G-d the Father

[justinc]

"Jesus works under the direction of the Father" - Guide to the Scriptures, LDS.org

I have to agree with Traveler. A straightforward reading of the New Testament would lead to the belief that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

[Maureen]

"Jesus works under the direction of the Father" - Guide to the Scriptures, LDS.org

I have to agree with Traveler. A straightforward reading of the New Testament would lead to the belief that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

But was Jesus subordinate before his incarnate state and is he subordinate now?

M.

[Seminarysnoozer]

"Jesus works under the direction of the Father" - Guide to the Scriptures, LDS.org

I have to agree with Traveler. A straightforward reading of the New Testament would lead to the belief that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

Jesus taught that the method to become like the Father is through service. When one accepts that then all that the Father has can be theirs. This is the story of the prodigal son. This is the story of Christ washing the feet of the apostles.

D&C 88; " 36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood."

The process by which we receive all, exemplified by Christ is by remaining humble, sacrifice and service to others with love. You can use the word "subordinate", I would rather use the words 'broken heart and a contrite spirit'.

2 Nephi 2; " 6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise."

General Conference 2007, Bruce Porter of the seventies; "The Savior’s perfect submission to the Eternal Father is the very essence of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Christ’s example teaches us that a broken heart is an eternal attribute of godliness. When our hearts are broken, we are completely open to the Spirit of God and recognize our dependence on Him for all that we have and all that we are. The sacrifice so entailed is a sacrifice of pride in all its forms. Like malleable clay in the hands of a skilled potter, the brokenhearted can be molded and shaped in the hands of the Master."

In the Kingdom of God, leadership = service. Just like an earthly father would do anything for his children, our Father in Heaven is likewise "subordinate" to His children in that He serves them through His leadership. All in the Celestial Kingdom are "subordinate" to each other. That is a required trait to get there, even required of God.

[Dlowellbrown]

For sake of discussion rather than argument I would like to respond. First by saying thank you for your input. It would seem to me, as I try to understand eternal things that in reality the Father is greater than the Son. In fact these are the teachings of Christ - that the Father is greater. I would be interested in why you think that the Father and the Son are equal in "Power". I am a little uncertain what you mean by power?

Let me give a little example: Let us talk about the power of love. Those that give the most love to others have the greater power of love. They do not lose what they give but rather the gain greater power by giving. As I understand divine beinsg in heaven, the valid measure of power is through their service and what they give. For this reason I believe Jesus rightfully recognized the Father is greater than him.

Then to creation. When we talk about creation - we are told in scripture that all things were created by "the Word" or Jesus Christ. For me, I envision the Father as the architect and Jesus and the contractor that implemented (build) the creation to the Father's plans (which includes principles and laws that governed how things were put together and remain and function even now).

The Traveler

By power I mean that Christ can do anything the Father can do.

You are correct that all things were created by Christ, at least physically. God the father created all things spiritually before they were created physically. God the father organized the spirit that became Jesus. So even if we want to say that Christ created all things, we would at the same time need to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father.

[Traveler]

But was Jesus subordinate before his incarnate state and is he subordinate now?

M.

According to Stephen, Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d following his incarnate state - which in the ancient culture of Kingdoms is a subordinate though second in importance position.

The Traveler

[Dlowellbrown]

According to Stephen, Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d following his incarnate state - which in the ancient culture of Kingdoms is a subordinate though second in importance position.

The Traveler

Source please?

Found a quote from Joseph Smith this morning, it supports the thought that even in exaltation, Jesus remains subordinate to His Father. I am still wrapping my head around it, but I wanted to share for the sake of this discussion, even though it contradicts my personal, previously held thoughts on the subject.

"The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again....

... What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children." (History of the Church 6:305,306)

[StMonica]

By power I mean that Christ can do anything the Father can do.

You are correct that all things were created by Christ, at least physically. God the father created all things spiritually before they were created physically. God the father organized the spirit that became Jesus. So even if we want to say that Christ created all things, we would at the same time need to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father.

Why would I have to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father?

I'm a Trinitarian. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, always were and will always be.

God is not created, He is the first cause.

