet when I bring up distinctions between the words greater or better, then you have a problem with that.
Again, one would have to embrace polytheism to believe as Stafford, which is ironic, being that he isn't even JW, and an apostate to the view of your org. U must remember not to stray too far away from the magazines u distribute. U may be adding more to the doctrine u promote.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Less meaningless rhetoric and more direct answers. Since Jesus is has only been subjected to his God and Father since his 'incarnation' why has he supposedly been the Son "eternal"? That is, why adopted an inferior title such as "Son" if he was subjected to no one?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth It is my understanding that Father, Son, Holy Spirit, all three being eternal, and in very nature God, there has always been a harmony of wills: The Will of God.
The closest thing that I can compare (and it does it no justice, for God is infinate) is the economy of human family. Father works (for family), Mother stays home, children go to school. Different rolls, each subject to each other, yet equal in their nature. Bad example, I know.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth In the incarnation, Jesus carried out his roll in the great plan of God. The eternal became mortal. The unpiercable became piercable. The untangable became tangible. A timeless being became subject to time. An all knowing God limited his knowledge. A Son became a child.
He was Emmanuel, God with us!
supermanny73 1 year ago
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Why is the Father "greater in position" than the Son if its not by nature?"
Answer:
When Son said "Father is greater then I", He was on the earth in the very creation itself, and Father was in heaven outside of the very creation itself.
We read the same type of scenario happing here:
NWT Gen19:24 "Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod'om and upon Go·mor'rah"
The Jehovah in heaven is greater then the Jehovah on the earth.
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair So there's "2 Jehovah's" then, barb?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"So there's "2Jehovah's" then, barb?"
In JWs New World Translation Bible it clearly teaches:
The One True Gen1:1 God "elohiym"
Acts17:29 "theios" (deities) KJV Godhead
Rom1:20 "theiotes" (divine nature) KJV Godhead
"in the name [Jehovah] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Mat28:19
These three are the one true God called "Jehovah" in New World Translation Bible
I encourage you to deeply study NWT Gen ch's18&19 and Ex ch33 = there is more then 1 Jehovah
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair "more than 1 Jehovah", sounds like Polytheism.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"more then 1 Jehovah", sounds like Polytheism"
Ya I know, but Polytheists believe theres many real gods as deities. Ever study how many deities JWs say are true real gods?
Christians say there's only one true real God as NWT Bible teaches: there is one God in being, whom exists consisting of three person's called "Jehovah" in that one God Mt28:19
Contrast: there is one man in being, whom exists consisting of multitude of person's called "Adam" in that one man Gen1:26-27
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair How can there be "one God" and yet there be 3 Jehovahs. What type of warped logic is that? So the "being" is God and each individual person is "God" also? Is that right?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth>"So the "being" is God and each individual person is "God" also? Is that right?
close
The three persons in "the Godhead" kjv Ac17:29;Rm1:20, is called NWT "Jehovah". One true God in being and nature, declared to be three persons in OT law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms, and by NT Apostles and disciples of the Lord
"Jehovah God" repetitively uses plural noun elohiym (literally translated gods) for Himself with His name Jehovah, not the singular noun "el" - "eloahh" (god)
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "Since the Father is "greater" than the Son, then Why is he greater? Why is his "position" greater?"
Now u r starting to ask the right questions. Now if u can just get through ur head that jesus (the Word) humbled himself and took on the form of a servant and subjected his will to the father's even unto death, then you will start to understand the ECONOMY and relationship of father and son.
Please think about it, friend.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 That doesn't answer the question, though. Let me ask this one: Since when has the Father been "greater" than the Son? Only since his becoming a man? Or since eternity?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "Since when has the Father been "greater" than the Son? Only since his becoming a man? Or since eternity?"
Great question, again, Ivan.
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?
It is my understanding that in Phil. 2, was the point of the incarnation and therefore the willingly putting forth the will of the father before his own.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 So since his becoming a man, correct? Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth it is my understanding that if indeed there was a point, it was that event, however, in the economy of the relationship of father, son, and holy spirit, because each person plays a different role, does not establish inferiority in nature.
