1 Corinthians 15:46 is no context to Jesus, the son of God, born of a virgin, made under the law which was conceived by the Holy Spirit. No man is to be worshiped and no man can be a savior in the capacity of the Redeemer Jesus Christ and no man can forgive sins. Jesus had to be sinless and not born of a corrupt and sinless seed and he was, but no mortal man can forgive sins and no mortal man's blood is worthy of saving one from their sin.
You seem to forget the the Holy Spirit did not descend upon him until his baptism. He was not exalted until AFTER his resurrection. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1Co 15:27 For He hath put all things under is 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. Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One, and the Apostles' Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated
The kenosis of Christ is based on the truth of him laying aside his divine attributes. He had the Spirit without measure as Matthew said and he had to learn things like a man and feel the way a man does and what he goes through to identify with man. His subjection to the father was not about being inferior but in his role in the plan of redemption. We are to be subject to Christ and Christ is subject to the father but not as inferior.
I beg to disagree. Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But to reconcile this with a strict monotheism, he resorted to another philosophical framework, a Platonic hierarchical framework, and ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods,' inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense.
The Post-Nicene Phase
Num 11:16 The Lord said to Moses: “Bring me seventy of Israel’s elders who are known to you as leaders and officials among the people. Have them come to the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with you. I will come down and speak with you there, and[n]
I will take some of the power of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them. [/b]They will share the burden of the people with you so that you will not have to carry it alone.
The bible also says that men and women are to be in subjection to each other. If Christ is to be in subjection to the father at all then your argument holds no water for you said the son only is subjected to the father and that the father is not subject to the son at all or at least that seems to be the implication because Christadelphians do believe in subjection in the context of being inferior.
The idea of a co-equal Trinity, however, offers a reasonable means of expressing the inexpressible;but it must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word " Trinity" appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan.[/u]
Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But to reconcile this with a strict monotheism, he resorted to another philosophical framework, a Platonic hierarchical framework, and ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods,' inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense.
The Post-Nicene Phase
Hebrews said he took on the nature of man and not angels which means he was not an angel or a mortal man otherwise the phrase would be meaningless.
If he were not an angel, the only thing left is a creature, that is man. You seem to forget the the Holy Spirit did not descend upon him until his baptism. He was not exalted until AFTER his resurrection. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1Co 15:27 For He hath put all things under is 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. Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One, and the Apostles' Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated.
In the beginning was the word and the word was God and the word was with God. Before Abraham was I am. The spiritual rock they drank out of. Yahweh was salvation and Jesus is salvation. Do you really think that he wasn't Yahweh in the old testament? Do you really think he was in the old testament or before the foundations and upheld battles for Israel and talked to the leaders etc. and that he was not really there as a real entity or that it was because of the glory of his name?
Just a reminder, humans are mortal and do not pre-exist. Christ did not pre-exist as an entity but only as the foundation for the future plan of God, which God created as a creature and then bestowed upon him the Holy Spirit after Baptism and RESSURECTION.
Are you a Christadelphian? I am curious.
Huh? I was not born in 1848. I did not pre-exist. Why, Are you a Christadelphian? I do consider myself as 'a brother of Christ' but I do not belong to any organized religion. I am a representative of the teachings of Christ and believe in the resurrection, the return of Christ to Earth, and in the Kingdom of God to be established here on earth at his second coming.
Christadelphian [ ?krist?'delfe?n ] NOUN a member of a Christian sect, founded in the US in 1848, that claims to return to the beliefs and practices of the earliest disciples and holds that Christ will return in power to set up a worldwide theocracy beginning at Jerusalem. OxfordDictionaries ? © Oxford University Press
What is your motive or reason that you believe that Christ is human. Do you have scripture to show or imply some logic that a sinless mortal man could have died for humans and forgive sins and be the Savior of the world?
see all the above. But I invite you to partake and to 'Listen carefully to Me'.
Isaiah 55:1 "Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money,
Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.
(2) Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And let your soul delight itself in abundance. (3) Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you The sure mercies of David.