That's why I cannot believe in pre-mortal spirit beings.

[Dravin]

Why would I have to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father?

He quoted Traveler. Quoting someone is generally used to indicate you are responding to that person. Additionally this thread is in the LDS Gospel Discussion, Traveler is LDS, and the poster you are quoting is LDS. While non-LDS are invited to discuss the LDS understanding of the Gospel in the LDS Gospel Discussion forum, and you get non-LDS chiming in from time to time with their different perspectives particularly as needed to help nail down the differences in understanding so communication can flow better, the general presumption of an LDS gospel viewpoint is assumed for the LDS Gospel Discussion forum.

To put it into context, it'd be like me coming across a discussion, in a forum whose purpose is to discuss Catholic beliefs and understandings of the Gospel, between two Catholics about the role of the Pope and piping up after someone makes a comment like, "You need to accept that he's the Bishop of Rome." with, "Why would I need to accept the Pope as the Bishop of Rome? I'm LDS and don't accept his authority." Or have I misread you and you are requesting of Dlowellbrown a explanation of the support for his statement within the context of LDS beliefs and you are providing your understanding (Trinitarian) so he knows he's not responding to someone who is LDS (which cuts down on the knowledge assumptions he could make in an explanation)?

Edited August 3, 2013 by Dravin

[Dlowellbrown]

Why would I have to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father?

I'm a Trinitarian. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, always were and will always be.

God is not created, He is the first cause.

That's why I cannot believe in pre-mortal spirit beings.

I meant no disrespect to any person or system of belief.

The LDS church traditionally holds the view that the members of the Trinity are actually three separate beings. This is the understanding and thought process I was using when I made my earlier comment.

[Seminarysnoozer]

According to Stephen, Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d following his incarnate state - which in the ancient culture of Kingdoms is a subordinate though second in importance position.

The Traveler

That being the case, that doesn't provide any discernible differences between the two to us (which was your original question). Christ may have been on the right side of God when they appeared to Joseph but it still required an introduction. As Christ points out, one member of the body cannot say that it has no need for the other. So, even though we like to see the order of things in that manner, I don't think it is so seen in the Celestial Kingdom where there is a fullness of glory and joy by way of their shared relationship.

I am not sure what the gospel significance of wanting there to be distinguishing character differences between the two is. Why is that important to you?

[mordorbund]

Why would I have to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father?

I'm a Trinitarian. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, always were and will always be.

God is not created, He is the first cause.

That's why I cannot believe in pre-mortal spirit beings.

For what it's worth, Jesus identifies Himself as "the beginning of the creation of God".

[Ankh]

Why would I have to acknowledge that Christ was created by God the father?

I'm a Trinitarian. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, always were and will always be.

God is not created, He is the first cause.

That's why I cannot believe in pre-mortal spirit beings.

The "person of the Son" in His incarnation as Jesus the Christ said "As the Father hath life in Himself; so has HE GIVEN TO THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF." "I live by the Father" (John 5:26, 6:57)

Ankh

[Traveler]

Source please?

....

The event: Acts 7:55-56

The interpretation:

Philip J. Calderone "Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty"

Ivan Engunell "Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East"

F.C. Fensham "Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal- Treaties and the Old Testament"

George E. Mendenhall "Covenant Forms of Israelite Traditions"

The Traveler

[Traveler]

That being the case, that doesn't provide any discernible differences between the two to us (which was your original question). Christ may have been on the right side of God when they appeared to Joseph but it still required an introduction. As Christ points out, one member of the body cannot say that it has no need for the other. So, even though we like to see the order of things in that manner, I don't think it is so seen in the Celestial Kingdom where there is a fullness of glory and joy by way of their shared relationship.

I am not sure what the gospel significance of wanting there to be distinguishing character differences between the two is. Why is that important to you?

It does provide discernible differences to those that understand the traditions and meaning to which context the Holy Scriptures are revealed. The rheum of heaven is described in scripture as a Kingdom and the relationship of G-d as that of a Supreme Suzerain to his appointed vassal and subjects whose citizenship is granted through covenant.

