Troubling verses for the Trinity

[Wootah]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 longer answer from Grok because I had questions. Basically why would the Bible need to say something so obvious at all.

explain 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 why bother to say it is clear that does not include God himself since that seems obvious

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Paul writes:
"For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (NIV)
Paul is addressing the ultimate authority and submission in the cosmic order, specifically Christ’s reign and relationship to God the Father. The phrase "it is clear that this does not include God himself" might seem unnecessary at first glance because, to many readers, it’s obvious that God wouldn’t be subject to anyone, including Christ. So why does Paul bother to clarify this?
One reason is to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6 ("You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet"), which originally described humanity’s dominion over creation but is now applied to Christ’s exalted status. When he says "everything" is put under Christ, he’s emphasizing the totality of Christ’s authority over all creation—every power, force, and being. However, in a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, where debates about hierarchies of gods, powers, or authorities were common, someone might misinterpret "everything" too literally and wonder if even God the Father is included. By explicitly stating that God himself is excluded, Paul ensures his readers don’t stumble into a theological error, like suggesting that the Father is somehow subordinate to the Son.
Another angle is theological precision. Paul is building a careful argument about the relationship between the Father and the Son, especially in the context of Christ’s temporary reign before handing all things back to God (v. 28). This passage reflects the early Christian understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s role as the mediator. The clarification reinforces that Christ’s authority, while absolute over creation, is still derived from and subject to the Father’s ultimate sovereignty. It’s a way of guarding against any confusion about the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
So, while it might seem obvious to us now, Paul’s audience— steeped in diverse philosophical and religious ideas—might have needed the reassurance. He’s dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to keep the focus on God’s supreme authority and the Son’s willing submission, paving the way for the climactic point: "so that God may be all in all."

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

[Base12]

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

Uh, OK. Does this mean you will be laughing worse than Kamala every time someone posts?

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

There is nothing troubling at all. Jesus is his own father because Jesus conceived himself.

Kenosis. It is pretty easy to understand really. The real issue is why is there an agenda to lie to everyone and hide this from the public?

Jesus turned himself into Sperm, placed himself into the womb of Mary, and Mary gave birth to him. A caveman could figure this out.

Technically, Mary would be both wife *and* mother to Jesus, but that concept is probably too much for folks to handle.

The Sons of God did something similar. They disrobed from their Heavenly Body and placed their Spirit and Soul into the wombs of the wives of which they chose.

They 'put on new clothes' so to speak, a 'meatsuit'.

Their wives were also their mothers. The Sons of God conceived themselves. That is how going from Heaven to Earth works. One has to be their own father. It is a basic concept.

When Jesus disrobed from his Earthly Body, he went back to his Body in Heaven that he left behind and clothed himself again. He 'is in the bosom of the Father'... as in literally because again, he is his own father.

• Body
• Soul
• Spirit

Three in one.

Sorry you have so much trouble with it.

[APAK]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

Are you serious, your 8 explanations or analogies are nonsense. They are all given through the lens, not of scripture, of the Trinity, that in itself is nonsense.

You do know WHAT you believe in is not in a personal God, it is an impersonal WHAT of a God. If yo really know what your Trinity God means then you must have no misunderstandings in what I'm saying here.

Unless you need me to break it all down for you. Let me know.

God and his human son are both human, please...you must not be serious. If you know your god then yo must also know that in this model of belief, Jesus can never be a human person. Of course you already knew that already.

[onewithhim]

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

Uh, OK. Does this mean you will be laughing worse than Kamala every time someone posts?

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

There is nothing troubling at all. Jesus is his own father because Jesus conceived himself.

Kenosis. It is pretty easy to understand really. The real issue is why is there an agenda to lie to everyone and hide this from the public?

Jesus turned himself into Sperm, placed himself into the womb of Mary, and Mary gave birth to him. A caveman could figure this out.

Are you serious? Come on, this deserves better than "Jesus conceived himself." Please. I know you have to be joking.

[onewithhim]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 longer answer from Grok because I had questions. Basically why would the Bible need to say something so obvious at all.

explain 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 why bother to say it is clear that does not include God himself since that seems obvious

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Paul writes:
"For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (NIV)
Paul is addressing the ultimate authority and submission in the cosmic order, specifically Christ’s reign and relationship to God the Father. The phrase "it is clear that this does not include God himself" might seem unnecessary at first glance because, to many readers, it’s obvious that God wouldn’t be subject to anyone, including Christ. So why does Paul bother to clarify this?
One reason is to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6 ("You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet"), which originally described humanity’s dominion over creation but is now applied to Christ’s exalted status. When he says "everything" is put under Christ, he’s emphasizing the totality of Christ’s authority over all creation—every power, force, and being. However, in a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, where debates about hierarchies of gods, powers, or authorities were common, someone might misinterpret "everything" too literally and wonder if even God the Father is included. By explicitly stating that God himself is excluded, Paul ensures his readers don’t stumble into a theological error, like suggesting that the Father is somehow subordinate to the Son.
Another angle is theological precision. Paul is building a careful argument about the relationship between the Father and the Son, especially in the context of Christ’s temporary reign before handing all things back to God (v. 28). This passage reflects the early Christian understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s role as the mediator. The clarification reinforces that Christ’s authority, while absolute over creation, is still derived from and subject to the Father’s ultimate sovereignty. It’s a way of guarding against any confusion about the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
So, while it might seem obvious to us now, Paul’s audience— steeped in diverse philosophical and religious ideas—might have needed the reassurance. He’s dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to keep the focus on God’s supreme authority and the Son’s willing submission, paving the way for the climactic point: "so that God may be all in all."