Again, great question.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth
And all the questions you are asking now (just 14min ago) have already been addressed in 10 short verses by Apostle John = 1 John 1: 1-10. Study them - I have quoted in this comment section with them in every post.
You have to deal with God testifying through Apostle John stating that Jesus is "THAT ETERNAL LIFE"
This is who the Son of God is - He is "ETERNAL" which means ever existing from eternity past into eternity future.
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@innoire For He has put all things under His feet.[a] But when He says all things are put under Him, it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
I don't understand your point in using this scripture?
October31st1517 1 year ago
Galatatians4:14NASB"and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition,you did not despise or loathe,but you received me as an angel of God,as Christ Jesus himself"
aservantofjehovah 1 year ago
@aservantofjehovah
You quote Gal4:14"...you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus himself"
Compare Mt10:40 "He that receives you receives ME and he that receives ME receives HIM that sent ME"
Paul knew God as "a slave of Christ" Rm1:1, teaching:
Gal4:8"when YOU did not know God [THEOS], then it was that YOU slaved for those who by nature are not gods [THEOS]"
Paul doesn't slave for any angel "who by nature are not [THEOS] God." He commands: "SLAVE for the Master Christ" Col3:24
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair I never quoted Galatians 4:14. To be honest, I have no clue what you're talking about.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "I never quoted Galatians 4:14. To be honest, I have no clue what you're talking about."
please see that my comment was addressed to user account "aservantofjehovah"
Thus, I also have no clue what your talking about lol
.... unless.....
IvanDefendingTruth is also aservantofjehovah, as you owning both and got confused as to what one you were signed in as?
dunno ~shurg, take care my friend (((hugs)))
‹(•¿•)›
barbsinclair 1 year ago
@barbsinclair first you need to prove that Jesus is not Jehovah's angel,then you need to prov that angels are not superhuman which is one definition of divine.your argument is garbled because you are not taking into account that the word 'god' has several legitimate meanings.
aservantofjehovah 1 year ago
Hebrews6:16KJV"For men verily swear by the greater(meizon):and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife."
aservantofjehovah 2 years ago
So does John 14:28 mean that the Son is inferior to the Father?
October31st1517 2 years ago
Yes, I believe that's exactly what it shows. Not just in his 'humanity' but in his overall existence.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. 1 Cor 14:5
Are you saying that he who speaks in tongues is inferior to he who prophesies?
October31st1517 2 years ago
October31st1517, I don't see how this relates to John 14:28. The text you site and the issue at hand are simply different things.
However, I believe Paul answers your question. He is inferior "unless he interprets."
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Greater has NOTHING to do with nature, it has to do with position. The one who prophesies is greater in position to the one speaking in tongues when it comes to chain of command. But by NATURE Jesus is equal to the father. (John 5:18)
October31st1517 2 years ago
Why is the Father "greater in position" than the Son?
If by 'equal in nature' you mean both are spirit beings I don't have a problem with that.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
Another comment I'll add is that you're arguing out of theological necessity and not based on what Jesus actually said. That is, you're qualifying the statement 'Father is greater than I am' that Jesus himself didn't qualify in the way you are qualifying it, namely, in terms of position and not nature.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago 2
@IvanDefendingTruth I can use the same argument against your position. So we need to look at the bible as a whole, correct?
October31st1517 2 years ago
Indeed, we need to look at the Bible as a whole, but still we can draw conclusions from unqualified statements like the one our Lord made here.
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
By the way, Ivan, where are you getting these video clips from? Some kind of website? Do you got to pay to watch these clips elsewhere?
Yuratchka 2 years ago
I think this is from Greg Staffords debate with Robert Bowman.
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
@Yuratchka No, It's from a dvd. You can get the debate from amazon. The debate is called "Is Jesus GOD?"
IvanDefendingTruth 2 years ago
That's cool, I use that same argument when it comes to John 14:28 in my video 'Defining Genuine Arianism' (I think) or some other videos. Trinitarians are trying to suggest that his Apostles were slow upstairs that they didn't know that the Father (God) was greater than the flesh, but at the same time this would imply that the Apostles think the flesh is equal to deity since Jesus needs to tell the Apostles that the Father is greater than the flesh. You see the problem here? LOL.
Yuratchka 2 years ago