This is important to me because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and he (the Son of G-d) taught (through witness and great personal sacrifice) clearly and plainly that he is both lesser and subordinate to the Father. I cannot even imagine a better witness to such an important truth pertaining to the "kingdom of Heaven" and our eternal place (by granted right) in such eternal kingdom.

However, I do understand the opposition to both that eternal kingdom, its covenant citizens and to its Supreme Suzerain and his appointed Vassals by which the kingdom is governed (ordered).

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

It does provide discernible differences to those that understand the traditions and meaning to which context the Holy Scriptures are revealed. The rheum of heaven is described in scripture as a Kingdom and the relationship of G-d as that of a Supreme Suzerain to his appointed vassal and subjects whose citizenship is granted through covenant.

This is important to me because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and he (the Son of G-d) taught (through witness and great personal sacrifice) clearly and plainly that he is both lesser and subordinate to the Father. I cannot even imagine a better witness to such an important truth pertaining to the "kingdom of Heaven" and our eternal place (by granted right) in such eternal kingdom.

However, I do understand the opposition to both that eternal kingdom, its covenant citizens and to its Supreme Suzerain and his appointed Vassals by which the kingdom is governed (ordered).

The Traveler

In what way is He "lesser"? In what way, specifically, is God 'greater' then?

Definitions; sub·or·di·nate

adj.

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.

2. Subject to the authority or control of another.

n.

One that is subordinate.

tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates

1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.

2. To make subservient; subdue.

So, Christ is of a lower rank or class? Is He subject to the control of God or does He do it willingly? What aspect of Christ needs to be subdued by God?

Please give specifics of how you think Christ fits that definition. But, let me remind you that whatever Christ does, He saw the Father do it also, so the Father fits those same definitions and therefore is as equally subordinate (if you prefer that word). I think "subordinate" is not an accurate word, loving, serving, sacrificing, dedicated, eye single to the glory of God, all might be better terms than "subordinate". Whatever the description, I think you are going to have a hard time not also calling God the same. After all this, what are the differences you see?

And, this "Kingdom" is not like any Kingdom on Earth or of man ... at least not as much as you would like it to be. But, there are places in the Kingdom set aside for those that prefer or fall in love with that arrangement, where there is oversight and limitation.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

In what way is He "lesser"? In what way, specifically, is God 'greater' then?

Definitions; sub·or·di·nate

adj.

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.

2. Subject to the authority or control of another.

n.

One that is subordinate.

tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates

1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.

2. To make subservient; subdue.

So, Christ is of a lower rank or class? Is He subject to the control of God or does He do it willingly? What aspect of Christ needs to be subdued by God?

Please give specifics of how you think Christ fits that definition. But, let me remind you that whatever Christ does, He saw the Father do it also, so the Father fits those same definitions and therefore is as equally subordinate (if you prefer that word). I think "subordinate" is not an accurate word, loving, serving, sacrificing, dedicated, eye single to the glory of God, all might be better terms than "subordinate". Whatever the description, I think you are going to have a hard time not also calling God the same. After all this, what are the differences you see?

Rather than offer my opinion I will let Jesus speak for himself:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Note that Jesus said that the Father is greater. Why do you not believe Christ?

More quoting of Jesus

John 10:27-30

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Again Jesus testifies that the Father is greater. Why do you not believe Christ?

More from Jesus:

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Jesus testifies that he what he does was assigned to him - that he was sent by the Father - Why will you not believe Christ?

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here Jesus testifies that he does nothing on his own - NOTE THE WITNESS BY JESUS THAT HE DOES NOTHING of his own. Not even of his own will but the will of the Father. This is not my idea nor my doctrine. I do not understand why you ask me the question you do - Your issue is with Jesus the Christ and his doctrine, his teachings, his witness - not me - all I have suggested is that you receive his witness.

And, this "Kingdom" is not like any Kingdom on Earth or of man ... at least not as much as you would like it to be. But, there are places in the Kingdom set aside for those that prefer or fall in love with that arrangement, where there is oversight and limitation.