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

Wootah, what you are saying is confusing. Would you please re-word your OP so that we might understand exactly what you are saying? Your list is jumbled up.

[face2face]

John 14:28 – "The Father is greater than I."
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – "For 'He has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything has been put under him,' it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."
John 5:19 – "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing."
John 10:29 – "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all."
Philippians 2:6-8 – "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage... he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"
John 17:1-5 – "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do."
Matthew 26:39 – "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Luke 22:42 – "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

It's a topic that Trinitarians often avoid discussing because the concept of God being both Master and Servant presents an apparent contradiction. It's difficult to reconcile these two roles without creating a logical inconsistency.

One of many with the Trinity.

Asking them to explain, prove, and provide evidence for Hypostasis is, at best, quite entertaining.

1) John 14:28 - The president is greater than me. But the president and I are both humans. Our position does not make us of a different substance.
2) 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 - Did Jesus put himself under his own feet? Let's not make this silly.
3) John 5:19 - Obedience does not imply anything more. Hopeful you were obedient to your parents.
4) John 10:29 - The father is greater in status not in God power.
5) Philippians 2:6-8 - I have a thread on this. The problem for you is that the verse makes no sense unless Jesus is God and did not use that equality to his own advantage. Otherwise the verse itself is a lie because Jesus is not equal with God.
6) John 17:1-5 - can any non-God being glorify God? Truly?
7) Matthew 26:39 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.
8) Luke 22:42 - obedience or subservience does not imply a different substance.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 longer answer from Grok because I had questions. Basically why would the Bible need to say something so obvious at all.

explain 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 why bother to say it is clear that does not include God himself since that seems obvious

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Paul writes:
"For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (NIV)
Paul is addressing the ultimate authority and submission in the cosmic order, specifically Christ’s reign and relationship to God the Father. The phrase "it is clear that this does not include God himself" might seem unnecessary at first glance because, to many readers, it’s obvious that God wouldn’t be subject to anyone, including Christ. So why does Paul bother to clarify this?
One reason is to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6 ("You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet"), which originally described humanity’s dominion over creation but is now applied to Christ’s exalted status. When he says "everything" is put under Christ, he’s emphasizing the totality of Christ’s authority over all creation—every power, force, and being. However, in a Greco-Roman or Jewish context, where debates about hierarchies of gods, powers, or authorities were common, someone might misinterpret "everything" too literally and wonder if even God the Father is included. By explicitly stating that God himself is excluded, Paul ensures his readers don’t stumble into a theological error, like suggesting that the Father is somehow subordinate to the Son.
Another angle is theological precision. Paul is building a careful argument about the relationship between the Father and the Son, especially in the context of Christ’s temporary reign before handing all things back to God (v. 28). This passage reflects the early Christian understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s role as the mediator. The clarification reinforces that Christ’s authority, while absolute over creation, is still derived from and subject to the Father’s ultimate sovereignty. It’s a way of guarding against any confusion about the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
So, while it might seem obvious to us now, Paul’s audience— steeped in diverse philosophical and religious ideas—might have needed the reassurance. He’s dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to keep the focus on God’s supreme authority and the Son’s willing submission, paving the way for the climactic point: "so that God may be all in all."

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.

As I mentioned, Trinitarians often avoid discussing these verses because when they do, they tend to complicate what is clearly stated. I've been down this path many times, and it seems you are content to remain ignorant, and I am willing to leave it at that.

If you ever want to discuss Bible truth rather than creedal formulas, feel free to reach out.

F2F

[face2face]

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.
Jesus is his own father because Jesus conceived himself.

We should pray that Base12 is granted the clarity and understanding to critically examine and break free from this self-deception.

F2F

[placebofactor]

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.
Jesus is his own father because Jesus conceived himself.

We should pray that Base12 is granted the clarity and understanding to critically examine and break free from this self-deception.

F2F

Those who reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit have problems with the doctrine of the Trinity.

[APAK]

Debate topic: Debate these 'troubling verses' for the Trinity.
Jesus is his own father because Jesus conceived himself.

We should pray that Base12 is granted the clarity and understanding to critically examine and break free from this self-deception.

F2F

Those who reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit have problems with the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity doctrine is alien to the one person God of the Bible as his Spirit attests to it, because this doctrine teaches a gnostic-pagan impersonal god of three persons in one substance.

On an historical level, and for your future reference, in 325, Emperor Constantine, also known as Constantine the Great, and wore the twin hats as chief pagan priest and ruler of the 'church' brought together the First Council of Nicaea which in its definitive Nicene Creed introduced the key word homoousios to declare that Jesus is of the “same substance” (consubstantial) with God the Father and therefore coequal
with Him. With the official deification of Jesus in place, the church now had two Gods (ditheism) or two persons who are coequally one God (Binitarianism) by virtue of their sharing
one substance. The first person of note to introduce the homoousios of the two gods was a gnostic priest.

With this nifty device simply inserted into this then Binitarian doctrine at that time, it could then barely pass itself off as Monotheistic. This Binitarian god was now composed of two persons of the same substance and resulted in a 'what' or an 'it of a god rather than a 'personal who'. Later in 381 AD another person was added to make it also of the same substance into a triad god called the Trinity god.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus turned himself into Sperm, placed himself into the womb of Mary, and Mary gave birth to him. A caveman could figure this out.

A few in this thread have already asked ... and I have to ask as well , are you being serious or sarcastic? Sarcasm doesn't translate well into text. If you are being serious, once Jesus was a simple sperm cell how could he place himself anywhere? (serious - not rhetorical - question)