In other posts you have stated that we must have a eye single to the glory of G-d. What do you hope to gain with your eyes focused on your own glory that you keep saying is "equal". You will never have any glory but that which is given to you as a gift from G-d the Father. The Son of G-d has no glory but what he received from the Father. If you receive glory from G-d the Son such glory (by his words, testimony and witness) come exclusively from G-d the Father. Even the Son recognized the truth that G-d the Father is greater than all and that includes him.

If you do not believe me -- believe Christ.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I would say that in comparing the Father and the Son, the Son is the only person of the Godhead, that became incarnate. He lived a human life and taught mankind who God (the Father) really is and what kind a relationship we can have with him.

M.

In a later post Maureen was questioned on this. Do we really know that Jesus was the only person of the Godhead to experience incarnation? I would say that Protestants and Catholics generally agree on this--at least those who are Trinitarians do. That the Father could ask Jesus to humble himself to becoming incarnate demonstrates his authority within the Godhead. He is greater in his office (or position, or role) than Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus experienced incarnation and the Father did not. This demonstrates the error of the Modalists, who say that Jesus really is the whole of the Godhead. The persons really are distinct. Each person has his perspective.

[prisonchaplain]

According to Stephen, Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d following his incarnate state - which in the ancient culture of Kingdoms is a subordinate though second in importance position.

The Traveler

Maureen may be flinching theologically at the word "subordinate." Trinitarians associate the word with the Jehovah's Witness belief that Jesus is a lesser being--a creation--of the Father, and therefore subordinate to him.

There is little question among us but that Jesus looked up to and honored the "greater" or "more honored" role that his Father holds.

[prisonchaplain]

For what it's worth, Jesus identifies Himself as "the beginning of the creation of God".

I did a quick search on this, and apparently the word for "beginning" means SOURCE rather than order of being.

There is a similar discussion in Col. 1:8--Jesus is the Firstborn over all creation. The context and wording suggests that Jesus is over all creation, not the first one of the created beings.

Is it LDS teaching that Jesus was created by the Father, like we were?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Rather than offer my opinion I will let Jesus speak for himself:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Note that Jesus said that the Father is greater. Why do you not believe Christ?

More quoting of Jesus

John 10:27-30

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Again Jesus testifies that the Father is greater. Why do you not believe Christ?

More from Jesus:

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Jesus testifies that he what he does was assigned to him - that he was sent by the Father - Why will you not believe Christ?

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here Jesus testifies that he does nothing on his own - NOTE THE WITNESS BY JESUS THAT HE DOES NOTHING of his own. Not even of his own will but the will of the Father. This is not my idea nor my doctrine. I do not understand why you ask me the question you do - Your issue is with Jesus the Christ and his doctrine, his teachings, his witness - not me - all I have suggested is that you receive his witness.

In other posts you have stated that we must have a eye single to the glory of G-d. What do you hope to gain with your eyes focused on your own glory that you keep saying is "equal". You will never have any glory but that which is given to you as a gift from G-d the Father. The Son of G-d has no glory but what he received from the Father. If you receive glory from G-d the Son such glory (by his words, testimony and witness) come exclusively from G-d the Father. Even the Son recognized the truth that G-d the Father is greater than all and that includes him.

If you do not believe me -- believe Christ.

The Traveler

Do I need to testify to you that Christ ascended and sits on the right hand of God?

If my son becomes a doctor, you wouldn't say he is not a doctor because he was an elementary school student at one point. If you are comparing God to Christ by looking at their total pathway then you are going to have to prove that God did not take a similar pathway, otherwise we are left with comparing where they currently stand. I don't think you want to say that Christ is less than God because He took a different pathway than God to reach Godhood.

I believe all those things about the mortal life (pre-ascension) of Christ, but that wasn't the question, was it?

Your question was to any discernible differences between Christ and God, I guess I was assuming now and not during His mortal life. This is a description of Christ now; D&C 110; " 1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father."

During his mortal life He was not described that way, "eyes were as a flame of fire", "hair ... like the pure snow", "voice ... sound of the rushing of great waters" etc. He ascended. He was brought up to heaven. He had not yet received a fullness as He was here and mortal.

Christ doing the will of the Father supports what I am saying, that they are indistinguishable. I don't see how that suggests they are different. That would say that their wills are the same which is what, I believe, I am saying.

I am sorry, I am not seeing your point of the last paragraph. I don't see anything that I disagree with in that paragraph as again you are talking about before the fullness of the glory is received.

Ephesians 4; " 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

The descent is the process by which He ascends. Like jumping on a diving board, you are trying to focus on the lowest point of the jump to say that there is a difference and yet the purpose of the jump was to ascend higher than what could have been possible without the descent. This is true for all of us and likely (hasn't been revealed) is true for God. Even Christ grew in stature in the eyes of man and God. The only way they would be different is if God did not grow in stature, is that what you are saying? Are you trying to say that the process by which God became God is different than what Christ did?

Again, if they presumably took the same path, as Christ does what He sees the Father do, now that they are side by side, how are they different? They are not different because one did it after the other. That is not a statement of discernible differences.

[Anddenex]

Again, if they presumably took the same path, as Christ does what He sees the Father do, now that they are side by side, how are they different? They are not different because one did it after the other. That is not a statement of discernible differences.

What scriptural evidence do you have to specify they are "side by side"?

If they are side by side as you suggest then how do you interpret this scripture, particularly verse 24 and 28?

1 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The son delivers the kingdom to God, specifying a relationship that is not side by side, and verse 28 specifying the son is "subject" unto God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What scriptural evidence do you have to specify they are "side by side"?

If they are side by side as you suggest then how do you interpret this scripture, particularly verse 24 and 28?

1 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The son delivers the kingdom to God, specifying a relationship that is not side by side, and verse 28 specifying the son is "subject" unto God.

Yes, and in verse 28 that you quote it says "that God may be all in all." What does that mean to you?

D&C 130: " 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

Mormon 9; " 9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?"

From the prophet John Taylor; "It is true mankind have not at all times been susceptible of receiving and appreciating the same degree of light, truth, and intelligence that they have at other times. God has in certain instances withdrawn the light of his countenance—his Holy Spirit—the light and intelligence that proceeds from him—in a certain degree from the human family; but his laws are immutable and he is the same eternal, unchangeable being.

The truth does not change. What was true 1,800, 4,000, or 6,000 years ago is true today, and what was false in any age of the world is false today. Truth, like the great Eloheim, is eternal and unchangeable, and it is for us to learn its principles, to know how to appreciate it, and govern ourselves accordingly.

As the gospel is a principle that emanates from God, like its author it is “the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,”—eternal and unchangeable. God ordained it before the morning stars sung together for joy, or ere this world rolled into existence, for the salvation of the human race. It has been in the mind of God, and as often as developed it has been manifested as an eternal, unchangeable, undeviating plan by which to save, bless, exalt and dignify man."

God is subject to God as well. He is subject to the undeviating plan and immutable laws (eternal, unchangeable laws). Like Christ' example we can become subject to the fullness of these laws and in that way become exalted.

"Subject" to Him is the same as being subject to the law from God. The same law that has been around without beginning or end which is truth and light. By being subject to the law then God can be all in all. Without covenants we fall outside the law and there is no sharing of all that God has. If all things are subjected then God can share all. Like the story of the prodigal son, the one who remains obedient and subjected to service of his father has all. If any of this is true, then God also received all by being subject to the law making Him no different than all those that have all.

God's work and glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. In other words, His glory is related to our success. I am not sure why you or anyone would think His glory would be higher if any of us received only 90% or His glory, or 75% of His glory. Would not His work and glory be full if we all received 100%. How is God magnified by His Son being only 90% of what He is or something less than 100%? He is only made greater the more of His children being closer to 100% like Him compared to falling short of 100%. It isn't a zero sum arrangement where if someone achieves something it has to be compared to the relative achievements of someone else (greater or less than) to have value. In other words, God isn't made lesser by Christ having everything God has. If anything God is greater by Christ sharing all that God has. Just like the prodigal son is better off sharing everything of the Father's.

If they are different then one would also have to say that they are either subject to a different set of laws or that one is not subject to the laws as much as the other as we know that they are both obedient 100%. I don't think God's 100% looks different than Christ' 100%. ..and I am not sure why anyone would hope they are different.

Acts 7: " 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

They are in the same place, side by side, same glory.

[Anddenex]

Like the story of the prodigal son, the one who remains obedient and subjected to service of his father has all. If any of this is true, then God also received all by being subject to the law making Him no different than all those that have all.

Subject to God is being subordinate to God. Subject: (1) One that is placed under authority or control. (2) one that is governed.

Do you think the servants of the prodigal son knew the difference between the Father and the one son who remained, even though the one son received all his father had? You bet they did, why because they are distinguishable.

The son that remained had all the Father had, and yet this son was still subject to his father and his father's will.

I am not sure why you or anyone would think His glory would be higher if any of us received only 90% or His glory, or 75% of His glory.

I don't. I simply don't agree with your interpretation of what it means to receive a "fullness" of the Father, and a fullness of his glory.

In other words, God isn't made lesser by Christ having everything God has. If anything God is greater by Christ sharing all that God has.

I agree with the first sentence, however the second sentence appears contradictory. How can God be greater, if in your sentiment (if I understood you correctly) they are indistinguishable? This would imply they are different if one is "greater" than the other. Otherwise, by sharing none would be greater.

If they are different then one would also have to say that they are either subject to a different set of laws or that one is not subject to the laws as much as the other as we know that they are both obedient 100%. I don't think God's 100% looks different than Christ' 100%. ..and I am not sure why anyone would hope they are different.

I understand this is how you feel, believe, however I am not so sure this would be correct. I definitely think God's 100% is different than Christ's 100%. I will eventually have a fullness of the Father, however he will always be greater than I. My 100% will be different, because I will not have his glory.

Acts 7: " 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

They are in the same place, side by side, same glory.

How then did Stephen distinguish the Father from the Son if they are of the same glory, and how did he know it was Christ on the right side?

Yes, and in verse 28 that you quote it says "that God may be all in all." What does that mean to you?"

There are two aspects to this verse, Christ being subject to the Father, and then the reference that God may be all in all.

I don't know. At this moment it appears to be a simple reference to the subject of "being one" with God.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

Subject to God is being subordinate to God. Subject: (1) One that is placed under authority or control. (2) one that is governed.

Do you think the servants of the prodigal son knew the difference between the Father and the one son who remained, even though the one son received all his father had? You bet they did, why because they are distinguishable.

The son that remained had all the Father had, and yet this son was still subject to his father and his father's will.

I don't. I simply don't agree with your interpretation of what it means to receive a "fullness" of the Father, and a fullness of his glory.

I agree with the first sentence, however the second sentence appears contradictory. How can God be greater, if in your sentiment (if I understood you correctly) they are indistinguishable? This would imply they are different if one is "greater" than the other. Otherwise, by sharing none would be greater.

I understand this is how you feel, believe, however I am not so sure this would be correct. I definitely think God's 100% is different than Christ's 100%. I will eventually have a fullness of the Father, however he will always be greater than I. My 100% will be different, because I will not have his glory.

How then did Stephen distinguish the Father from the Son if they are of the same glory, and how did he know it was Christ on the right side?

There are two aspects to this verse, Christ being subject to the Father, and then the reference that God may be all in all.

I don't know. At this moment it appears to be a simple reference to the subject of "being one" with God.

I agree - you have said it all well. Sometimes it seems to me that with the logic of a mirror one will gaze into the mirror and think the image in the mirror to be equal to the source image because they do not see a difference nor logically understand that the reflected image is not as great as the source.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

....

The truth does not change. What was true 1,800, 4,000, or 6,000 years ago is true today, and what was false in any age of the world is false today. Truth, like the great Eloheim, is eternal and unchangeable, and it is for us to learn its principles, to know how to appreciate it, and govern ourselves accordingly.

...

There is a flaw in your logic and the way you apply it. Was it true 6,000 years ago that G-d the Father is greater than all others? If it was true before the fall of man then according to your logic it is unchangeable and is still true. Or it really was not true to begin with.

The Traveler